CriticSociety- film reviews

Review

Madagascar

Director

Eric Darnell

Tom McGrath

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, June 30, 2005

Living their peaceful lives at Central Park Zoo, Alex the Lion (Ben Stiller), Marty the Zebra (Chris Rock), Melman the Giraffe (David Schwimmer) and Gloria the Hippo (Jada Pinkett Smith) don’t have much to complain about. However, on his 10th birthday (in fact the first scene of the movie), Marty starts to get some doubts. Is it his fate to stay in the zoo for good? What else does the world have to offer? Simultaneously, a group of penguins led by Skipper (Tom McGrath) bump into Marty as they’re trying to escape, and open his eyes: he must meet “the wild” before he dies after living a life of monotony.

This idea sets the lives of our friends the animals, as well as the movie, in motion. After Marty disappears from the zoo, and their friends go to the rescue, they’re sent to Africa as a request from activists, but in turn end up at Madagascar. There, they must find a way to actually live in the wild, meet their surroundings, interact with other animals, and face their natures.

Frankly, the premise of this computer-animated film sounds thrilling. I didn’t know much about it before watching it, but I thought it was a pretty good idea. Even as the film developed, after deciding to let go and simply believe several rather implausible situations, I was excited for what was to come. Sadly, it ultimately didn’t pay off. There were many recurrent moments of brilliancy in the way of Alex getting to be what lions in the wild are supposed to be, but it finally went down to a silly conclusion that prevented any character development, solution of conflict, or drama.

To make matters worse, most of the comedy sprinkled throughout is undeniably silly. Now, this is a children movie, and one must understand that. However, I refuse to believe that this factor should be an excuse for one-note comedy. Yet, I will admit that there were very good jokes once in a while, some hilarious physical comedy, and a few clever visual gags. Also I was confused but pleased to suddenly face an uproarious homage to American Beauty (1999). But in between, I forced myself to laugh a couple of times, and mostly didn’t even get a remote impulse.

The performances are really nothing to write home about. The standout and undisputable owner of the movie is Chris Rock, clearly the funniest performer giving life to the funniest character. Cedric the Entertainer is also remarkable as one lemur from Madagascar, as is co-director McGrath as the penguin leader. Well, after all I guess you could write home about that, but otherwise, you might not even recognize the famous voices, and you won’t mind.

The animation is also unremarkable. Sometimes it contributes to the visual hilarity of the procedures, but it’s not especially notable in any way and nothing to match some of the recent work of the genre.

Dreamworks can do and has done much better. This one’s straight for the kiddies, and I’d say, not even that necessarily.

“This sucks.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Batman Returns

Director

Tim Burton

Year

1992

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, June 29, 2005

As of two weeks ago, my favorite Batman movie was Batman Returns. Being a huge fan of Tim Burton, I find nothing disappointing in his two outings as director of the first movies in the saga. That said, I don’t like the Joel Schumacher follow-ups. Batman Forever was tolerable, but Batman & Robin is one of the worst movies ever, despite a deliciously over-the-top performance by Uma Thurman. So now that the Batman craze is all over the place, I feel like talking about a movie that I’ve dearly loved since the first moment I saw it.

Oswald Copperpot (Danny DeVito) was born a freak, so his parents threw him to the cloaks where he found a home underneath an abandoned zoo, among penguins that is. He then became a circus performer, and formed a band of terrorists. But what The Penguin only wants is to get to know his parents and ask them why they did that to him. So he kidnaps millionaire Max Shreck (Christopher Walken) and blackmails him as to help him gain the public’s confidence. Shreck sees in him an opportunity to rule Gotham City as his puppet and postulates him as Major of the city. Meanwhile, Shreck’s clumsy secretary, Selina Kyle (Michelle Pfeiffer), unveils a dangerous secret so his boss attempts to murder her, but cats save her life and in the way she acquires some of the species’ abilities, which she uses to rebel against everybody. However, recluse billionaire Bruce Wayne (Michael Keaton) won’t make it easy for any of them to follow their plans.

Batman Returns is classic Burton from frame one. The credits appear over the image of the freak baby traveling through the zoo and the underground, while Danny Elfman’s haunting score plays in the background and snow never stops falling. From then on the movie is a roller-coaster ride of what over-the-top and fantasy are all about. Burton is a master in both, so we get caricature-esque villains, bizarre characters (what’s up with Christopher Walken’s hair?), impressive visuals, and a very twisted story. The visuals, especially, are so amazing they can stay with you forever, from Gotham to the Penguin’s home to the Batcave to Selena Kyle’s weird apartment. It is all a treat for the eye.

I also like that there’s a hell of a lot going on all the time, but Burton never loses track of his story. Different plot threads abound. We get the Penguin’s story, Catwoman’s story, Bruce and Selina’s story, Shreck‘s story, and then we have them all crashing into each other. I like that. There’s nothing wrong with simpler movies, but I like to be challenged and to get my superhero movie a little smarter than usual. Nevertheless, it can get complicated, and sometimes scenes dealing with politics and stuff like that tend to make the movie feel overlong.

If there is anything to remember this movie for it is very simple: Catwoman. Or, should I say, Michelle Pfeiffer. She created an emblematic character and was able to transcend beyond the screen. Most people remember Catwoman as she played it, so exquisite, so mad, and so dangerous. It helps that Michelle has cat-like face features, but her entire performance is breath-taking. Danny De Vito is also excellent, if annoying at times, and Michael Keaton is a fine Bruce. Also, Christopher Walken is as weird as usual, which suits the character to a tee.

Great direction, great performances, great story, great cinematography, great costumes, great art direction… hell, even great sound.

“Meow.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Batman

Director

Tim Burton

Year

1989

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, June 28, 2005

Bob Kane’s comic book character The Batman had been buried for decades in camp. The (quite memorable) TV series did that for the Dark Knight, but the comics contributed. Throughout the 80s, there were some attempts to return to the character some of the dignity he had earned in his earlier years. Luckily, it worked out, and in 1989, the attempt reached cinema and became a hit. I remember when I saw this film, I was only a child, and a huge Batman fan, and I realized that I had no idea what Batman was all about. I was happy that now I knew. For years I was a fan of this film, and now that I have revisited it, I still find it to be a sheer pleasure. Maybe not as good a film as it could be, but quite a treat!

Tim Burton is the man responsible for making this piece so unique. His trademark blend of bizarre elements gave it the touch that makes it so fantastic yet dark and eerie. Anton Furst’s production design and Peter Young’s sets constitute the so far best Gotham City; gothic, if anything, the place is a comic book come true as well as the perfect setting for a darker, more sinister side of Bruce Wayne’s alter ego.

Danny Elfman’s score is also the best-known and I’d even say best (in itself) score for a Batman audiovisual presentation. The music is literally unforgettable and absolutely magnificent throughout the film. A very very fine touch.

Wayne/Batman is played by Michael Keaton, a rare choice to say the least, and one immediately rejected by Batman fans, but a brilliant one as later proved. Only he could seize the character’s sarcastic mood and hidden dark side. Burton turned Wayne into a weird character to be honest, and he’s nothing like his comic book persona, but for this movie, he’s perfect, and fans approved later on. It’s not that hard, though. This film never shows us how Bruce became what he is now, what was the process, where he began, how he managed. He’s just who he is and we’re supposed to believe it, and we do for the hell of it.

Instead, this is the story of The Joker. As a matter of fact, the film could be called The Joker and it would probably be more appropriate. Here we witness the beginning, rise and fall of this character, and it’s quite interesting. Jack Napier (Jack Nicholson) is one psychopath fellow, a member of a powerful mob led by Carl Grissom (Jack Palance). The latter, mad at uncontrollable Napier, sets him up with the help of corrupt Eckhardt of Gotham P.D., in an ambush at Axis Chemicals. While in a party at Wayne manor, Commissioner Gordon (Pat Hingle) is alerted, and Wayne hears of it too, via hidden cameras and his attentive butler Alfred (Michael Gough). So the ambush becomes a milestone, as Batman shows up (for the first time in a more showy way), and causes Napier to fall into a pool of acid. The result: Jack becomes The Joker, a disfigured man with no intention of resting before he comes back at Grissom… and Batman.

The Joker is one delicious villain. Not exactly like the original character, except that he’s a bloody psycho, here he’s a powerful villain, a man of experience, unhappy about his situation, but willing to show otherwise, and become the main man in town. Nicholson grabbed the part and made it his own, stole the show, and became the most recurrent reason of criticism: Why is he such a better character than Batman?

I don’t mind though. I like The Joker, and I like The Batman. Since no connection is established with the hero, I never really cared that I didn’t get to know him better. Yet, I wanted him to win, but only because I wanted to see The Joker fall. And heck, did he fall. I like how the story flows, despite its constant implausibility. I do like this film.

As a subplot, we get photographer Vicki Vale (Kim Basinger) joining forces with reporter Alexander Knox (Robert Wuhl) to make of the Batman a sensational story. This subplot simply doesn’t work, and Knox is obnoxious. Vale however, in her interaction with Batman and The Joker, is quite something. An obligatory romantic interest, true, but it works. Again however, no connection, but at least a pleasure to watch and listen to (she screams repeatedly like only Basinger can).

A piece of trivia: Billy Dee Williams plays Harvey Dent, who would later become Two-Face, as stated in a contract which, unfortunately for Williams, was later cancelled to cast a more profitable actor (Tommy Lee Jones) in the third movie of the series.

Lots of action, lots of gimmicks, lots of visuals, lots of fun. A must-see, this is the film that revitalized the Batman franchise, and a very enjoyable Burton piece.

“Have you ever danced with the Devil in the pale moonlight?”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Scarface

Director

Brian De Palma

Year

1983

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, June 23, 2005

Ah, Brian De Palma, Brian De Palma… He makes it so hard for us to appreciate his skills sometimes. Luckily, anyone who looks closer can realize he’s a magnificent director. I guess it’s his taste we should blame more often than not. He has done a few fine films, I’ll give you that. The remake of Howard Hawks’ Scarface (1932) ain’t one. But what it is, is one hell of a cult classic. Just yesterday I found myself among people who, for one reason or other, started talking about it, quoting its lines, praising Al Pacino, and just having a good time remembering it. They even said they’d like to see it again soon. I was wondering, Why? Why if it’s overlong and mostly plain bad? One reason might be that they don’t know the original, and aren’t interested to. Most likely, it’s because the film makes up for its lack of quality with loads of flavor, a flavor some people like but not me.

The story follows a very similar structure as the original, however updated. This time, instead of an Italian immigrant we get a Cuban-American, a ruthless criminal from before the film starts, who makes his way from Cuba to Miami and sets to be anything but a conformist. His name is Tony Montana (Al Pacino).

People close to Tony are vital to the story: His loyal friend Manny (Steven Bauer), his lovely sister Gina (Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio), his overconfident boss Frank López (Robert Loggia), and the latter’s girlfriend Elvira (Michelle Pfeiffer).

By means of making every step of the procedure as showy and colorful as possible, De Palma created a campy epic if there ever was one. The dialogue is horrendous and the whole feel, instead of atmospheric, is like a big show setup by a new rich, almost like Montana produced a film about himself. I truly disliked the taste and the aftertaste, and if I had a good time it was on account of Pacino’s dynamic performance and his ability to deliver his lines in such a hilarious way.

Other than that, I really struggled my way through the three hours running time of the film. Instead of booze we get drugs, which is much sleazier and dirtier and uncomfortable a theme, naturally treated with the least possible subtlety by Oliver Stone’s screenplay. One thing I did like however, was the addition of a problem concerning tax evasion, which adds a final fact of Al Capone’s life, something that hadn’t happened by the time the Howard Hawks version was made; it helps add realism and an interesting twist to the story. However, the final shootout follows suit and becomes an incredibly violent (if highly entertaining) scene.

Campy dialogue, campy performances, campy atmosphere, and a campy music score (by Giorgio Moroder), this is what modern generations know as Scarface. Now, isn’t THAT “the shame of a nation”??

“I'm Tony Montana! You fuck with me, you fuckin' with the best!”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

House of Flying Daggers

Director

Zhang Yimou

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, June 22, 2005

As a big fan of Zhang Yimou’s Hero (2002) as I am, I was eagerly anticipating his follow-up movie, especially since everyone kept saying that it was just as good. This trend of stylish Chinese martial arts movies is incredible, and I’m glad the whole world is catching up, since they become more readily available to everyone.

Jin (Takeshi Kaneshiro) is assigned to infiltrate a brothel in order to find a girl who is a member of the “House of Flying Daggers”, a powerful association that is rebelling against the empire. He soon notices Mei (Ziyi Zhang), a beautiful blind woman, and is so smitten by her that he tries to abuse her. But they’re interrupted by fellow soldier Leo (Andy Lau), who arrests both. As it happens, Mei is indeed a so-called traitor, so Jin and Leo make a plan in which Jin frees her and they both escape into the woods, where they expect Mei to lead them to the group’s leader.

I find this movie to be a bit inferior to Yimou’s previous effort. And there are a number of reasons why I feel that way. Even though both movies are visually impressive, I found Hero to be much more jaw-dropping. Most of the action in this movie takes place in the woods, and sometimes the backgrounds aren’t that impressive. I think the cinematographer could’ve taken a lot more from that field with the little white flowers. But as it is, it’s just a beautiful landscape, not an impressive one. I felt this way a lot throughout the movie, although there’s no denying the movie is a feast for the eyes.

It is also a feast for the senses. The story is not that epic in scope, but it’s certainly heart-breaking and way romantic. What could be more intense than two men vying for the love of the same woman with the scope of war in the background? You can be sure the movie has a lot to offer in terms of passion and courage. And the final sequence is mind-blowing.

Perhaps my favorite scene is the one at the beginning in which Mei is forced to play the “echo game”. It is so beautiful and magnetic, I was in awe.

I also liked how the story contained so many twists and turns. Sure, it’s pretty straight-forward, but a lot of surprises are in the way. And that’s good, because there are many slow chunks in which I started to get sleepy. But then something else happened and bang!

As acting goes, everyone is terrific, but the standout for me was Kaneshiro. And Zhang is absolutely gorgeous. What a woman!

“To be free like the wind.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Scarface

Director

Howard Hawks

Year

1932

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, June 21, 2005

Scarface is a fascinating film from its very conception. “Loosely” based on the life of mafia favorite Al Capone (to the point of having as name his very nickname), it denounces the cynicism of crime lords from back in the 20s and 30s, glorified by the media and poorly pursued by the law. Ironically, the film encountered opposition by the censors, who considered it a portrayal in favor and not against such criminal ways. However, the Howard Hughes production managed to maintain most of its integrity, and is usually shown as originally conceived.

The film tells the story of Tony Camonte (Paul Muni), a small-time hit man who soon decides he’ll own the world. Starting small in the service of a man called Johnny Lovo (Osgood Perkins), he soon makes his way into organized crime and becomes a leader himself. Courage and determination is all he needs to overpower his many enemies and surpass his boss. In a town dominated by gangsters who control the booze, Camonte sets to gain distribution of every area and take over every joint. If anyone gets in the way, he might as well end up with a bullet (or more) in the head.

The straightforward tale is made richer by subplots involving Camonte’s relationships: His obsessive affection for sister Cesca (Ann Dvorak), which blinds him with jealousy if any man should come closer to her; his attraction to Lovo’s girlfriend Poppy (Karen Morley), which drives most of these two men’s rivalry; his closeness to long-time friend, the ill-fated Guino Rinaldo (George Raft); and his faith in loyal servant Angelo (Vince Barnett), well-intentioned and slow-witted.

Scarface is a fascinating character from the get-go. On the one side, it’s impossible to dislike such a determined and successful man; on the other, it’s easy to be repulsed by such an unscrupulous sociopath. Though exaggerated every now and then (as ever), Muni does an excellent job of convincing us that he’s more than a power-hungry villain. He goes from monstrous to childlike in just a snap, and he’s credible both ways. He makes it clear that the Italian immigrant who stars this story knew from the very beginning what he was up to and what he would face, and he still chose that path – only at the very end does he break. A complex, insatiable character, Camonte is an icon of gangster films and no wonder.

Scripted by Ben Hecht from a novel by Armitage Trail, the film makes it best to create an emotional drama from an infamous story. Atmospheric and potent, it works at almost every level. Even though it suffers from eventual lags here and there, the pace is extremely effective and more often than not presents heart-pounding sequences, especially those featuring machineguns.

There’s also an extensive use of symbolism in the form of an “X” appearing every time a murder occurs. Though obvious and unsubtle, it sometimes works to foreshadow someone’s death, which is exciting, especially in a scene that recreates the infamous Saint Valentine’s Day Massacre.

Aside from Muni, every actor does a great job. Barnett is notable for his comic relief antics which seem a tad out of place until they turn into poignancy. Special mention goes to C. Henry Gordon as the unstoppable Inspector Ben Guarino, hot on the trail of Camonte. Boris Karloff has a minor role as a gangster.

“There's only one law - do it first, do it yourself, and keep on doing it.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

It's a Wonderful Life

Director

Frank Capra

Year

1946

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, June 20, 2005

What a joyous movie! People mainly know about it because of its status as a Christmas classic. As it happens, Frank Capra’s masterpiece is played in the U.S. during the holiday season every single year. Of course, adults also know about it because it is one of cinema’s classics per excellence. And no matter how many times I see it, I still am amazed by how Capra actually got everyone to love a movie that is all about heart, about decency and about honesty. Sure, those are all good things that people usually respond to, but try naming one movie that embraces them with such fervor and is not dreaded by people who hate sentimentalism. See?

Clarence (Henry Travers), an angel who hasn’t got his wings yet, is called upon one night to help George Bailey (James Stewart), a man who is disillusioned about his life. In order to help him, Clarence gets a glimpse of the main events in George’s life: as he loses hearing in one ear while saving his brother’s life, then helps his father with his good-hearted loans business, then falls in love with childhood pal Mary (Donna Reed) and what ultimately led to his downfall.

I can’t find enough words to praise this movie. Its very first scene in which we only see stars is as charming as inanimate objects onscreen can get. We can sense the movie has humor and heart from then on. Then we’re off to Earth, where we meet George Bailey and go through his life up to that point. Perhaps there isn’t anything cringe-worthy about his existence. I mean, he had an accident when young, girls liked him, he was charming as an adolescent, he fell in love and so on. Yet every single step of the way the movie has a special aura that surrounds it. It is not really about what happens to George or why, but more about how his character is formed and how he faces every circumstance. It could be said it is not much about what happens to him as much as how he is affected and in his way to turning into the man he has become.

That said, what’s so beautiful about this movie is how George’s sole existence always seems to be about the others. It is a wonderful portrayal of a man who had a lot of dreams but found out quite soon that life wasn’t that easy, and that giving it all for other people meant much more than anything else. Of course it doesn’t come easy for George to realize this, but enter God and his angels and a touching lesson is learnt.

And the ending is just one of the most effective and poignant finales ever put on screen, period.

James Stewart needs no praise from me or anyone else. He just proved himself with his work and with this movie he created an American hero unlike anything I’ve seen portrayed in movies before. His charm, talent and persona prove the perfect combination to bring George to life, and he is extraordinary. Also making a great impression is Lionel Barrymorre, as the Baileys’ longtime nemesis, Mr. Potter. Donna Reed, Thomas Mitchell, Henry Travers and the rest of the cast are just the icing on the cake.

“A toast to my big brother George: The richest man in town.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Flash Gordon

Director

Mike Hodges

Year

1980

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, June 16, 2005

Flash Gordon is no doubt the dumbest, campiest film I have seen in a while, and also one of the most entertaining. It’s hard to review a film like this actually. It qualifies as a guilty pleasure but can’t be regarded as a quality film in almost any aspect. I would see it again (and plan to) but I can’t recommend it highly. If anything, it caused me a conflict.

The story from Alex Raymond’s classic 1930s comic strip is almost intact in this adaptation: American Flash Gordon (Sam J. Jones), a football star, gets involved in an intergalactic conflict when the evil emperor of the system Mongo, a tyrant by the name of Ming (Max von Sydow) creates chaos on Earth for fun. Flash’s involvement is quite incidental: he’s on a plane exactly when the disaster begins, which crashes at the laboratory of mad scientist (and visionary) Hans Zarkov (Topol). Flash and fellow survivor Dale Arden (Melody Anderson) are tricked by Zarkov to travel to space with him and stop the moon from crashing with the Earth.

Sounds farfetched? Don’t worry, the film makes sure to make it even worse by filling the scenes with implausible character reactions, unlikely dialogue, and ridiculous twists. It’s all for the fun, I know, but still…

Most performances don’t help either. Jones as Flash is completely bad, his voice dubbed and his persona forgettable. Anderson is also not good as Arden, though she does manage to be fun and convincing somehow. Topol is reliable as ever, as is von Sydow as that terrible emperor. Timothy Dalton as Prince Barin and Brian Blessed as Prince Vultan are quite good, but the standout is Ornella Muti as Princess Aura, Ming’s sadomasochist daughter with a crush on Flash.

The best aspect of the film and probably the one that makes it worthwhile more than any other is the music. My favorite band of all time, Queen, composed a rock score that almost seems to be the raison d’être for this flashy Dino De Laurentiis production. I grew up listening to this music and never saw the film until recently and now I can honestly say it’s a grandiose and unforgettable score. Sometimes the quality of the film mars it, as opposed to what happens in some films where the score doesn’t match the quality of the procedures, but still there’s a lot to enjoy and to behold at every turn. Some of it is dated, granted, but some recognizable Queen trademarks are outstanding. The Flash theme is of course one of the band’s greatest hits, which immortalized some of the movie’s lines like “Flash, Flash, I love you, but we only have 14 hours to save the Earth!” or “Gordon’s alive??” or “What do you mean Flash Gordon approaching?”

At a time when Star Wars (1977) ruled the world, Flash Gordon must have felt like a bad joke for the audience. I don’t know exactly how it did commercially, but a cliffhanger in the end (literally an onscreen text saying “THE END?”) obviously became nothing. This film is almost irrelevant by now, except for Queen’s score, but it’s still good for laughs.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Head On

Director

Ana Kokkinos

Year

1998

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, June 15, 2005

I went to see Head On to the kind of arty cinema where movies that barely anyone has seen get a chance at some attention. There are movies from other countries that, for endless reasons, don’t manage to cross over so you have to go and discover them all by yourself. I like this process. Sometimes the movies are terrible, but other times there are those that are true gems.

Ari (Alex Dimitriades) is a 19-year old Greek boy living in Australia, where immigrants are not widely accepted and live in closely-knitted communities. Everyone keeps telling Ari to settle down, find a job, get married, but somehow all he wants is to be left alone, for he is young, likes to party and he also happens to be gay.

The first thing that comes to mind is that this is not a movie for everyone. It is quite explicit in the gay aspect of the story. Yet it’s nothing out of the ordinary. It’s not exploitative, and I found that every single scene had a meaning and was there to achieve the overall movie’s point. Sure, we’re not used to see this kind of images, but they’re real, they’re there for a reason and they do what they have to do.

Then again, I refuse to catalogue this movie as “gay” or any adjective of the kind, because for me it is the story of a single individual going through a difficult phase with which anyone can identify: adolescence. Sure, in his case it is a little bit more difficult because of his origins, his family, the pressure on him and the fact that he’s gay in an environment where this is not accepted. But at the end of the day everything is reduced to the usual sort of adolescence problems involving drugs, sex, partying, finding your own identity and understanding your place in the world.

Director Ana Kokkinos starts his movie as a light romp into Ari’s existence. But gradually things start to get darker and that’s where we realize this isn’t just a pretty, superficial story. When the movie ended I felt so sad and I knew that was entirely the point. It is a movie about the emptiness a human being can get to feel and the means with which we try to disguise it. It is a universal theme, and very well explored.

It is also about a phase of confusion and revenge. A scene at the end that starts with Ari being told by a nice guy that he is falling in love with him is heartbreaking, but for all the wrong reasons. Its outcome is completely unexpected and it wraps things up brilliantly.

Alex Dimitriades as Ari is a complete revelation. I’m actually disappointed to realize the guy just didn’t break out after this movie. He got awards, nominations and accolades galore, but somehow didn’t do it. Too bad. But still, his performance here will last. And he’s absolutely terrific and magnetic in the role. And so is everyone in the cast playing smaller roles.

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Batman Begins

Director

Christopher Nolan

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, June 14, 2005

Bob Kane’s comic book character “The Batman” was intended as a figure of darkness, a man living among shadows, unsympathetic, unforgiving, and yet just and humane. The notion of a superhero living in the real world cannot be anything but absurd, except if there is simply no other way to fight an uncontrollable crime wave. That’s what the Batman is all about.

However, throughout the years, hardly has the so-called “caped crusader” received such respect. Even in the hands of Bob Kane, driven perhaps by the commercial success of his comic book character and the pressure of its publishers, the hero became a caricature, then a self-parody, and then everything but what it was meant to be. The campy TV show is unforgivable in this way (though a classic for different reasons) and it seems to have foreshadowed the eternal destiny of the dark knight: To begin seriously and end jokingly, mercilessly disfigured by commercialism.

Luckily enough, after the film franchise also died from the same ailment, the character has been resurrected, and how. Influenced no doubt by several graphic novels which dealt with the modern legend in an honorable, mythical way, and treated by several screenwriters before a script was settled, Batman Begins is hands down the best Batman film ever made and the finest portrayal of this character in any audiovisual format.

I’m so excited about it, I can hardly put it into words, but I’ll try. This film deals with the classic Batman legend without any bastardization or modernization except the obligatory, technologically and culturally speaking, which is fine.

Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) is lost and wounded ever since his parents’ death, and in his journeys to far lands he meets a group of mysterious people willing to share with him their ideals and training. These people are led by a man called Ra’s Al Ghul (Ken Watanabe), though another enigmatic man, Ducard (Liam Neeson), becomes Bruce’s mentor. The training Bruce gets is brutal, but he also learns to deal with his wounds by way of facing his fears and becoming them, instead of giving in to anger. (The way this “dark side” aspect of the film is dealt with is something I wish was in the recent Star Wars trilogy.)

Born again, Bruce returns to Gotham City, welcomed only by his butler Alfred (Michael Caine); everyone else either considers him dead or doesn’t give a damn, and Bruce isn’t too interested to gain them back. Instead, he’s concerned that the city his parents so loved has become such a mess, controlled by gangsters (namely one Carmine Falcone, played with gusto by Tom Wilkinson) and driven by fear. Bruce soon understands his destiny, and faces it in style. Using his own company’s technological research area, and the man in charge (Morgan Freeman), he gets very well equipped, and ready for action – in a credible way. (Special mention: the Batmobile rocks!!!)

This film is indeed careful to make Batman a believable character, one that could be around and wouldn’t look like a clown. The town’s need for him is clear, and his own motivations are clear, and why he dresses like that is clear, and what his equipment is… is clear. It’s still not 100% credible, but at least it’s easier to buy. I’m all for it.

Batman looks for the aid of anyone who might be on his side. Two people stand out: Sergeant Jim Gordon (Gary Oldman) and prosecutor Rachel Dawes (Katie Holmes), who also happens to be his childhood friend. Carmine’s web of crime seems to extend to the most vicious levels, as seen through the aid of Dr. Jonathan Crane (Cillian Murphy), whose experiments with fear-inducing substances are more dangerous than initially calculated.

This character, also known as The Scarecrow in the comic books, has a welcome appearance in a film whose center theme is fear. In a time when paranoia takes center stage in our world, with masses ruthlessly driven by fear induced by their governments and other powerful agents, the story rings truer than it could ever before. David S. Goyer and Nolan elegantly weave a tale that manages to be true to its core and intertwine every subplot and character into one central storyline. Never boring, always growing in interest and tension, Batman Begins is one genius piece of writing, from the first act of Bruce’s training, to the second of his establishment, to the third of his struggle.

What I liked the most about this film was the treatment of Bruce Wayne’s character. I like how he’s weak and clumsy sometimes and how he makes wrong decisions and how he falls into temptation and how he’s seen as an empty playboy. There’s one particular scene where he decides to spill the beans to certain person about his identity, which is the opposite of what any other such character usually does in films, and which for the first time seemed like a genuine reaction to me. Why wouldn’t he say what he said? He needed to! Awesome.

The performances are pretty good, though admittedly, this is not the kind of film to showcase tours-de-force. Michael Caine for instance, though granted some lines full of wisdom and poignancy, is one of the actors who shines less. Gary Oldman is perhaps the showiest, but Liam Neeson also leaves a strong impression. Holmes and Murphy are fine, Freeman routinely good, and Watanabe hardly enjoyable in so little screen time. Oh, but Bale saves the day. He’s the best Batman I’ve ever seen. It was about time this fine actor made a superstardom move.

If I miss something from previous films, it’s probably 1989’s Batman’s production design and overall gloomy feel. However, Batman Begins’ Gotham is more appropriate considering the way the city is treated by the story. I’m only a bit melancholy, but it’s a very very minor quibble. Talking about quibbles, and real ones, the cliffhanger in the end is shameless. How could they? It’s not like we don’t expect a sequel! Oh well.

Great, GREAT work by Christopher Nolan. Brave work. The kind that doesn’t demerit a great director only because it’s commercial work. How great of him to be involved in this.

Finally, pretty good accompaniment of Hans Zimmer’s and James Newton Howard’s music score. Nothing spectacular, but appropriate enough.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Mean Girls

Director

Mark Waters

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, June 13, 2005

When I saw Mean Girls coming I literally thought: “not another teen movie!” And I was actually happy it did good business because back then I was really cheering up for Lindsay Lohan to succeed and have a triumphant transition from girl to woman on-screen. And then, to my surprise, the movie was greeted with enthusiastic reviews from critics. A girly movie getting good reviews…? I had to see that for myself. I was officially interested.

Cady (Lindsay Lohan) grew up in Africa. She was schooled by her parents, so when they have to move to the U.S. and she has to get into a normal high school it’s quite a shock for everybody. Cady finds herself in a world she doesn’t know, and has a terrible first day. At first she befriends some people that could be called the misfits. But soon Regina (Rachel McAdams) sets her eyes on her and it’s a completely different story. As it happens, Regina leads a trio of girls known as The Plastics who are the most gorgeous and popular specimens around. Cady decides to have some fun getting to know their weird little world and becomes their “friend”; but soon she finds herself as part of them and that’s when everything really starts to change.

Mean Girls is based upon the book “Queen bees and wannabees”, written by Rosalind Wiseman to tip parents how to help their daughters through high school. It was adapted as a screenplay by SNL alumni Tina Fey, who did a wonderful job in translating the mordant and witty humor to a movie that could’ve otherwise been silly and completely unoriginal. From the first 10 minutes you know you’re in for something different and a little bit above par.

And what is it that makes it better than other movies of the sort? To start off, it is an intelligent movie. It’s a satire in every sense of the world, portraying the high school world as some sort of survival competition. It captures every single nuance, feeling and sentiment of that specific age when girls are starting to grow up and finding their place in the world. A savage world, that is.

The movie has some sequences that are absolutely hilarious and over-the-top, and the portrayal of the superficial Plastics is dead-on. The humor is all over the place, from sweet to black to blacker, but always with its tongue firmly in its cheek. The only problem I found with the movie is that it is not able to maintain this kind of level for its entire running length. The last half hour turns into the usual prom denouement which we’ve seen countless times in movies before. Too bad they didn’t manage to satirize even that.

Lohan became an overnight star after this movie was released. And no wonder. She’s absolutely magnetic, able to control her acting and transitions as to always seem believable. She is ably supported by Rachel McAdams, another very talented performer, and the rest of the teenage cast, which includes Lacey Chabert. Tina Fey herself and SNL Amy Poehler appear in brief but solid turns.

A surprising movie at every turn.

“I know it may look like I was being like a bitch, but that's only because I was acting like a bitch.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith

Director

George Lucas

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, June 09, 2005

Now that the prequel trilogy of Star Wars is thankfully over, I can happily say that in my heart it’s not and will never be a part of the original saga. Even seeing Darth Vader appear in this one didn’t match him in my mind with the Lord of the Sith from the previous trilogy. And that’s a good thing, because I would be very disappointed of his character otherwise. However, I can also say that the aftertaste of this new trilogy isn’t so bad after this last movie. Neither of the three was too good, but they were all enjoyable somehow, if you could leave out the bastardization of all the concepts that we knew and loved.

The story follows Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones as war unleashes, and the Jedi defend the Republic little suspecting that it’s all a scheme by Supreme Chancellor Palpatine (Ian McDiarmid) who is setting them up to gain power and eventually destroy them. His tool? Young Anakin Skywalker (Hayden Christensen), confused and disappointed, and now even fearsome, who might just turn to the dark side, to which Palpatine belongs as Lord of the Sith.

This film offers a lot to talk about, both good and bad. For the good, well, it has a tragic storyline sprinkled with fun sequences. For the bad, it’s all pretty shallow and relies too damn heavily on visual effects. Yes, they’re impressive, but too much to bear or even make sense sometimes. The characters are one-note at best but somehow their pledges are believable, yet the performances, as usual with Lucas, don’t help at all: Natalie Portman, for instance, is so limited you can see the talent yelling inside, unable to be heard; Samuel L. Jackson, Jimmy Smits, Christopher Lee and others don’t do much better. McDiarmid is pretty good, as is Ewan McGregor (as Obi-Wan Kenobi), and surprisingly, I didn’t quite dislike Christensen’s performance like other critics did.

The first half is all visual effects baloney and dreadful dialogue exchange that made me wonder why some people were praising the film at all. Towards the end however, it all got interesting, perhaps on account of us knowing what would happen and the pieces falling into place so elegantly. Of course it’s full of inconsistencies with the original trilogy, but who cares; fact is, despite the bad performances, awful dialogue, and inconsistencies with the original trilogy, as well as some unforgivable treatment of a couple of characters, it’s a good cinematic experience, well-worth watching, and certainly worth praising for its masterful craft and execution. I hate it but I love it. Very good climax and conclusion, and an admirable extermination sequence that I’m dying to watch again.

A John Williams score, as well as many other typical elements of the saga are present… But again, to me, this is not a part of the saga.

“This is how liberty dies. With thunderous applause.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Undertow

Director

David Gordon Green

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, June 08, 2005

Have you never heard of this movie? Don’t feel bad, neither do most people out there. As a matter of fact, the only reason I have heard of it is because of Roger Ebert. Yes, it’s true. He is arguably the most influential living critic out there, and I have to say I do read his reviews and visit his website now and then. And that’s how I noticed Undertow. Ebert gave it a four star review when he saw it at a film festival. Now, Ebert does give that rating to a lot of movies, I know, but still I was intrigued. Then, the first chance I had, I went to see it.

Chris (Jamie Bell) and his little brother Tim (Devon Alan) live with their father (Dermot Mulroney) who, after their mother died, moved to the countryside and decided to raise his children there and on his own. That also means they would help him with everyday work, something they’re not fond of, especially problematic Chris. But when their father’s brother Deel (Josh Lucas) arrives after years of absence, their quiet life is turned upside down. It turns out Deel has certain motives for showing up, and soon Chris and Tim find themselves on the road running away from their uncle.

Director David Gordon Green has been making a name for himself after having directed only a few movies. I’ve only seen this one, but apparently his style is pretty evident and he has found a certain voice that is quite recognizable. Judging from this movie, I can say he is a director that does not limit himself to conventions. The story he’s telling might not sound original at all, but the proceedings prove otherwise. He is more about the internal than about the external, and that’s always an interesting trait.

During the opening credits sequence, Green uses a lot of camera and editing tricks that, to be honest, felt totally unnecessary. I actually thought he would be kind of a show-off and that the whole movie would be plagued with that kind of stuff, but no, he only uses those tricks sporadically, so I forgave him.

Otherwise, I liked the pace, I liked the story and I liked the characters. Undertow is sort of a road movie, so you know there’s going to be a lot of colorful characters in the way to meet. I’m glad the director decided not to fall into cliché and show some rather extravagant people, but otherwise pretty normal, real ones. And the relationship between Chris and Tim is beautifully treated. It is in part Chris’s movie, as we witness his transition from problem child to responsible caretaker, but it’s all done in such a way that it does not feel manipulative. Chris never loses his essence, and that’s what makes things more rooted.

The performances are all top-notch. Jamie Bell has always looked to me like a very talented actor, and as he grows up he continues to get better. Devon Alan is also extraordinary as fragile Tim. And the adults fare just as well, with Mulroney and Lucas excellent in their respective roles.

Kudos to Philip Glass’s score as well!

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Oliver!

Director

Carol Reed

Year

1968

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, June 07, 2005

Now and then a highly popular musical, praised by critics and multi-awarded even at the Oscars, Oliver! is indeed a cinematic pleasure, if not necessarily a faithful adaptation of the Charles Dickens classic “Oliver Twist”, or one of the most entertaining ones at that on account of its story. Lionel Bart’s play benefits from the tale’s rich rendering of time and society and transmits through his beautiful music and lyrics a series of feelings and experiences of the people from the late Georgian era in Britain. The result of Carol Reed’s film based on that play is a very theatrical but sumptuous musical worth its prestige.

The well-known story has young orphan Oliver Twist (Mark Lester) challenging his caretakers at his orphanage/workhouse under pressure by his peers, and consequently rejected and taken outside. At first trained in a funeral parlor, he soon runs away from abuse and lands in London, where he meets a very charismatic, upbeat young boy known as The Artful Dodger (Jack Wild).

This boy brings to his life a new hope and takes him to Fagin (Ron Moody), an eccentric man who offers roof and food to several pickpocket children who work for him. Oliver soon becomes one of them and is initially overwhelmed by what seems to be an exciting adventure. Yet, when accused of one of the Dodger’s crimes, and picked up out of pity by kind Mr. Brownlow (Joseph O’Conor), he’s frantically pursued by Fagin and a former pupil of his—now a vicious robber—Bill Sikes (Oliver Reed). Only Nancy (Shani Wallis), Sikes’ girlfriend and as well a former Fagin protégé, is worth of Oliver’s trust.

I quite enjoyed Dickens’ book and especially David Lean’s adaptation, mostly on account of the mystery that’s splashed throughout the storyline. Bart’s approach is more candid and, even though it is rather cruel, it’s not as much as the story was originally conceived. I’ve thought about it and come to terms with it. Omitting the character of Monks is a risky move, but it displays Fagin in a friendlier light and makes him much more likable, which is mostly what this film is all about.

You see, this is Fagin’s movie, and he’s a very very memorable character: whimsical, funny, and a grown-up rascal. Moody is unspeakably good in the part. Sikes is the one villain here and he certainly is horrifying, but Reed manages to make him scary instead of nasty, which is good. The other standout is Wild as The Artful Dodger, a scene-stealer if there ever was one.

The music? Unforgettable. Songs like “Where Is Love”, “Consider Yourself”, “You’ve Got to Pick a Pocket or Two”, “Who Will Buy?”, “Reviewing the Situation”, etcetera, are either fun, heartbreaking, or both, and they’re beautifully staged and choreographed. Some musical numbers go on for too long, but it’s a minor quibble. The singing voices are also something to behold.

A tribute more to music than to Dickens, this is a worthwhile film, if not a must-see, but pretty damn good.

“Please sir, I want some more.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Hostage

Director

Florent Emilio Siri

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, June 06, 2005

I was almost dragged to see Hostage. It was one of those days when I have absolutely nothing to do so going to the movies to see anything is a better option than just sitting around. That day, this Bruce Willis-actioner was the best option among a slate of movies that had zero appeal to me, so I bought my ticket. Truth is, I had a great time! It is certainly better than I expected.

Jeff Talley (Bruce Willis) is a SWAT member and a highly respected kidnap negotiator until a rather traumatic incident takes place which leads him to take a job as a local cop in a smaller city where almost nothing happens. That is, until a trio of burglars (Ben Foster, Jonathan Tucker and Marshall Allman) break into the house of a millionaire, Walter Smith (Kevin Pollak), with two children: Jennifer (Michelle Horn) and Tommy (Jimmy Bennett). From then on, it’s a cat-and-mouse game between the cops, the delinquents and a third party: mysterious people who need a DVD that is inside the house, containing not-so-clean movements on the part of Walter, and which Jeff must get for them before they kill his family.

Why is Hostage not as bad a movie as it sounds? Three words: Florent Emilio Siri. From the opening sequence during which a certain movie situation we’ve seen countless times is treated with such flair and expertise I knew I wasn’t in for a typical, by-the-numbers thriller. Hostage is the first American movie from the director, and I sure hope he stays there, because with even better material you can sense he can be able to make wonders.

As I said, the first half hour of the movie is a shock as to how good it is. It’s fast, thrilling, involving and surprising. The director establishes a certain visual style and goes for it throughout the entire movie. He loves wide shots and knows how to use them without appearing pretentious. There’s an especially intriguing scene where the camera follows the people in one car, then turns to another other and, in an intersection, actually turns to a third one. Looks simple, but isn’t. And it creates a claustrophobic atmosphere even when no one has been locked, kidnapped or tied down yet.

I also liked the family interactions in the film. There are many, and they’re all different but believable. And they all give each character an extra dimension necessary to actually care for anyone. I also liked how the movie avoided certain easy traps and turned them around, such as having young Tommy actually behaving in a clever manner, and not just as a stupid movie kid would.

Then again, the movie does have its flaws. It is never able to sustain its initial level. The main villain crosses the line and becomes a caricature at the end. And there are action sequences that feel like been there, done that.

Oh, and there’s a certain treat involving an old classic for movie buffs, who will crunch in their seats during a rather nerve-wracking scene that pokes fun at the remake-mania.

Acting-wise the movie is strong, with cast that is well-directed and just a few false notes.

Also, great Alexandere Desplat score. Classy!

“Fucking rich people.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Oliver Twist

Director

David Lean

Year

1948

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, June 02, 2005

Charles Dickens’ masterful novel “Oliver Twist” is not necessarily the best read I’ve made. I liked it, yes, and a lot, but I did consider its storytelling to be heavy-handed and eventually a tad boring. It left a nice aftertaste though, but it felt like a triumph to get through, which saddened me since it was so full of rich characters and outstanding descriptions of time and place.

David Lean’s film adaptation is simply the perfect way to film this story. It contains much of the characters’ complexity (though some were cut out) and most or all of the important storylines, while rendering eye-poppingly a late Georgian era in London.

The story begins as young orphan Oliver Twist (John Howard Davies) is repudiated from his workhouse/home for asking for more food, by now an epic event of great significance in literature and cinema. The beadle Mr. Bumble (Francis L. Sullivan) takes the boy to town in order to get him into a trade and just let him go, and thus begin the misadventures of young Oliver.

Not able to cope with the injustice and abuse he finds in his new home, Oliver makes for London, where he meets a young thief known as the Artful Dodger (Anthony Newley). This boy takes our hero to his mentor and “caretaker” Fagin (Alec Guinness), who welcomes Oliver with open arms. However, as Oliver gets into trouble with the law, strange occurrences begin to surround him, as some bigger forces seem interested in keeping him in the dark, while others become obsessed with finding him. On the one side, there are the mysterious Monks (Ralph Truman) and the nasty thief Bill Sikes (Robert Newton); on the other, the kind Mr. Brownlow (Henry Stephenson) and the compassionate Mrs. Bedwin (Amy Veness).

The story takes Oliver to several places and situations, but soon it becomes clear that it’s not only he but what he means that moves the story forward. This gives the rest of the characters a chance to develop and they do beautifully, with screenwriters Stanley Haynes and Lean himself allowing them to in every possible way. The superior photography of Guy Green and the haunting music of Arnold Bax accentuate the intensity of the procedures. By the end of the ride, which by the way is quick and constantly fun as opposed to the book’s, we’re as hooked as can be, and as brokenhearted as we’re joyous.

The performances are something to behold. Guinness is especially notable in a controversial performance as the Jew. Sullivan easily steals his scenes as that subdued husband Mr. Bumble. Michael Dear has a very good scene as Noah Claypole, and Kay Walsh is unforgettable as the ill-fated Nancy. Newton as Sikes is over-the-top but believable nonetheless. And Stephenson and Veness show such a heartbreak in some scenes that one can’t help the tears from flowing. Davies is enjoyable as Oliver, but as it’s always been, his character is the one that shines the least. Here, the Dodger isn’t all that shiny either. Nevertheless, really amazing work by all.

A must-see film, this is an early masterpiece by one of the most masterful directors this world has seen.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones

Director

George Lucas

Year

2002

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, June 01, 2005

Guess what? Attack of the Clones is much better than Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999). No biggie there, since its predecessor was just very disappointing. But ultimately it’s a relief to realize that Lucas can improve upon his latest self. And that trend is certainly present in the third, and last, movie of the trilogy. Then again, let's get into what we're being presented here.

The thing I feared the most about this movie was how awful the dialogue would be. I was right in my suspicions, since there are times when the dialogue is so bad that it's almost unbearable to listen to. I found this problem more in the first quarter of the movie and during some of Anakin and Padmé's romantic scenes. I also think that every scene where the main Jedi sit in a circle discussing the present circumstances are boring. They were in its predecessor and that does not change here.

Then again, that's about all I didn't like about this movie. Everything else was right-on for me. I loved the way the movie, as a whole, plays as one thing embodied in two: a history lesson in the form of a detective-like thriller and a romance. I think it is fascinating the way Lucas plays with history this time around, giving us hints of what's to come, of why some future things happened and also telling us how the story of these characters started.

I also liked the romance between Anakin and Padmé. It is cheesy and somewhat unbelievable (the notion of little Anakin having fallen in love with her since he was a child... come on!), but it grants the movie the so much-needed heart that the previous movie lacked. With so many special effects and artificiality surrounding everything, it was nice to have a love story inserted in there. Part of why the first trilogy worked so well had to do with the connection we established with the characters and I'm glad that feeling is somewhat back. Besides, Hayden Christensen and Natalie Portam make an appealing couple.

Acting is better all around. Christensen is quite good. He was a great choice to play this part because he can be both compelling and lovable, but we also believe the dark side that starts to grow inside him. On the other hand, it was great to see lovely Ms. Portman not acting only as a robot, which was the case in the previous installment. And she’s as beautiful as ever. Ewan McGregor is also really good this time around. I really enjoyed his part in this movie because I always like mystery and how they discover things. The problem with these movies is not only the bad dialogue, but the fact that Lucas is not such a good actors' director. In the hands of another director these talented people would deliver much better, rich performances. Fortunately, Portman, McGregor and Christensen manage to elevate the things they have to say, but that doesn’t obscure the fact that they could all be better.

And Yoda... so cool. His fight scene is amazing, but it's also too short. I wanted more!

Oh, and I loved the visuals in this movie. They’re beautiful, original, creative and eye-opening. I especially loved Naboo and that planet where the clones were made.

Overall I'm glad to say I wasn't disappointed. It stands, for me, as the fifth best among the six Star Wars movies, but that is not necessarily a bad thing even if it sounds like it.

“Why do I get the feeling you're going to be the death of me?”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter