CriticSociety- film reviews

Review

Dr. No

Director

Terence Young

Year

1962

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Wednesday, June 30, 2004

The first James Bond film, the one that started one of the most commercially successful movie franchises of all time, is actually not based upon the first of Ian Fleming’s novels starring the aforementioned British spy, yet it is the simplest, least pretentious, and most spontaneous of all the movie entries of Agent 007.

The franchise has become so colossal and followed throughout the decades that one can only be astounded by how simply it all started. Hearing Bond say his name for the first time and realize how little they suspected what that would become is definitely awe-inspiring. It came out so well, that it’s no wonder it became so big (and, let’s face it, so clichéd) later on. But to their credit, they’ve managed to keep the franchise fresh and updated, despite its ups and downs.

Dr. No introduces the Bond character like we’re already supposed to admire him, and incredibly enough, it works. Ian Fleming’s character had a lot of following on account of his novels, but what’s so admirable is how we get to admire the guy from the first frame in which he appears and we don’t even hesitate to fall for him. The actor playing James Bond is Sean Connery, back then nearly unknown, but undeniably charming and possessing an incredible ease to irradiate charisma. He becomes Bond in a second and never lets go, making the trip all the more entertaining, aided of course by Monty Norman’s now classic Bond theme (conducted by John Barry), which was far from a brilliant score, but obviously had something to it.

The plot has Bond, a “double-o” agent, assigned to the case of mysterious happenings in Jamaica. There’s something fishy going on there, which goes from murder to plans of world domination. During the investigation, Bond faces double-cross, femme fatales, and loyal servants of someone scary even to his followers. That someone is Dr. No (Joseph Wiseman), a Chinese madman stranded in his deadly headquarters on a nearby island guarded by several lethal sentries. By the time Bond gets to the island, it’s pure entertainment coming up ahead.

The excitement of Dr. No, as well as that of further Bond films (some of them anyway), lies in its unique combination of action, comedy, and romance. Bond is as much a good agent as he’s a good womanizer, and he really does not miss the chance to score with a gorgeous girl who should cross his path. This time around, the main “Bond girl” is played by gorgeous Ursula Andress, whose appearance midway through the movie is a refreshing addition.

As comedy goes, you just have to see Bond deal with his boss M (Bernard Lee) and the latter’s secretary, Miss Moneypenny (Lois Maxwell). They both became usual characters for further entries, as did Major Boothroyd a.k.a. Q, this time played for the first and only time by Peter Burton. Another character introduced here is Felix Leiter (Jack Lord), a CIA Agent who’d usually be played by different actors throughout the series.

There’s also wit thrown into the mix, especially in words spoken by Dr. No and Bond himself. It’s just too damn smart! You gotta love it…

Followed by From Russia with Love (1963).

“Bond. James Bond.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Mindhunters

Director

Renny Harlin

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Tuesday, June 29, 2004

Mindhunters has been finished for a while now, but somehow its studio just doesn’t plan to release it in the U.S. anytime soon. I can hardly see why. Its cast isn’t really box office gold, but LL Cool J can attract people. And the premise is sellable enough. It should be able to do decent business during a quiet month. But what do I know? I’ve seen the movie and I’m here to tell you all about it…

A group of trainees from the psychological profiling program are sent to a deserted island as part of their last mission before graduation. It is all part of a set-up by Jack Harris (Val Kilmer) who is known for his unusual way of teaching by putting his students in almost-real situations. There are nine of them of which J.D. Reston (Christian Slater) is the leader and Gabe Jensen (LL Cool J) is only there to evaluate Jack’s questionable methods. But the plan changes once one of them is really killed, and the rest have to fight for their own lives.

I have to admit I had a great time watching this movie. It is definitely a different take on the whole serial killer genre. And it also borrows from Agatha Christie’s classic “Ten Little Indians”, in which a group of people is left alone in an island only to find themselves killed one by one. Then again, I’m an Agatha Christie sucker, so I liked the premise!

The movie is a nail-biter all the way down to the ending. There are clocks involved that show how much time the group has until the next one is killed. And that is quite suspenseful, for we never know what’s going to happen next or what trap they’ll find. The movie had me guessing until the last minute. Especially since two rather obvious choices as to whom the killer might be are killed at one point or another.

There’s also something that puts a rather edgy spin to the proceedings: these are all FBI experts. They are experts in profiling and do their best to try and outguess the killer. It’s not like these people are going to act stupid or fall into clichés. And that makes it the more mysterious.

Now, let me tell you something: this movie follows the Hitchcock rule to a tee. Hitchcock believed that a movie could have as many plot holes as it wanted, but if the audience was there with the movie and had fun with it, then it had to be a success. Mindhunters is a movie that is a lot of fun to watch, but if you go back after it has finished you’ll find that it’s, to put it mildly, ridiculous. Oh, and not to mention impossible. I started to try and make logic out of it but stopped doing it. It was worthless.

By the way, I’m not so sure I liked Renny Harlin’s work behind the camera. He’s good at suspense, but he never settles for one single style. Sometimes the movie is just plain gory, then it’s all like a big action flick, then he throws an over-the-top fight sequence with rock music all pumped up. A more skilled director could’ve done a much better job.

As performances go, Kilmer, Slater, Kathryn Morris, Clifton Collins Jr., Patricia Velazquez, Eion Bailey, Will Kemp, Jonny Lee Miller, Cassandra Bell and LL Cool J all do what is required of them.

A fun cat-and-mouse game!

“Iny, miny, mino, mo. Who’s the next motherfucker to go?”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Mean Girls

Director

Mark Waters

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Monday, June 28, 2004

The book “Queen bees and wannabees”, upon which Mean Girls is based is, incredibly, a parents’ guide to help their daughters through high school. The book makes parents realize what kind of educators they are, and understand (in part through memories of their own teenage years) what being in high school is like. The approach of author Rosalind Wiseman, humoristic yet realistic, turned out to be the perfect inspiration for a film with the exact same scope: A teenage movie that’s not played from the point of view of teenagers, but from an external point of view, more mature, more experienced, and capable of realizing that high school is not life, though it certainly seems so for every young man and woman in there.

The story has teenage Cady Heron (Lindsay Lohan) joining school for the first time in her life, as she’s been home-educated so far as a consequence of her parents’ work around the world (mostly Africa). Her first day of school is disastrous, but soon things begin to shape up. Her only friends at first are goth Janis Ian (Lizzy Caplan) and gay Damian (Daniel Franzese), who teach her a lot of how things work in school, but soon, Cady’s approached by the “plastics”, three popular, pretty girls leaded by the “queen bee” Regina George (Rachel McAdams), the other two being insecure Gretchen (Lacey Chabert) and dumb Karen (Amanda Seyfried).

Cady is not too excited about becoming one of these shallow girls, but Janis insists so they can make fun of them. The result is quite different from expected, as Cady becomes addicted to popularity, and soon gets up to her chin with trouble as she falls for Regina’s ex-boyfriend (Jonathan Bennett), entering a massive bitch-fight and betraying every principle she so naturally displayed the first day of school.

I remember being in high school and feeling like the world fell over me every time I was rejected or made fun of. The worst part was thinking that I’d never be as popular, or as cool, as the popular, cool guys. My dad once told me that I shouldn’t worry about it, that the popular, cool guys would most likely become slobs once high school was over, and that I was destined for greater things. This helped me relax, and before I knew it, I myself was popular, and respected. This turn of events made me wonder why I worried so much about everything in the past, but it’s just the way a teenager’s mind works. Mean Girls is the first movie I’ve seen that captures that idea to perfection. It portrays its characters like real teenagers from the point of view of an adult, which accentuates the sometimes-absurd nature of their behavior. Saturday Night Live’s Tine Fey scored at crafting a screenplay both interested in teenagers (mostly girls) and the adults surrounding them, from parents to educators (she plays one in fact, as does SNL colleague Tim Meadows, while another colleague, Amy Poehler, plays the confused mother of Regina).

The film does lose momentum as a comedy more often than not. Sometimes it’s hilarious, sometimes it’s mordant (especially when comparing high school life to Cady’s former jungle life), and sometimes it’s simply slow. I had a hard time making up my mind about it afterwards, as it seemed rather overlong and unfocused at first. After giving it some thought, I decided my review would be mostly positive, for the scope is simply too valuable, and sets the movie apart from the average teen movie. Though it does seem clichéd towards the end, offering morals and lessons, and though it includes several scenes that seem unnecessary, the whole is definitely worthwhile, especially for teenagers and their parents.

Plus, it’s extremely well acted! Lindsay Lohan keeps showing that she’s capable of convincing in most any role, as the character of Cady morphs almost inadvertently, and she suits every stage like it’s really happening; remarkable work. The “mean girls” are also worthy of praise, especially Chabert, whose insecurity is so real you can touch it.

In the end, Mean Girls can be a mordant but realistic satire of high school, a lesson for teenagers and their parents, or just a fun film to make you laugh a little. I say, it’s simply worth a look.

“I love her. She’s like a Martian!”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Shrek 2

Director

Andrew Adamson

Kelly Asbury

Conrad Vernon

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, June 24, 2004

Following Shrek (2001) is everything but an easy task… The wonderful animated film was original, funny, daring, and intelligent, all at once. I dare say the filmmakers weren’t really sure it would become a hit, but whichever the case, it surely exceeded their expectations. So how to make a sequel? The originality is gone, the fairytale is over (“happily ever after”, we hoped), and the humor is no novelty by now.

And indeed, the sequel turned out to be inferior in originality, humor, and dare, relying too heavily in spoofs of countless films and TV series, almost like Scary Movie (2000), only with Shrek’s trademark humor, which indeed works pretty well. The result is a film that doesn’t stand out on its own, but instead becomes a pretty darn good extension of a movie that did, and does to this day. I guess there’s nothing wrong about that. Especially because… It’s a riot!

The storyline has Shrek (voice of Mike Myers) and Fionna (voice of Cameron Diaz), both ogres, now married, coming back from her honeymoon (a hilarious collage of film references and spoofs, which goes from From Here To Eternity (1953) to Spider-Man (2002)) only to find the talkative Donkey back (voice of Eddie Murphy) along with emissaries from Far Far Away, Fionna’s land, who have a message from the King and Queen (voices of John Cleese and Julie Andrews), Fionna’s parents: Shrek and Fionna are invited to a marriage ball in their honor. Of course, they have no idea her daughter married an ogre, or furthermore, that she is now an ogre for good, so conflict is obligatory.

Nevertheless, off they go to Far Far Away. The spoofs never stop coming, with the annoying (and hilarious) Donkey reminding us of Alien (1979), and Far Far Away being a fairytale version of Beverly Hills and Hollywood. To go on with the story, Fionna’s parents are indeed shocked, and conflict abounds as predicted (much funnier than Meet the Parents (2000) at that), but the real problem is the intervention of the Fairy Godmother (voice of Jennifer Saunders), whose mysterious plans have been truncated by Shrek.

To tell more about the story would be stepping into spoiler territory, so all that should be said is that the same kind of plot from the first movie goes on here: A love triangle, misunderstandings, and the eventual triumph of good… with a twist. There are certain inconsistencies (regarding some people’s intentions despite Fionna’s ogre form), but overall it works. All this is played with two things in mind: Movie spoofs and more movie spoofs (have I mentioned that already? Well it’s that excessive!), and fairytale spoofs. The latter kind is the true spirit from the first installment and it’s still one of the funniest aspects in this one, despite its being taken for granted and given a little less attention. You’ll end up laughing more at the spoofs of Ghostbusters and Mission: Impossible (1996) than about any fairytale spoof, which is awkward for a film with the word Shrek in its title.

However, the single funniest aspect of the film is the introduction of a new character: Puss in Boots, voiced by Antonio Banderas, whose encounter with Shrek is hilarious and his presence keeps up just that way. His animation is the most brilliant and the writing helps a lot, but Banderas adds just the right touch. The character steals the movie and helps it to the point of making us wonder how good it would be without it. As for the rest of the characters, Donkey is as funny as ever, while the rest of the cast is uniformly good, with the possible exception of Julie Andrews, who lacks charisma, but definitely including Rupert Everett as Prince Charming (yeah, that’s his name).

I can’t say I didn’t laugh from beginning to end with Shrek 2. I’m not exactly a fan of the series but I’ve had a great time with both movies, and I appreciate it. They have just the right mixture of brilliant animation and intelligent writing, and one can’t dismiss something like that.

“Pray for mercy from Puss... in boots.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of Shrek 2 (2004): Morris

Review

The English Patient

Director

Anthony Minghella

Year

1996

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, June 23, 2004

When The English Patient came out I was 15 years old. It was an age when I started to rediscover cinema and started to love it in a more mature, profound way. Right now cinema is my life, but back then I was somewhat immature. No wonder, I was young! Perhaps that’s why I didn’t really love this movie. It was about things I had never experienced, and there was no connection whatsoever. Actually, I thought it was boring. My only recollection of that time is that I loved Juliette Binoche’s performance and I supported her over anyone else all the way to the Oscars. So a couple of weeks ago I decided to give the movie a second chance and it was a whole different experience.

Just as World War II was coming to an end, nurse Hana (Juliette Binoche) heads to an abandoned monastery to take care of badly burned mapmaker Count Lazlo de Almásy (Ralph Fiennes). When a mysterious stranger (Willem Dafoe) arrives claiming he knows all about him, recollections about his past start to come back. As it happens, Count Lazlo was involved in a love affair with married Katharine Clifton (Kristin Scott Thomas), something that led to tragedy.

The movie begins beautifully, with only a paintbrush in sight doing strokes that end up as a woman’s silhouette. The music is haunting there, as it continues to be for the rest of the movie. And suddenly, up from nowhere, we see Count Lazlo and Katharine flying in a plane with the air hitting their faces and the dust from the desert setting the mood. An image that will drastically change once the movie starts to unfold, for there’s a passionate story yet to be told.

Director Anthony Minghella was able to translate Michael Ondaatje’s novel into an epic love story, set amid the backdrop of turbulent times, that unfolds elegantly, leisurely and fervently. This is an adult movie that is able to exude all kinds of emotions from its audience and its characters.

The movie has two main storylines. I liked them both the same. To me Hana is the most fascinating character in the movie, so I loved how she managed to make a living out of nothing in that old monastery, how she decided to take care of a dying man asking for nothing in return, how she fell in love with a foreign Lieutenant (Naveen Andrews) and most importantly, how she went through life as if she was just a feather in the wind. Her relationship with anyone surrounding her is emotional, intriguing and heart-breaking.

And then there’s the love triangle, which is overly dramatic yet effortlessly honest, ending up as one of the most tragic love stories ever put on screen.

Ralph Fiennes and Kristin Scott Thomas deliver intense, extraordinary performances that bring their characters to life in unexpected, delightful ways. But it is Binoche who steals the movie in a graceful, quiet and tender performance that may arguably rank as her best to date.

Beautiful…

“I promise, I’ll come back for you. I promise, I’ll never leave you.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of The English Patient (1996): Groucho

Review

Kiss Me Deadly

Director

Robert Aldrich

Year

1955

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, June 22, 2004

Mickey Spillane’s pulp detective novels starring the infamous Mike Hammer have inspired many movies and TV series. Few have been renowned, or praised, but there’s definitely a cult status in them that makes them somewhat irresistible to some. Through the years, only one of these movies has become truly indispensable: Kiss Me Deadly, the one Mike Hammer film that’s been praised by the critics and loved by the people and that is now considered a classic—not only a cult classic—and a pivotal representative of the film noir genre.

Kiss Me Deadly is indeed a magnificent film, sharply scripted (by A.I. Bezzerides), directed (by Robert Aldrich), and edited (by Michael Luciano), and strikingly photographed (by Ernest Laszlo), resulting in a film reminiscent of The Maltese Falcon (1941) both in its intricate storyline and its no-nonsense pace.

The plot has the almost anti-hero hero, private eye Mike Hammer (Ralph Meeker), picking up a mysterious woman (Cloris Leachman) in the middle of a highway, who turns out to have a dark background, which is revealed only after she’s dragged Mike into the whirlpool she’s in. Mike isn’t about to slip out voluntarily, though… He finds out there’s something big behind the incident with the lady, and he believes that if he looks for a thread, he’ll find a string, and then a rope. He’s warned to stay out in many ways, but he keeps it up, involving his good friends Nick (Nick Dennis) and Velda (Maxine Cooper).

Mike’s quest proves intriguing to him and us, however. The true nature of the “thing” the bad guys are after is never fully revealed, which makes Mike’s curiosity truly comprehensible. On the other hand, this is a frank analysis of the human nature. Mike is introduced as an invulnerable man, but soon he begins to regret his own choices, and becomes increasingly pathetic. After a while, greed is the least force to push him, as his quest becomes one of pride and vengeance. The “bad guys” (leaded by Paul Stewart as Carl Evello) are also credible and realistic, afraid of their own deeds, greedy and brutal but cautious, and somewhat down-to-earth.

What I love about the film (and I’ll bet that’s what most people love about it too) is how despite its realistic treatment of the people in it, it’s so filled with noir elements. It’s in a league of its own in portraying the hero as a cool man, driving his convertible throughout the L.A. streets with a blank expression; Meeker’s casting was a smart choice, as his smooth performance suits the role to a tee. Enigmatic women abound as well, both femme fatales (Gaby Rodgers) and unconditional allies (Cooper). And the supporting cast is mostly composed of peculiar characters, from Nick the mechanic to Flatfoot the cop (Wesley Addy). Plus, the “thing” that makes the scenes featuring it so heart-pounding, as do other mysterious elements that are never fully explained. The film qualifies as apocalyptic and sci-fi, and these are the things that make it so.

Incidentally, a recently added scene in the end is the one originally intended to be there, which dramatically changes the ending for the better.

Usually regarded as the close of the classic film noir period, this is a fascinating and unforgettable film – not to be missed.

“Do me a favor, will you? Keep away from the windows. Somebody might... blow you a kiss.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Shrek 2

Director

Andrew Adamson

Kelly Asbury

Conrad Vernon

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, June 21, 2004

Shrek is one of my favorite animated movies of all time. When it was released a couple of years ago it set the bar real high, as it navigated in difficult waters and proved to be a ground-breaking critical and commercial success. Now the beloved ogre is back and I couldn’t be happier. Watching the sequel was like getting back with the family after a long absence.

Shrek (voice of Mike Myers) and Fionna (voice of Cameron Diaz) just got back from their honeymoon when her parents, the King (voice of John Cleese) and Queen (voice of Julie Andrews) request them to visit Far Far Away so they can celebrate her recent wedding. Thus Shrek and Fionna embark on a trip with Donkey (voice of Eddie Murphy) in which anything can happen, as the Fairy Godmother (voice of Jennifer Saunders) won’t stop until she gets her way, while a mysterious individual, Puss in Boots (voice of Antonio Banderas) appears with its own agenda.

The movie starts with a bang… of laughter, that is. We see Shrek and Fionna on their honeymoon and I don’t want to spoil anything for you, but there are several movie references that had the theater in stitches. Definitely a great start! Unfortunately, after that clever sequence, Shrek 2 takes a little while to take off again. It is until Puss in Boots appears onscreen that the movie regains its initial high level of energy and from then on it just never stops.

Shrek 2, just as its predecessor, is an incredibly effective laugh fest. It is the kind of movie that makes you laugh so hard that you might be missing the next joke. And I love that! The creators were able to craft an equally original and intelligent movie that is able to please both adults and kids alike. And it is also totally unpredictable, for the franchise exists in part to poke fun at everything and everyone. It also breaks every conventional rule in its way and satirizes even itself. Where else would you find a character called Prince Charming, as in Mr. Charming?

The main difference between the two movies is that part 1 was more about setting up the characters and have them live an unconventional fairy tale, while part 2 is more about moments. New characters are introduced, old ones come back for the ride, but the continuous references to movies (such as Spider-Man, The Little Mermaid, The Lord of the Rings, From Here To Eternity, Beauty and the Beast, Alien, The Fabulous Baker Boys, Ghostbusters, Flashdance and many more), TV shows (such as COPS), fairy tales (such as Peter Pan and Pinocchio) and pop culture references (Sir Justin?) take center stage. It’s a less profound experience overall, but it is hysterical, and in the biggest inner-joke of all, the movie continues to play, ultimately, as a sweet fairy tale.

I have to give Puss in Boots a paragraph of its own because the character simply steals the movie. I wasn’t so sure it was going to be that funny, but it exceeded my expectations. I still laugh my ass off when I remember his cute little face that Donkey hates so much. Brilliant animation, voicing and writing!

Memorable scenes abound, for every single scene has one or two great punchlines, but there’s a Mission: Impossible spoof that you have to see to believe! I just couldn’t stop laughing!!!

The work by the actors lending their voices is first-rate. Eddie Murphy, as Donkey, just keeps getting the laughs. He and Antonio Banderas as Puss are a one-of-a-kind team. I love ‘em! Then there’s Myers and Diaz, who reprise their roles. And new additions include John Cleese, Julie Andrews, Rupert Everett and Jennifer Saunders.

A great movie that serves its purpose and even more than that. I loved it and I can’t wait for parts 3 & 4!!!

“The position of annoying talking animal has been filled.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of Shrek 2 (2004): Groucho

Review

Laurel Canyon

Director

Lisa Cholodenko

Year

2002

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Thursday, June 17, 2004

No one really paid attention to this movie. When it was released there was even Oscar buzz for Frances McDormand, but it disappeared as soon as the next crop of movies arrived the next weekend. Still, I always thought the movie had a great cast. Besides the always-reliable McDormand, there was a young group of talented actors I really like. That’s why I watched it two years after its initial release, but don’t blame me, blame the distributors…

Sam (Christian Bale) and Alex (Kate Beckinsale) are about to get married, but are forced to spend a couple of weeks in his mother’s (Frances McDormand) house so Sam can attend an L.A. medical program. Problem is, she’s a liberal, pot-smoking, bisexual producer who has her boyfriend (Alex Nivola) and his band almost living under her roof while they record their latest CD.

Laurel Canyon was written and directed by Lisa Chodolenki, a talented woman who does a good job in both tasks. Her movie is never boring, always compelling and even though it isn’t great, it still manages to be pretty good and most important of all… thoughtful.

When Sam gets to meet Sara (Natasha McElhone), a fellow student, things start to shake up a little, as Alex gets jealous. And it’s funny what such a feeling can do to one, because as uptight as she may have been, she suddenly starts to like her fiancé’s mother’s lifestyle. Soon she’s smoking pot too, which leads to much more which I won’t reveal. But what I’m trying to say is that Chodolenki is able to deliver a layered movie that makes you think about how much do you really love someone, how much are you willing to be faithful to him/her and what does it take to break what you thought was unbreakable.

The movie is also a character study about the relationship between a mother and a son that are so different. Both Sam and her mother Jane would like to understand each other better, but there’s a barrier that won’t let them. Ultimately they’re family and love each other, but the path to understanding is hard.

I loved Frances McDormand’s performance in the movie. She’s so good and so believable. But then, the performance isn’t as showy as awards voters look for. Still, she’s extraordinary. And she makes her character her own. Part of the success of the movie is the way the characters are written. They become alive. They’re fun to spend some time with. And the actors are wonderful. Bale, Beckinsale, McElhone and Alessandro Nivola are very good.

A nice, pleasant, intelligent movie about relationships.

“Here we are – having it.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Goonies

Director

Richard Donner

Year

1985

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Wednesday, June 16, 2004

I remember watching The Goonies as a kid. It somehow pierced into my psyche and became one of the most entertaining movies I had ever seen. When a good friend of mine proposed, not long ago, watching it again, I jumped at the opportunity. And, well, it wasn’t as great as I remembered it to be. Yet, if my adult mind doesn’t see it as great, I must not forget what it was like the first time. There’s something about it that made it so great, and I suppose that says something about what entertains a child and what entertains an adult and what possibly entertains both.

The Goonies is, I suppose, Steven Spielberg’s idea of a family-friendly Raiders of the Lost Ark. His story, scripted by Chris Columbus, is about the Walsh brothers, teenage Brandon (Josh Brolin) and younger Mikey (Sean Astin), who must move away from home since their house is in the way of a new development. Their parents don’t have the money to overpower the corporation that is kicking them out, so there’s not much to be done. Brandon and Mikey are heartbroken, as are their friends, the “Goonies,” including Chunk (Jeff Cohen), Mouth (Corey Feldman), and Data (Jonathan Ke Quan), whose nicknames say much about their personalities.

So the thing is, when the Goonies find, in Brandon and Mikey’s attic, a map to an allegedly hidden treasure in town (once belonging, according to legend, to a pirate who went by the name of One-Eyed Willy), they decide to go looking for it in hopes of getting enough money to prevent the Walshes from moving. Brandon strongly opposes the initiative, but he unwillingly ends up joining the guys along with two girls: Andy (Kerri Green), whom he likes, and Stef (Martha Plimpton), her best friend.

The map turns out to be authentic, and all that seems to separate the guys from the treasure is a couple of booby-traps. Unfortunately, it’s not that easy: The entrance to the secret caves is right beneath the headquarters of the criminal Fratellis, Mama Fratelli (Anne Ramsey), Jake Fratelli (Robert Davi), and Francis Fratelli (Joe Pantoliano), whose intentions are less than honorable, and have something to say about the treasure.

There’s also another Fratelli, by the way: Grossly deformed ‘Sloth’ (John Matuszak), who befriends Chunk, enjoys Baby Ruths, and becomes an honorary Goonie.

I was surprised, at first, by how simple and hardly memorable the movie seemed to me this time as opposed to the epic it had become in my mind. The Goonies’ adventure is like a hardly exciting theme-park attraction and the children are mostly annoying. Nevertheless, the values of family and friendship are clearly delineated. I suppose that’s where its charm really lies. Also, as a movie buff, I loved the references to classic swashbucklers, including the use of The Adventures of Don Juan’s theme by Max Steiner.

I also remember falling in love with Andy, only now, years later, though I still consider her lovely, what I really noticed was her panties showed more often than not under that tiny skirt (not an innocent detail, I assure you).

Overall, a fun ride, and an interesting piece, if not as worthy of praise as I thought it would be.

“Goonies never say die!”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

My Darling Clementine

Director

John Ford

Year

1946

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Tuesday, June 15, 2004

Who would’ve said that after so many years of watching countless movies my old pal Groucho would find in My Darling Clementine a masterpiece so close to his heart that he was willing to call it one of the best movies he had ever seen, if not the best. I had to see it for myself, for I couldn’t believe the enthusiasm. And so I did, and God bless him for that.

After the murder of his brother, Wyatt Earp (Henry Fonda) arrives to the town of Tombstone with his two remaining brothers and becomes the town’s marshal in order to make justice. There he meets Doc Holliday (Victor Mature), an infamous man who is said to run the town the way he wants, and Chihuahua (Linda Darnell), a no-good woman who is in love with him. But when Doc’s old flame Clementine (Cathy Downs) arrives to town, Wyatt can’t believe his eyes and instantly falls in love with her.

Wyatt Earp’s story has been told countless times on the big screen. I have seen Kevin Costner’s modern retelling, but it was so long ago that I didn’t remember a thing. Still, My Darling Clementine has a way of nailing Earp’s legendary adventures with astounding simplicity, focusing solely in beautifully rendered storytelling with its heart in the right place.

There’s something admirable in the way director John Ford tells his story without making too much fuzz about anything. Many things happen in the movie, but you don’t feel it because nothing goes over-the-top or calls too much attention to itself. In a way, the movie is just like its central character: quiet, intelligent, sentimental and to the point.

I thoroughly enjoyed the relationship between Wyatt and Doc. They’re enemies, and they know it; they also have diverging personalities; while Doc is impulsive and not afraid to pull out his gun at any provocation, Wyatt doesn’t even carry one with him! Yet they both come to like each other. They’re both clever people and know that the best way to get along is by means of respect. Their relationship holds the movie together.

Great scenes include almost anything that has to do with Chihuahua, especially when she’s singing. The big shootout at the OK Corral at the end is also a nail-biter. And that church-dancing sequence is a hoot!

I find it weird that the movie is named after Clementine, since she appears almost halfway through the movie and doesn’t really have much to do in terms of plot-changing elements. Then again, there’s the song. I guess it goes along those lines…

For me, the best performance in the movie belongs to Victor Mature, who brings Doc with the complexity the character requires. Equally good is Linda Darnell as Chihuahua, a spoiled brat who only wants to be loved. Henry Fonda brings his usual wisdom and dignity to the part and everyone else is fantastic.

Great photography and a great score complement an already exceptional movie!

“When ya pull a gun, kill a man.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Ladykillers

Director

Ethan Coen

Joel Coen

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Monday, June 14, 2004

So far, quite unfortunately, I haven’t had the chance to watch The Ladykillers, a 1955 British film, featuring Alec Guinness in one of his (so I’ve heard) funnier performances. If I ever get the chance, I’ll snatch it, and I’ll come here to tell you all about it. That said, let me talk about this remake by the Coen brothers which, I’m sure, owes as much to the original movie as it does to the Coens, meaning they’ve added their very own touch and made it their own piece of hilarity.

The story has an eccentric and charming man, who calls himself Professor G.H. Dorr, PhD (Tom Hanks), arriving to the house of an old African-American Southern lady (Irma P. Hall), with the intension of renting a room in her house. He seems keenly interested in the root cellar too as, he says, the usual conditions of a root cellar make it a perfect place to practice the renaissance music he plays with some friends. The friends: Gawain MacSam (Marlon Wayans), Garth Pancake (J.K. Simmons), The General (Tzi Ma), and Lump Hudson (Ryan Hurst). Their real intentions: to dig a tunnel from the lady’s root cellar to the safe of a floating casino.

Though I’ve been for years an admirer of the Coen brothers’ work, I’ve had problems with their movies more often than not. Their last movie I fully loved was Fargo (1996), from which I admired the use of observations of people of Minnesota to make an almost unwilling comedy out of a thriller. I think the Coens admire that from their own movie as well, and how unexpectedly well it worked. And from there, I suspect they’ve tried to recreate that genuinely genius aspect in further films.

A clear example of this is the way they observe the people of the South in The Ladykillers. The target is small-town Churchgoers, mostly African-American, whose mannerisms are certainly funny in a way. And while Mrs. Marva (Hall) is indeed hilarious, and her love of Gospel music and her admiration of the “Bob Jones University” and her devotion to her dead husband make up for very funny moments, the fact that she’s southern becomes merely a comedic artifact, not by far the funniest aspect of her personality or even a reason to watch this film. The same thing happens with most every main character, all of them belonging to an ethnic or social stratum that can be made fun of, and is made fun of, but sadly becomes at times a distracting element rather than the point of the character or a particular scene.

Luckily, the plot, borrowed from the original film, is funny as can be. The unholy gang consummates its plan without the housekeeper’s knowledge, which of course makes up for numerous funny moments. Mrs. Marva’s faith and strictness are also reasons of conflict, as these people aren’t exactly saints or educated men (not all of them anyway). Irma P. Hall, as Mrs. Marva, steals her scenes with amazing ease (aided at times by the hilarious portrait of her dead husband), but every member of the gang is funny in their own way, especially Hanks, in an unusual turn, and Wayans, whose scenes are the funniest.

I had lots of fun with this film. If not a Coen brothers masterpiece, it’s still not a common film, and should be watched for being original in many ways. But mostly, it’s fun. And that’s what counts in a comedy, isn’t it?

“You, madam, are addressing a man, who is in fact quiet... and yet, not quiet, if I may offer to you a riddle.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban

Director

Alfonso Cuarón

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Thursday, June 10, 2004

As you may know by now, I am a big Harry Potter fan. I’ve read the first three books (I’ll read the fourth sometime during the next two years before the next movie is released) and I love everything about J.K. Rowling’s world. The first two movies were good, but the third one is spectacular. Each has gotten better and better, just as the books, and I’m glad Mexican director Alfonso Cuarón took over from Chris Columbus, because everything is better in this installment.

Harry (Daniel Radcliffe), Ron (Rupert Grint) and Hermione (Emma Watson) are back for another year at Hogwarts, except this time Harry’s life is in danger. As it happens, murderer Sirius Black (Gary Oldman) just escaped from Azkaban’s prison and is looking for Harry…

You know, I knew this movie would be different from frame one. The way the WB logo appears and the camera reaches Harry’s room as he’s doing something under the sheets and how the light then goes back to show the title of the movie, I mean, they had me at hello… literally. Then the action gets into full gear with the rather cartoonish bus sequence. From then on it’s pure, unabashed excitement.

I read the book and I know there’s a lot of stuff that didn’t end up in the movie. Harry hints at a love interest, for instance, and the Marauder’s map actually has a very important history. Never mind, this is the way a Harry Potter movie should be done. Not every word in the book has to appear in the movie, since, after all, they’re different mediums. The movie moves at a lightning pace, always hinting at things, giving us clues, enhancing the suspense until the last 30-45 minutes, which, to put it mildly, are brilliant, just perfect!

I credit the success of the movie to the new director. Cuarón certainly knows what he’s doing. He understands his characters and gives them individual moments to really show what they’re going through. Harry is now 13 and is becoming a man real fast. He still resents his parents’ murder and is trying to deal with that loss while growing up at the same time. His relationship with newly-appointed Professor Lupin (David Thewlis) is quite touching, as both parts try to deal with secrets that hurt.

Cuarón is also able to bring this movie with the magic the two previous ones lacked. In this movie Hogwarts finally comes to life. You will not see more beautiful landscapes this year than the ones shown here, nor more beautiful creatures. There’s at least one scene that literally left me breathless, which has Harry flying the hippogriff for the first time. That’s the reason I love movies. And the imagination that went into this movie is immense. Just watch how beautifully the seasons are portrayed through the whomping willow. Or how wondrous the sets are this time around. Or the mere sight of the dementors. In a few words, the cinematography is extraordinary, the special effects flawless and the direction impeccable. Loved how Cuarón moves the camera a lot to give each scene the exact feeling it needs.

It also helps that John Williams delivers a knockout score, easily surpassing his own previous work by adding a more intimate feel to it and using new ancient-sounding instruments.

And yes, believe it or now, I have finally forgiven Daniel Radcliffe for his rather limited acting chops. Cuarón is what he needed, and even though he hasn’t become a great actor, at least his performance is never distracting and is very good at some crucial points. Emma Watson and Rupert Grint, in the meantime, continue to steal the spotlight with their immense charm and talent. Alan Rickman, Maggie Smith and Robbie Coltrane are all back for the ride. And new additions include Michael Gambon (excellent as a hipper Dumbledore), Emma Thompson (hilariously over-the-top), Julie Christie (barely there), Julie Walters (always a pleasure), David Thewlis (great addition!!!) and Gary Oldman (sinister and right-on).

A magical experience in every sense of the word! I want to see it again and again and again!

“Well well, Lupin. Out for a little walk... in the moonlight?”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Princess Bride

Director

Rob Reiner

Year

1987

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Wednesday, June 09, 2004

For many years I heard, now and then, that The Princess Bride was a classic. I remember the first time I heard that, it was funny because I hadn’t read about it elsewhere, it wasn’t on any list of classic films I’d seen, and in fact I didn’t remember hearing about it at all! So I understood that this was mostly a popular classic. Not a cult classic, but a film so liked by the audiences that it became a classic for them. This happened mostly (or perhaps only) in the United States. This being such an oft-mentioned film, I had to see what all the fuzz was about…

The film tells the fairytale of lovely society girl Buttercup (Robin Wright) who falls in love with her stable boy Westley (Cary Elwes). He loves her so, that he goes away to make fortune and become worthy of her. Being his one true love, he promises to come back no matter what. But after notice is received that the deadly Pirate Roberts has most likely killed Westley, Buttercup gives up on him, despite his promise. So, years later, convinced that happiness is not an option, she agrees to marry odious Prince Humperdinck (Chris Sarandon).

Just then, with the purpose of creating political conflict, Buttercup is kidnapped by stunted wiz Vizzini (Wallace Shawn) and his two helpers, strongman Fezzik (André the Giant) and swordsman Inigo Montoya (Mandy Patinkin). Their attempts are marred, however, by a mysterious masked man who tails them. The man, whose costume and swordsmanship resemble Zorro’s, turns out to be Westley, as the new Pirate Roberts (the former one retired). The one true love of Buttercup’s is back, and now it’s up to them to stay together, though the news won’t exactly please Humperdinck or his accomplice, evil Count Rugen (Christopher Guest). When their evil becomes unbearable, Fezzik and Montoya join forces with Westley to defeat the evil guys and save the Princess Bride.

All this is framed by a modern-day grandfather (Peter Falk) reading a book to his ill grandson (Fred Savage).

Oh boy, how do I begin to tell you what I think of this film? Well, I should start by warning you that I’m not the biggest fan, though you probably realized that on account of the rating. Well, I had a hard time with this film. Not really hard, I mean it is fun, but… I mean, what is it? It took me a while to realize what kind of movie I was watching. It’s a family movie, an action movie, a comedy, a parody, an allegory, a romance, but what’s the point? I don’t know. William Goldman’s script (from his novel) is about adventure, romance, and political allegory, but I’m not sure it’s handled quite properly, yet then again, everyone loves it, so who am I to say?

As a ride, however, the movie is fun. It pays tribute to classic swashbucklers yet it adds lots of modern-day comedy. I just didn’t like the mix, but some tidbits are fun, including cameo appearances by Billy Crystal and Carol Kane. Yet I prefer Falk’s scenes as the grandpa. Though uneven, the movie is carefully made, and the production values are to be praised, but also the artistic ones, including a wonderful music score by Mark Knopfler.

If you’re curious, as I was, watch it. If not, I’d say skipping it won’t hurt ya.

“As you wish.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Dot the I

Director

Matthew Parkhill

Year

2003

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Tuesday, June 08, 2004

When Dot the I premiered at the Sundance Film Festival many filmgoers proclaimed it was the new Memento. Being a big fan of Mexican actor Gael García Bernal and an even bigger fan of the aforementioned movie, my curiosity suddenly awakened. Now, we all know those film festival audiences can be a bit overenthusiastic sometimes, and I think that's just case with this movie, for even if it’s good, it ain’t near the level of greatness I had come to expect.

Barnaby (James D'Arcy) just proposed to his girlfriend Carmen (Natalia Verbeke). She isn't so sure about saying yes, but ultimately does because she's suffered too much in the past and needs that feeling of protection. Or perhaps she does love Barnaby. But everything is put in question when she meets Kit (Gael García Bernal) in her bachelor party. A kiss changes everything, and a love triangle soon emerges that will lead to unexpected consequences.

That plot summary sounds sooo lame, I know. While watching the movie I started wondering what was so special about it. It was a common love triangle like we've seen countless times in countless movies. But I kept watching, the characters kept me enthralled one way or another. And then, an hour later, a bang! There's a plot twist that changes everything and the movie suddenly becomes another thing altogether.

Now, I love plot twists, I do. And I knew there would be one in this movie before even watching it, so I was eagerly anticipating it. There are clues that lead you to it, but it's almost impossible to guess what is actually going on even if you're the smartest person on Earth. But that's not to say the plot twist is especially great. It isn't. It's fun and makes you think about everything you witnessed for the past hour. But what makes the movie especially intriguing is the fact that it doesn't end there, it continues! We see what happens to the characters after we find out about the plot twist and it's very interesting to say the least. The surprises just keep coming.

Truth be told, the movie is not very believable, and it isn't particularly well directed. I got the feeling that it was an amateurish movie. But it mostly worked, so I stopped thinking about that after a while.

Gael García Bernal is perhaps the better-known actor in the movie, and he takes full advantage because he's excellent. His English accent comes and goes, but overall it is a well-calibrated performance. Ditto for Verbeke. Only quibble has to be D'Arcy, who is good most of the time, but goes excessively over-the-top in some of the later scenes.

Overall, an interesting movie that resounds now more than ever.

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Day After Tomorrow

Director

Roland Emmerich

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Thursday, June 03, 2004

I am a big fan of disaster movies, although, to be honest, I haven’t seen most of the classic ones except for The Poseidon Adventure. That said, I’m more into modern disaster movies, and as sick as it may sound, director Roland Emmerich is a master in destroying huge cities and killing millions of people. I couldn’t wait to see his latest and it did not disappoint me.

Jack Hall (Dennis Quaid) has been trying to convince the U.S. government that the world may be in jeopardy due to global warming. But sooner than he expected, the disaster starts taking place, as cities such as Los Angeles and New York suddenly get huge tornadoes and floods. It is a matter of survival from that point on, as Jack’s son, Sam (Jake Gyllenghaal) is in New York and must stay alive however he can while awaiting for his father to come and get him.

You can see I rated the movie quite highly. There’s an explanation to that. First of all, I loved it. I do admit that it is full of clichés and corny dialogue, but then, that’s always the case in this type of movies. There has to be a family conflict so we can feel more attached to the characters and root for them to get together in the end. There has to be the over-the-top heroic moments. There has to be a little bit of humor even though the characters’ lives are at risk. There has to be some romance thrown in there for good measure. There has to be all of it. But there’s something really important that you have to understand: The movie has to work. And, in this case, it does. It really does!

The show is spectacular. I don’t care whether these things can or will happen anytime in the future. The movie is meant to entertain and it does incredibly well. It is actually divided in three segments. First we have the build-up for the disaster, which serves as a purpose to establish the characters, their conflicts and the current world situation. Then there’s the disaster per se. And finally we have the obligatory third act in which people must now face the consequences and survive disasters which have yet to take place. When that second act was over I thought the movie would not work anymore since the bar had been risen too high, but the final act actually works pretty well, and it is never devoid of suspense.

As for the special effects, I don’t have enough words to describe them. They’re spectacular, magnificent. The sight of a flooded, and subsequently frozen, New York is simply something to behold. The attack of twisters in L.A. is a breathtaking sequence. Every single special effect in the movie has a purpose and works perfectly. The whole disaster sequence won’t be forgotten anytime soon.

Acting-wise everyone does their job as they’re required to. I specially liked Emmy Rossum, who managed to stand out with her natural charm. I’d seen this girl in Mystic River (2003) before and had a good impression of her. Now I’m sure she’s meant for greater things and I hope she can have a great career. I certainly want to see more of her!

The mother of all modern disaster movies!

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The English Patient

Director

Anthony Minghella

Year

1996

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Wednesday, June 02, 2004

When I saw The English Patient for the first time, back in 1996 (actually 1997), I was quite young and impatient. My love for the movies was budding at best, and I was sort of immature in the way that there was a lot I didn’t appreciate in movies I didn’t completely fall for. Don’t think I was the typical teenager who loved Summer Hollywood fare, ‘cause I was never like that. In fact, the movie I loved the most that year was Fargo, and I never forgave The English Patient for taking away the attention I thought the Coen brother’s masterpiece deserved much more (and which, by the way, it got later on). When the former won at the Oscars, the situation only got worse.

Years passed, and one day I realized I hadn’t reconciled myself with this film. Being older now, and hopefully wiser, I would probably like it more. I decided I’d give it a shot. And a damn wise decision it was.

The story, based on Michael Ondaatje’s sumptuous novel, focuses on a romance in a time of war and international crisis. The backdrop is none other than WWII, and the story begins as a severely burned man, as a result of a plane crash, is taken care of by Canadian nurse Hana (Juliette Binoche), who’s haunted by the ghosts of the many loved ones she’s lost. Installed in a crumbling Italian villa, Hana gets to know the patient, whose memory is apparently gone. But as memories start emerging, we get to know his amazing story in flashback.

The story has this man, Count Laszlo de Almásy (Ralph Fiennes), a Hungarian mapmaker, falling in love with Katharine Clifton (Kristin Scott Thomas), the wife of a colleague (Colin Firth), during an expedition at the Sahara. The love affair unravels beautifully, as opposed to the horrendous backdrop of war.

Hana listens to the story with enormous admiration, and seeks a new meaning for her life. This happens as she meets Kip (Naveen Andrews), a Sikh bomb expert. But as a mysterious man (Willem Dafoe) walks into the villa, claiming to know Almásy, and calling him a liar, the patient’s past becomes much more intriguing. In time, the explanation of everything is fully revealed, not as a plot twist, but as a retelling of unbearable happenings that turn this tale into one of the most tragic love stories ever told.

The beauty of this film lies in every aspect, from the sprawling presentation to the tiniest detail. Saul Zaentz’s production is visually impressive (photographed by John Seale), accompanied by a divine score by Gabriel Yared, and told in elegant fashion, developing the story little by little, layer by layer, never rushing to the point, never forgetting the small facts, never undermining any aspect to benefit another. The result is a riveting experience, an unforgettably beautiful movie that deals with love, war, and wounds, all in the same amount.

The cast is very good. Fiennes and Scott Thomas are truly believable in their roles and share a quiet chemistry that turns their scenes together into magical ones, full of poetic romanticism rarely achieved in such epic-scale films. Fiennes is particularly good, especially towards the end. Throughout, however, the real standout is Binoche, whose facial expressions speak for themselves and reveal her continuous suffering, one of the most heartbreaking aspects of the film. One of my favorites scenes, for instance, has Kip flying her inside a church to see works of art lighted by a candle. It’s an amazingly moving scene for all it means, and for how it’s done. As opposed to this, Caravaggio’s (Dafoe) subplot, though crucial, seems a bit contrived and out of place at times. Dafoe has his moments, however, and makes the most of his role.

Kudos to Anthony Minghella for putting together the script and directing the movie so beautifully, giving us a gorgeous, well-crafted film that sticks to the mind.

“Am I ‘K’ in your book? I think I must be.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of The English Patient (1996): Morris