CriticSociety- film reviews

Review

The Brave

Director

Johnny Depp

Year

1997

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, June 29, 2006

I was a little confused when a friend of mine recommended The Brave, a Johnny Depp-directed film starring himself and Marlon Brando. Confused because I wasn’t sure I’d heard about it and it didn’t seem like many people knew it—some critics, in fact, ignored it in their résumés of Brando and even Depp—I researched and found the reason: Depp presented this film at the Cannes Film Festival to disastrous heat from American critics. Upset, he refused to show his film back home, and to this day it hasn’t been released in the US. A pity, if you ask me; this is not a classic or a masterpiece by any means, but it’s quite worth watching, if not for its intriguing story or Depp’s sincere delivery, at least for a few minutes of Brando onscreen.

The story comes from Gregory McDonald’s novel of the same name which is hailed as a masterpiece by several readers and critics, whose descriptions make it look like it’s even more gut-wrenching than the film adaptation. It concerns a down-on-his-luck Native American called Raphael (Johnny Depp) who takes a job he hears about in a bar. The initial sequence is beautiful, as it shows Raphael heading towards the place where he’ll apply for the job, with such tranquility and peace that it only makes it more shocking when we find out what it’s all about.

He gets to a dark, sleazy place, where a nasty man called Larry (Marshall Bell), treating him with great disrespect, conducts him to an even creepier room to meet McCarthy (Marlon Brando). It is unclear who this man, who moves around in a very peculiar wheelchair, is or what he does, but he speaks clearly to Raphael about their new agreement: he’s going to get paid $50,000 to get killed a week later.

Why and how, is barely developed in the film; while the novel graphically describes a snuff film that Raphael is going to star in, the movie makes it look like it’s all for McCarthy’s sick needs. It’s not important though; what matters is that Raphael knows he’s going to be tortured and killed, and he still goes through with it.

Paid one third in advance, Raphael goes back to his family, buys them gifts and tries to spend a worthwhile last week. His wife Rita (Elpidia Carrillo) is by now unattached to and disappointed by her unemployed, alcoholic, ex-con husband, but she ends up believing that this is clean money and falls into his spell. Not only does Raphael clean up his act with his wife that week, but he also rebuilds his relationship with his children, especially his son, and reevaluates his criminal life with his vicious ex-partner Luis (Luis Guzmán). Everything looks brighter and better as the days go by, but his appointment with death is still there, as reminded by Larry who keeps coming back, every time with more dreadful comments and threatening actions.

Raphael’s community lives next to a garbage dump and their living can hardly be called that. The existence of these people is a living hell, but Raphael’s decision is potentially another kind of hell for himself and his family. There’s a very important character in the form of Father Stratton (Clarence Williams III), who talks some sense into Raphael though it seems too late. After all, the young man’s existence looks like a dead end regardless of his decision.

I hear the novel is much better, and much sadder, but I don’t see why this movie shouldn’t be shown to any audience. Depp’s work in front and behind the camera is effective and deeply moving, and Brando’s presence is a constant though he only appears a few minutes as he used to do at the end of his career. I also enjoyed the rest of the cast thoroughly, including Floyd ‘Red Crow’ Westerman as Raphael’s father who gives us some precious moments.

Iggy Pop’s music score is also a great asset and gives an extra touch to the very sensible theme. I really liked this film. I hope Mr. Depp co-scripts and directs some more.

“The final measure of bravery is to stand up to death.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

5x2

Director

François Ozon

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, June 28, 2006

One day after I saw The Break-Up (2006), I had the pleasure to watch what could be considered to be a French version of the same theme in 5x2. The movies have barely anything in common, except that they both deal with, well, a break-up. It was interesting to see the difference between the Hollywood treatment and a foreign one back-to-back. They are both flawed if interesting movies, and they both suffer a bit precisely because of where they come from. The Break-Up is too American, too broad, while 5x2 is too French, too cold. Perhaps a mixture of both could’ve resulted in the perfect one, but if I had to choose between the two I wouldn’t hesitate to go with director François Ozon’s.

Marion (Valeria Bruni-Tedeschi) and Gilles (Stéphane Freiss) are a married couple whose divorce is just about to be finalized. As they entangle in what could be the last time they have sex together, the movie goes back and shows us how their relationship deteriorated through time.

François Ozon is one of those directors who aren’t afraid of tackling new territory. He goes from genre to genre with each movie, but the impressive thing about it is that he almost always succeeds. I personally am a big fan of his 8 Women (2002), which is a murder mystery that becomes a musical from time to time. 5x2 couldn’t be farther from that effort, with its brush of reality, crude statement about relationships and overall starkness in its storytelling.

The movie employs the trick of telling its story starting at the end and ending at the beginning. It may read as an unnecessary gimmick, but Ozon imbues his movie with a poignancy that it wouldn’t have if he would’ve presented his story in linear fashion. The director even toys with the audience, for sometimes we think we know why a certain character is reacting in a certain way, only to find out a scene or two later that we were wrong. It gives the movie a certain air of unpredictability and tension amidst a story that we know how is going to end.

Its greatest success is in its careful examination of what makes a couple tickle, what makes men and women different, and how when things start badly they’re almost always destined to end badly. It’s most of all, a very real depiction of how a couple’s passion and likeness starts to deteriorate through time if they don’t do something about it. It clearly shows that people don’t change, so any inherent virtues or flaws at the beginning will only increase in magnitude as lack of patience takes over through the years. We’re dealing here with very relatable themes, even though the movie has a certain cold aura that makes it hard to identify with the characters on a more personal level.

The two actors who carry the film on their shoulders are uniformly excellent. Freiss is not very likable, but his character is not intended to be. He accompanies the inner journey with an equally believable physical one. And he and Bruni are able to transmit the feeling of being completely enchanted with each other as they are to convey the disgust they end up feeling. Bruni is heart-breaking and perfect every step of the way. I especially liked her during the sequence involving a dinner party.

Ozon wrote the script with Emmanuele Bernheim, but most important of all, he succeeded in transmitting his intentions into a visual manner. Good work with the cinematography and music also helped.

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Phantom of the Opera

Director

Rupert Julian

Year

1925

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, June 27, 2006

The first known film adaptation of Gaston Leroux’s famous novel “Le Fantôme de l’Opéra” is by far the best-remembered and most successful, due in great part to its star, Lon Chaney, but also indeed to the great quality and care put into the production. The result is a sumptuous time-traveling experience that takes us to 19th century Paris, every last corner of its Opera House, and furthermore, the intriguing and labyrinthine catacombs above which it was built.

Only after they have signed the proper documents to acquire the Opera House, the two new owners are informed by the previous ones that, “incidentally”, there’s talk of a “ghost” haunting the place. They dismiss the warning, but soon start suspecting it just might be true, not only because everyone’s talking about it but also because the Phantom starts manifesting himself. As it seems, he has become obsessed with a young singer, Christine Daaé (Mary Philbin), currently the understudy of a star called Carlotta (Mary Fabian). When he starts sending letters of blackmail to Carlotta’s mother and the Opera House’s administration, they start worrying. He wants Christine to play on stage and shine like she deserves. They don’t obey, and it’s then that the Phantom, and a chandelier, take center stage.

But Christine isn’t all that aware that the Phantom is just a man, and not just any man but that mysterious voice she’s been hearing through the walls of her room. She’s been tutored and supported, but now she’s the reason why people are getting hurt. The enchanting voice commands Christine to snub her lover, Vicomte Raoul de Chagny (Norman Kerry) and devote herself to the music and to her Master, namely himself. Then he gets so carried away that he invites her to his home, which she enters through a passage in her own room—one of the many paths the Phantom knows to perfection which allow him to move around freely.

So Christine meets the Phantom (Lon Chaney), the man behind a mask who is also responsible for the haunting and the disaster. She’s horrified, but he casts a spell on her through his charm and wit. He takes her far below to a place of old dungeons and torture chambers, connected via a black, forgotten river. That is his home, and he wants Christine to be his bride. She’s not too happy with the idea.

The way the film presents its story, first by giving us the perspective from the Opera House, where the Phantom is considered to be a mad spirit with great power and talent, and then by presenting us the man behind the legend, and the place where he lives, is a triumph in itself. As stated before, production values are top-notch, and it never even remotely occurred to me that what I was seeing was a set built miles away from Paris. It’s all so realistic and fantastic that it fits the story to a tee; in fact, it influenced the way it would be presented in its numerous further adaptations, making this the definitive film version of Leroux’s novel.

Chaney is beyond words as the Phantom, so much so that his name has become a synonym to this famous role despite the fact that he starred in countless films and played many famous “monsters” so memorably. He owns the film and commands the screen at every turn, behind the mask or showing his face. Designer of his own make-up, he created one of the immortal horror characters on film. There’s a lot of weight on the Phantom’s aspect, and it truly horrifies. Matter of fact, the scene where Christine unmasks him is a classic in itself and as terrifying as ever. No less effective is the “Bal Masque” scene where the Phantom appears dressed in red and wearing a skull mask, calling everyone’s attention. That scene and a few others are presented in two-color Technicolor for extra punch.

The minor quibble I had was the lack of development of the relationships between Christine and the Phantom; the love and respect she gets to feel for him, maybe out of pity, as presented by Leroux, are almost gone here. The Phantom is presented as a madman from the moment things start getting out of control, and I would’ve liked to see his transition more clearly. Other than that, this is first-rate entertainment from every possible point of view; a classic!

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Break-Up

Director

Peyton Reed

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, June 26, 2006

I admire The Break-Up much more than what you’re about to read. I admire director Peyton Reed and stars Vince Vaughn and Jennifer Aniston for having the guts to do a movie they knew they would have to take a lot of heat about. Universal marketed it as “the funny movie of the summer”, taking advantage of the light rep of the two stars and wanting to cash in as much as possible before the truth was out there. As it happens, the movie opened and surprised everyone. It is edgier and much more serious than it appeared. And even though it’s filled with flaws, I applaud anyone who risks going against the tide and comes up with something more personal and interesting instead of simply taking the easy route.

Gary (Vince Vaughn) and Brooke (Jennifer Aniston) were doing so well in their relationship that they opted to buy an apartment and move in together. Little could they know that some time later their relationship would deteriorate to the point of breaking up. By then, no one wants to leave the condo, which they continue to share while an ugly war starts to take shape.

It’s almost shocking to look back on the movie and realize that Jeremy Garelick and Jay Lavender’s script contains barely any laugh. The first half hour is somewhat lighter and friendlier, but that’s just an illusion, as the movie quickly becomes a series of attempts by two people to make each other as miserable as possible. The intentions vary, that’s for sure, but the movie is essentially a dissection of how two people who used to (or still) love each other can become the worst of enemies. What’s even harder to swallow is the fact that this isn’t a satire or a broad comedy, it is dead serious, and at times becomes unequivocally disturbing.

I do have to point out that I don’t say this in a negative light. The movie is what it is, and I liked what they all were trying to do, which is to present an ugly side of everyone’s life at some point and do it as realistically as possible. Now, this certainly isn’t Bergman, but for a big-budget Hollywood movie it definitely is a rarity. I admire how the movie becomes tougher scene after scene. At the beginning Gary and Brooke have a fight that makes us, and even them, smile. It’s playful and it’s between two people who know each other very well. But those cracks in the relationship eventually become bigger, and by the time the movie is 2/3 into its running length you won’t believe the magnitude of the fights between these two.

The main problem I had was that this could’ve been a more intelligent and refined study into what makes men and women different. As it is, I found Gary to be a total jerk. I’m sure they both had something to do with how their relationship turned out, but the movie makes Gary somewhat unsympathetic. You can see Brooke isn’t perfect, but she does try hard to make it work and she does want to get him back. There is some sort of soul-searching as things settle down a bit, but by then it was too late for me. Without spoiling anything for you, I myself wanted them to just break up and go on with their lives. Not only are they completely incompatible, but my take is that Brooke deserved much better.

Another interesting aspect is the use of supporting characters. There are plenty of them, and the cast they got is impressive. But one scene we’re watching the cruel reality of a couple in problems, and the next we get a scene with a supporting character that is either a caricature, too awkward to take seriously or just plain over-the-top. There’s a scene involving Brooke’s brother (John Michael Higgins) at a dinner party that is almost painful to watch. We’re just as uncomfortable as Gary, which might’ve been the whole point, but it doesn’t fit for it doesn’t ring true at all. Ditto for every scene with Brooke’s weird employer (Judy Davis) and her effeminate co-worker (Justin Long). Then there are Gary’s two best friends (Jon Favreau and Jason Bateman), who have the thankless roles of listening and reacting to their friend’s bitching. Brooke has one such friend as well (Joey Lauren Adams). And let’s not forget Gary’s brothers, one of whom (Cole Hauser) is a walking stereotype and the other (Vincent D’Onofrio) is just plain weird. Almost all of them belonged to another movie. If what they wanted was to bring some laughs to the movie with these characters they completely failed, and thus one gets the sense that Reed never got hold of a specific tone for his film.

If there is something that can be said is very good about the movie it’s the performance of Jennifer Aniston. It is even more impressive considering all the baggage about her off-screen persona and, more specifically, her romance with co-star Vince Vaughn. After a while I stopped thinking about anything else that wasn’t her character up there, and I was with her all the way. She’s truly amazing. Vaughn, on the other hand, is nowhere near as good. He’s stiff (as always) and isn’t able to imprint some sort of likeability into a character that really needed it. Of the supporting players, I got a kick out of Vincent D’Onofrio’s performance. If you’ve seen this actor elsewhere you should be able to notice what a good job he does with what he’s required to.

“I want you to want to do the dishes.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Sherlock Jr.

Director

Buster Keaton

Year

1924

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, June 22, 2006

Buster Keaton’s Sherlock Jr. is considered by many to be his pinnacle masterpiece and most influential piece. Barely feature-length at 45 minutes, the film presents a larger-than-life novelty that not only was ahead of its time but to this day remains unmatched and certainly unsurpassed: this is the first meta-film, a movie inside a movie, whose imaginative plot and simplistic approach make it both accessible and mesmerizing. It never gets confusing though most actors have dual roles and the transition from one reality to the other is so sudden. Furthermore, in order to achieve this and much of the action scenes, several visual effects were invented or revolutionized. This is one outstanding piece of innovation, and one hell of a funny movie.

The story has a young movie projectionist (Buster Keaton) studying in his spare time to become a detective. The premise states that a man who serves two masters can’t do justice to both, and gives our man some very funny situations concerning this. Money is in his mind too, as he tries to woo a lovely girl (Kathryn McGuire) and buy her presents. He has a competitor: the local sheik (Ward Crane) who’ll go to any lengths to compete with our young hero, including stealing the girl’s father’s (Joe Keaton) watch and pawning it, then putting the blame on his young rival.

Exiled from his beloved’s home, our young projectionist goes back to his job and falls asleep while showing a movie involving pearls. He falls asleep and literally spirits himself into the movie, where every fictional character becomes an extension of the real-life people involved in the watch misunderstanding. But his adaptation from projectionist to movie character ain’t easy: walking into the screen, he faces the challenge of readapting to every different setting and scene. Then in better shape he becomes Sherlock Jr., the world’s greatest detective. He’s called upon to solve a case of stolen pearls, obviously a mischief by the same villain he faced in reality, along with his partner the butler (Erwin Connelly).

Sherlock Jr. is a lot of what the projectionist wishes he could be: a great detective, an uninhibited gentleman, and a man with an advantage over the bad guys. In this dream of sorts, the sheik becomes a dreadful villain with a full organization and truly evil schemes. Sherlock Jr. is not without luck but he’s also very smart, and sometimes uses his apparent clumsiness for his advantage. Good chance plays an important role however, when the detective’s bumbling helper, Gillette (Ford West – who in “real life” plays his boss at the movie theater), gets him in trouble!

The road is full of bumps and perils. As a matter of fact, after the “crime-crushing criminologist” evades many dangers put upon him by the villain and his helper, he engages in one many car and motorcycle chases that are as dangerous as they’re entertaining. As usual, Keaton performs his own stunts, as well as other people’s, risking his life more than once to be sure, and achieving something greater than any visual effect: real risk in the face of real danger. Additionally, he uses camera tricks and invents several effects to achieve the unimaginable. But above all, he’s as charismatic as he’s stone-faced, and that is, as always, his greatest triumph.

This film has famously influenced several filmmakers and with reason. When I saw it, I was happily reminded of some future films I thoroughly enjoyed, which is a testimony of its aftermath. I have seen Sherlock Jr. countless times and I’m always looking forward to the next. Such brilliant fun…

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Happy Endings

Director

Don Roos

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, June 21, 2006

I always look forward to what director Don Roos has in store. He got me unconditionally with The Opposite of Sex (1998), one of my favorite movies of all-time, and did a decent job tackling a romantic drama, Bounce (2000). His latest, Happy Endings, feels like an amalgam of the sensibilities inherent to the aforementioned movies. He’s still outrageous and irreverent, but he doesn’t go too over-the-top and tries to deliver dramatic stories for which we care about. The result is mixed, but there’s more good than bad. And I’d rather see a Don Roos movie any day of the week, regardless of how it turns out to be, than most of the junk Hollywood keeps spitting out.

Mammie (Lisa Kudrow) is an abortion clinic counselor who, as a child, got pregnant by her stepbrother Charley (Steve Coogan) and gave her child for adoption. One day an aspiring filmmaker, Nicky (Jesse Bradford), comes to her looking to shoot a documentary about the reuniting of her and her son. She doesn’t like the idea, but proposes a different type of film: one about her lover, Javier (Bobby Canavale), and his story as a massage therapist who has sex with his clients. Meanwhile, Charley is suspicious that his lesbian friends Pam (Laura Dern) and Diane (Sarah Clarke) used his partner Gil’s (David Sutcliffe) sperm to have a child without letting them know. And then there’s Jude (Maggie Gyllenhaal), who seduced a young gay man, Otis (Jason Ritter), but ends up going after his rich widowed father Frank (Tom Arnold).

As you can see from the plot outline, Happy Endings is a movie with many different characters and storylines. In movies like these it’s pretty common that the stories cross at one point or another, and this is no exception. The ways it does I will not say, but it doesn’t always matter that much anyway. What matters is the way Roos develops his multi-layered themes into one coherent and engaging motion picture. He succeeds most of the time, although it does feel like sometimes he doesn’t know where to go, especially in the Mammie storyline with Nicky. I loved Mammie as a character, but felt lost as to what her story was all about. Charley’s storyline, on the other hand, feels like it belongs in another movie, but I had a good time with it because Roos makes it real and plays it completely straight with devastating results. The third storyline, the one involving June, is by far the most engaging. She is a fascinating character, both dangerous and sad, and her interaction with father and son is unpredictable and a lot of fun to watch.

Happy Endings sometimes feels as if it’s too clever for its own good. Roos consistently employs the device of breaking the image into two and putting on some written comments accompanying the action. Sometimes the result is hilarious, but it ultimately becomes tiring and unsurprising. Still, I applaud anyone who tries to do something different.

Roos is a gay man, and I wouldn’t even bring this up if it weren’t for the fact that this aspect of his life influences his movies in great measure. A lot of characters in this specific movie are gay, and he brings up some interesting issues and stories that do exist and do happen.

Performances are uniformly good, with Gyllenhaal a stand-out as always. You can’t take your eyes off of her, she’s magnetic. Lisa Kudrow also does amazing work, once again under the hands of Don Roos. She should be in all of his movies. Tom Arnold surprises with an understated performance, and Ritter is a lot of fun as a confused fellow for whom things get out of control.

“Nothing says I love you like blackmail.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Monsoon Wedding

Director

Mira Nair

Year

2001

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, June 20, 2006

Aditi Verma (Vasundhara Das) is an Indian girl who agrees to marry an Americanized young man, Hemant Rai (Parvin Dabas), despite her strong feelings towards her middle-aged boss, with whom she maintains a dead-end relationship.

Aditi’s New Delhi-based family is strongly bound by tradition while incorporating modernization and the ever-increasing influence of the British, including the language. So her father, Lalit Verma (Naseeruddin Shah), organizes a very sumptuous celebration for his daughter’s wedding, while not spending all his savings. This leads to many complications, and the wedding planner, P.K. Dubey (Vijay Raaz) isn’t making things easier either. Things might change for the latter however, when love knocks at his door in the form of Aditi’s pretty maid Alice (Tilotama Shome).

In the meantime, the whole family prepares for the wedding. Everyone is expectant and, as it usually happens in such big family celebrations, everyone reflects about themselves. The one subplot that turns out most affecting is that of cousin Ria (Shefali Shetty), who hides a dark secret she’s not willing to or able to let go, which is keeping her away from happiness.

This unique piece, lovingly written by Sabrina Dhawan and heartily directed by Mira Nair, is undoubtedly a celebration to life and love. This is the kind of movie where you think you can’t possibly get to care for most of the characters, and in the end you’re surprised by how much you actually do. I was especially shocked by how I got so involved with Aditi’s story, despite her being so unsympathetic at first.

It wasn’t the same with P.K. Dubey though; his character is unsympathetic at first too, but soon manages to win over our hearts, and never lets go. His moving performance says a lot without words, and his love for lovely Alice is absolutely clear with only a glance. In the end, his subplot is the most heartbreaking and poignant and delicious. This marred the film a little bit for me though, since I was missing this story so much during the others. I guess this happens in most ensemble movies, but it wasn’t a big deal because there’s pleasure everywhere in this film.

The story goes from light to dark to light again when jumping from one subplot to the next. Ria’s secret is finally revealed in what becomes a horrifying, unforgivable truth. But even that turns out beautiful because of the conclusion involving Lalit. I couldn’t hold the tears when every subplot came to a climatic, satisfying ending.

By the way, and as a final note, I should say the Bollywood influence is pretty clear. Musical scenes are usually intertwined with the storytelling, only not in an excessive manner, as I’ve heard it happens in Bollywood. Instead, the soundtrack (mostly composed by Mychael Danna) becomes an essential part of this film without taking much attention away from the charming characters. What a triumph!

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Mysterious Skin

Director

Gregg Araki

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, June 19, 2006

I have a weird relationship with director Gregg Araki. I have never fully loved any of his movies, but his independent and provocative style always attracts me and I always find myself interested in what he’s doing next. My feelings have not changed after seeing Mysterious Skin, yet another offbeat movie tackling a difficult subject, but at the end I’m glad I saw it, for it provided a lot of insight into a dark territory that is not usually handled with this kind of subtlety.

Brian (Brady Corbet) is an 18-year old boy who can’t remember exactly what happened to him when as an 8 year-old he lost 4 hours of his life. He has grown to believe that aliens abducted his body to experiment on it, a belief he shares with a woman in a nearby town, Avalyn (Mary Lynn Rajskub), who becomes his friend. But during his quest for answers he becomes obsessed with Neil (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), a gay hustler who just moved to NY after a difficult life with his addicted but loving mother (Elisabeth Shue) and a series of intimate encounters as a child with his baseball coach (Bill Sage).

Mysterious Skin is based on the novel by Scott Heim and adapted to the screen by Araki himself. It tells the story of two very different guys who are striving to survive in their own microcosmic worlds while desperately holding on to inner demons they carry since their childhoods. One of them knows exactly what happened to him, and his life has turned into promiscuity and a shallow existence he can’t seem to overcome no matter how hard he tries. The other has completely blocked out what happened, and has grown to be an outsider, a strange fellow obsessed with aliens and everything supernatural. The only way they can come to terms with their reality, it seems, is if they meet. I won’t say if they do or what happens to them later on, but I will say that the way both stories develop is heartbreaking and infuriating at the same time.

As I mentioned before, Araki treats the issue of early sexual abuse with restraint. He presents facts as they happened, leaving the viewers to make a judgment about the level of disturbance inherent in those acts by themselves. Could there really be love involved? Is Neil to blame for what happened to Brian? Can such horrific acts, no matter how nicely they were presented, be overcome at one point or another? Will the ghosts ever leave? It really is hard to watch, and even more so to reflect upon. The movie is definitely not for everyone.

The two central performances by Cobert and Gordon-Levitt are excellent, very different in appearance but more familiar than meets the eye. Cobert is shell-shocked, while Gordon-Levitt is plain traumatized. They both do a good job in portraying their characters as real human beings who are trapped within themselves. The actors surrounding them are very good as well, creating a uniform tone consistent to the story being told and the themes being tackled.

“Are you ready? Here we go.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Kiss the Girls

Director

Gary Fleder

Year

1997

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, June 15, 2006

James Patterson’s bestseller “Kiss the Girls” is supposedly a very entertaining thriller with tons of suspense and a major (and very satisfying, I hear) plot twist in the end. Its adaptation is, if anything, a showcase for its stars, Morgan Freeman and Ashley Judd, giving them very juicy moments and overall good material. David Klass’ script is mostly unsuccessful, other than that. Perhaps the material was slightly altered or the movie format makes the story’s holes much more obvious, but the whole thing is hardly believable and rarely exciting. There are still good things to say, though.

The plot concerns a vicious killer who calls himself Casanova, who enjoys kidnapping young women and showing them what love is all about. Casanova introduces himself as the credits roll, but we never see his face. His voice is ominous and interesting, this is clearly a suave and charming psycho, and we fear we’re in for some true horror. The process isn’t half as horrifying as expected. As it appears, this man enjoys kidnapping the women and keeping them for his amusement, yet it’s not quite a harem but rather a prison where he stores the girls just for the hell of it. If one of them breaks the rules, she’s dead. Shocking? Sure it is, but the treatment just doesn’t offer that kind of reaction.

Washington, D.C. detective Dr. Alex Cross (Morgan Freeman) hears his niece (Gina Ravera) is missing and fears she’s one of the Casanova’s victims. So he travels to North Carolina, where the killer operates, and starts investigating. In the meantime, we’re introduced to Kate McTiernan (Ashley Judd), a young and attractive Doctor and amateur kickboxer. Casanova has targeted her, and he does catch her. What happens next is usually in this movie’s reviews and even synopses, but saying it is going too far. I’ll just say she’s the film’s heroine.

So is my mind horribly morbid or was I right to expect a worse treatment for the girls? Hell, no one wants to be kidnapped, let alone stored, but somehow the film makes Casanova look like a sissy wacko rather than a vicious villain. I didn’t suffer much about the girls because I assumed they’d be rescued, and when I saw that a plot twist was coming, concerning the identity of their keeper, I wasn’t even amused because the options were dull. Predictability is one of the film’s greatest flaws, especially because the events aren’t amusing regardless of whether you saw them coming or not.

The two stars are the real treat. They and co-stars Cary Elwes, Tony Goldwyn, Brian Cox and others. Freeman’s role isn’t as demanding but his presence is strong and he’s very credible in the part. Judd’s young Doctor isn’t a credible character at all, but supposing anything that happens to her could be true, she’s perfect at it. I enjoyed every second with her onscreen, and wondered why her career hasn’t been all that climatic since; her bravura is undeniable.

And when the big twist comes, we’re completely numb. As much a fan of plot twists as I am, I would’ve preferred if they spared us of this one. But I would’ve loved it if they had set it up better, which doesn’t seem too hard.

Overall, this is a misfire, worth watching for fans of Freeman and Judd exclusively. If I had a great time watching Kiss the Girls, it had nothing to do with the movie, but with whom I saw it with…

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

A Prairie Home Companion

Director

Robert Altman

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, June 14, 2006

Robert Altman is known to be a highly skilled director, even more so when dealing with huge casts and overlapping storylines. Some of his movies turn out all right, but others don’t have the same luck. When A Praire Home Companion was announced as his latest movie I didn’t really understand what it was going to be about exactly. But with the cast he gathered, it instantly became a must-see regardless of its plot. Now that I’ve seen the movie I realize it may have little crossover appeal, but there’s no denying the small pleasures it has to offer.

Garrison Keillor (as himself) has helmed a live radio show, which is performed in front of a Minnesotan audience since the 1970’s. But a big corporation just bought the theater where it takes place and he finds out just before starting what is now going to be their last show. The performers and crew members wander around backstage while the show goes on, remembering good times and holding on together.

The radio show in which the movie is based does exist in real life, getting to thousands each week through syndicated stations. But the storyline and most of the characters are fictional. Keillor wrote the screenplay (if there is one) himself, and he is the heart and spirit behind the project. When you see Keillor on-screen you realize why so many people love him. He’s charming, charismatic and very funny, although he wouldn’t admit to it. His whole persona screams something entirely different, but the man is a rock, and he’s also extremely talented.

The movie is, as expected, a series of convoluted storylines thrown in together with one central theme. Everyone knows what’s going on and they suddenly feel melancholic, so a bunch of conversations and poignant moments ensue. Some of it is amusing, but the pace is too slow for its own good and some sequences run too long. Most of the musical numbers are fun though, especially those of the Johnson sisters and those of Dusty and Lefty. Country and gospel music is what these people play, so if you’re not a fan then the movie will be hell to get through to you. And there are some creative ideas thrown in there that work (such as the inclusion of an angel that adds a sense of mysticism) or don’t (such as the inclusion of a noirish security guard that belongs to another movie all-together).

I didn’t really love the last scene of the movie, which seemed a little forced, although the unexpected entrance of a certain character was a nice touch. That said, I was disappointed when the last song of the show was cut so abruptly, for it was a very emotional moment. Luckily for me, the sequence is shown in its entirety during the credits a couple of scenes later.

The movie leaves you with a warm, fuzzy feeling. It is corny without being too corny, but you’ll feel like hugging your loved ones after it. It’s that kind of movie. For others it might also be the kind of movie where you fall asleep, but what can I say?

Performances are all top-notch. It is Keillor’s show after all, but he is supported by the extraordinary combo of Meryl Streep and Lily Tomlin at their best. Woody Harrelson and John C. Reilly also make a great pair, and their song about bad jokes is a hoot, one of the movie’s highlights. Kevin Kline plays the security guard as if he didn’t get the tone of the movie at all, or maybe that’s how Altman directed him and it’s not his fault. Tommy Lee Jones appears briefly, but he gives weight to a role that needed it without saying much. Virginia Madsen is mostly silent, but she was a great choice to play the angel. Lindsay Lohan appears as part of an ensemble, and she acquits herself pretty well. She is always on the brink of seeming to be trying too hard, but she never goes too far and I’m grateful. The rest of the cast is excellent.

Special notice to Keillor’s brief “advertisement spots”. They’re hilarious! And also kudos to director Paul Thomas Anderson, who was always on set to lend a hand to Altman for insurance issues.

“We come from people who brought us up to believe that life is a struggle, and if you shouldn’t feel really happy be patient, this will pass.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Sour Grapes

Director

Larry David

Year

1998

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, June 13, 2006

I can’t even begin to express what a huge fan of “Seinfeld” I am. I don’t usually watch TV and I haven’t followed many TV shows in my time, but the sitcom created by Jerry Seinfeld and Larry David is a clear exception; I’m an expert, I know all episodes by heart, and I have become a devoted follower of both Seinfeld and David, in their own different careers.

As for Larry, I have respected his craft as a writer as much as that of any great screenwriter that might come to mind. The episodes of “Seinfeld” that he wrote are in my opinion by far the best and have made me laugh more than anything I can imagine. David’s comedic perception and delivery are flawless. So, how could I even believe his film debut as writer and director was bad? I had heard many negative statements but my faith in Sour Grapes remained.

And then I watched it.

I had to state all that about Larry David because I just don’t want to trash him. It’s true that this film is unfunny and it’s undeniably a misstep from its creator, but there are reasons why. I believe in my heart that David was too used to writing for television and knew his characters too well. When you write one episode after another, I’m sure it’s much easier to create funny situations than if you have to establish and introduce every character for the first time every time. The script of Sour Grapes forgets that we not only don’t know these characters, but we aren’t necessarily willing to like them. “Seinfeld”’s characters are absolutely unlikable but we love them because it’s their antagonism which we’ve learned to identify with. The characters in Sour Grapes are as unlikable, but their actions are not something we identify with or even want to, and the reaction is so immediate and absolute that we can’t even learn to like them, no matter what.

This film is a good exercise for any screenwriter who believes that writing a comedic film as a sitcom is a good idea. I always wondered if it could work, but this film makes it clear that it ain’t easy to pull it off. Most of the jokes and situations in Sour Grapes are sitcom material, and for some reason it doesn’t gel. It’s probably because a movie requires definitive jokes, larger-than-life situations and unforgettable climaxes. Sitcoms have the clear intention to make the viewer sit back and relax for half an hour; movies are meant to stick to the mind and satisfy completely, because when the movie’s over, that’s it. We won’t see you next week.

The story has an intelligent and admittedly funny premise. Two cousins, designer Richie (Craig Bierko) and Doctor Evan (Steven Weber) take a break and go to Atlantic City with their wives. They do have a good time, but something rather unusual happens: Richie hits a jackpot, earning almost half a million dollars. The catch? Evan lent him the necessary quarters, and even advised him to play three quarters instead of one—the only way to hit a jackpot. So Richie’s happiness is obscured when Evan demands half the prize. Richie says no, and what follows is a long and painstaking road during which the cousins destroy each other’s lives, as well as their own, losing their wives, endangering people’s lives, and eventually finding no possible satisfaction in the prize won at the slot.

There are many funny moments. Bierko overplays his character, but he’s still funny and Weber is consistently hilarious. Most of the trouble they get into is either unbearable or unbelievable, but it’s fun seeing their senseless feud grow so amazingly in part due to misunderstandings. Too bad they talk so much, and even worse, the situations around them are full of raunchy, in-your-face humor that mostly doesn’t work. For instance, two funny characters, Richie’s mother Selma (Viola Harris) and street bum Digby (Orlando Jones), are excuses for stereotyped racial or cultural humor. Cheap.

Overall, this is not the kind of film you want to walk out of, but you still know you’ll be unsatisfied in the end. It’s just a big misfire.

Larry David went back to gather TV gold with “Curb Your Enthusiasm” after the critical and commercial failure of Sour Grapes. Good for him! My admiration hasn’t dropped one bit. For all it’s worth, his film debut reminded me of what this genius is really good at. I will always be his fan.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Volver

Director

Pedro Almodóvar

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, June 12, 2006

Spanish director Pedro Almodóvar has got to be one of the most consistent and genius directors in the world. He’s got a few bad movies in his résumé (who hasn’t?) but usually his name attached to a project means a good thing: something unique, with quality, well-done, heart-felt and utterly personal. You could say he has a distinct personal style, but most of his movies sing a different tune and get you in different ways. Volver is yet another example of Almodóvar at his best.

Raimunda (Penélope Cruz), her daughter Paula (Yohana Cobo) and her sister Sole (Lola Dueñas) return to their hometown in La Mancha to visit their late mother Irene’s (Carmen Maura) tomb. They also pass by to visit their aunt Paula (Chus Lampreave), a sick old lady who claims that Irene is still alive and taking care of her. Her neighbor, Agustina (Blanca Portillo), also lends a hand. Back home, Raimunda and Paula start having a hard time, while Sole receives the unexpected visit of none other than her mother’s ghost.

Much has been said about the talent Almodóvar has to understand women. That couldn’t be truer and Volver makes an excellent case to prove it. He has said that Raimunda is partly based on his own mother while they lived in a small town during his childhood. This specific movie is populated with rich, wonderful female characters that come together because of the common circumstances life has presented them, both in the past and in the present. Together they crave to survive, to love and to be loved. But they also look to overcome their inner demons.

The movie begins by showing what the lives of these women are like, but the arrival of Irene changes everything, for good and for bad. Old secrets surface, unexpected events take place and a tale of love and forgiveness starts to take shape. Almodóvar weaves everyone’s story with ease, developing each character little by little, revealing more and more as the movie progresses, letting the catharsis come in a natural way, never forcing the procedures. The tale certainly is unpredictable, but it is the journey that makes it so special. I loved spending some time with these people, real women in a real world. The movie was a pleasure to experience from start to finish, an experience filled with tears and laughter. I loved every minute of it.

My first language happens to be Spanish, and one of the small pleasures the movie has to offer is its use of language. There’s a certain way in which the characters speak that is inherently personal, full of specific mannerisms and a playful tone. Almodóvar knows the place where his movie is set by heart, and thus he fills it with traditions and details that make it richer. Alberto Iglesias’s score only helps to emphasize the atmosphere of this place and time with the great array of emotions inherent to the characters’ lives.

As with most serious movies involving ghosts in a real environment, there are certain moments when some things don’t ring true, specifically involving holes in the plot or ways in which people react. Almodóvar falls prey to some of these pratfalls from time to time, but I may just be nip-ticking. It’s really nothing and I wouldn’t want to demerit an otherwise wonderful movie… but it’s there, so I have to say it.

Penélope Cruz delivered what I think is her best performance to date. She recalls a young Sophia Loren in this role of a hard-working woman who exudes sensuality from every pore of her body, but is more preoccupied in having a good life and making the lives of everyone around her more pleasing, all of this while dealing with her own personal healing. It is precise, touching and downright perfect work. I was floored. Equally good are the four women that surround her. They all won the Best Actress prize at this year’s Cannes Film Festival and it was for good reason. Every one of them is special in their own way, and it’s always a pleasure to see Maura. She’s exemplary. The whole movie is.

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

His Girl Friday

Director

Howard Hawks

Year

1940

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, June 08, 2006

Ben Hecht and Charles MacArthur’s hit newspaper play “The Front Page” became through the decades a favorite for film adaptations, but it’s Howard Hawks’ version (its second film rendition) which gave it a radical, brilliant twist: It turned one of the two male leads into a woman and, even better, made her the recently divorced ex-wife of her counterpart.

The ambitious editor Walter Burns is played by Cary Grant—a brilliant slapstick performance—and his ex-wife and ace reporter Hildy Johnson is played by Rosalind Russell, whose comedic bravura and dominating screen presence turned out a perfect match for her all-too-famous co-star.

The hilarious twist has Hildy retiring from journalism to marry the dull but loving insurance salesman Bruce Baldwin (Ralph Bellamy). Walter can’t let her go, especially not in the middle of a sensational story; he wants her to write this last one, probably even influencing the news through her skills. One last story… Not such a bad idea for a woman who loves being a reporter but is about to settle as a housewife. Her swan song, why not? Oh no, she won’t do it. Or will she?

Walter convinces her to do one interview and go away; but she doesn’t count on Bruce getting into trouble with the law every two minutes, obviously the crafty work of Walter and his goons.

The story they’re after is that of mentally-disturbed murderer Earl Williams (John Qualen), who’s going to be hung the day after unless proved ill—which might not be a smart move by the current Mayor (Clarence Kolb) in the wake of reelection. If Hildy can prove that the Mayor has been covering the killer’s mental health for his own good, their newspaper will write history.

Hildy is soon absorbed by the story, especially after Earl escapes, but she’s also all-too-worried about Bruce and indignant about Walter’s actions. Yet, she’s a professional. And maybe still just a little in love with Walter after all.

His Girl Friday is not only a brilliant mixture of screwball comedy and journalistic drama. It’s also a revolutionary film in the way it overlaps dialogue scene after scene. Its script is said to be lengthy enough for three hours, yet the running time is just half that length, which required an incredible effort by sound recording technicians, unthinkable at the time.

The result is a lightning-paced story with machinegun delivery that emphasizes both comedy and sensationalism. Charles Lederer’s screenplay is smart enough to create a balance between the many genres (comedy/drama/romance) and never let go in any. The use of brilliant character actors as reporters who walk in and out of the press room and make phone calls at the same time is an enlightening move. The many candlestick phones that appear in every scene are a perfect symbol of what this film has to offer.

One of Howard Hawks’ masterpieces. A delight, not to be missed.

“Oh Walter, you're wonderful - in a loathsome sort of way.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Poseidon

Director

Wolfgang Petersen

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, June 07, 2006

When The Poseidon Adventure came out in the 70’s I wasn’t even born, but it’s one of those movies my father always liked so I was familiar with it all through my childhood. Matter of fact is I enjoyed it as well, but I haven’t seen it as a grown-up so I can’t really say what my opinion of it would be right now. The sole premise always sounded cool to me though, so the idea of a remake taking advantage of today’s special effects didn’t seem out of this world.

The Poseidon ocean liner is hit by a huge wave during New Year’s Eve, prompting the ship to turn upside-down in the middle of the ocean. A small group of survivors decide to try and make it to the top (or to put it correctly, the bottom) before the ship sinks or any other incident happens.

When I say “a small group of survivors” instead of mentioning each character individually I’m mimicking something that the movie does, which is not to develop any of its characters far from the stereotypes they represent. This may sound like I’m bitching, but I’m actually not. On the contrary, I’m thankful that the movie gets on with what we’re really waiting for instead of trying to boringly develop every character onscreen. For 15 minutes we get to know exactly what we need of each, and then the wave hits and hell breaks loose. Now we’re talking!

The original movie is said to be extremely cheesy, but that has vanished from its remake. There are certainly hammy moments here and there, but nothing ill-inducing. The movie is actually a pretty straightforward disaster flick about a bunch of characters going through the impossible to make it alive out of a desperate situation. And it works in what it tries to accomplish. Some scenes are excruciating, others are unbearable, others are just fine, but the movie succeeds in that it never gives up its high level of intensity. I forgot about the movie the minute I walked out of the theater, but while I was there I had fun and I got what I expected.

I did have one problem, and it’s a rather important one. When this small group pulls apart from the other survivors in order to try and find a way to escape, I almost instantly knew which ones were destined to die and which were going to survive. Perhaps I’ve seen way too many movies of the sort, but it seemed pretty obvious from the get-go. No real shocks or surprises in that regard. The suspense thus has to come from the situations in which the characters die, not on who would make it or not. And I have to say the movie does pay off in that respect. I especially suffered throughout the scene with the elevator.

The cast include Josh Lucas and Kurt Russell (as the movie’s “heroes”), Emmy Rossum, Jacinda Barrett, Richard Dreyfuss (where has he been?), Mike Vogel, Mia Maestro, Freddy Rodriguez, Jimmy Bennett, Andre Braugher, Stacy Ferguson and an annoying Kevin Dillon. Nice cast, good (and tiring) work.

Finally, what about the special effects? We all go into this movie expecting to see some kick-ass scenes and we get them, even though that wave did look a little fake to me. But the turning of the boat is impressive.

“Shake him off!”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Bicycle Thief

Director

Vittorio De Sica

Year

1948

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, June 06, 2006

Ladri di Biciclette is one of those lucky films that have been regarded as masterpieces since their initial release and have not only remained as such but have even grown in their status of classic films. It’s really a marvel but it’s not hard to see why: its beauty is so simple and obvious, and its theme so universal, that it’s hard not to appreciate it completely and love it forever. I remember seeing it as a kid and when I saw it years later I was impressed by how many images still were in my mind so vividly. It’s so powerful and moving yet so completely unpretentious and simplistic, it’s just amazing.

Vittorio De Sica created in Ladri di Biciclette the most memorable exponent of the neo-realist movement that influenced cinema drastically after WWII, focusing on the economic unsettledness in several European countries, particularly Italy.

This film tells the tale of Antonio (Lamberto Maggiorani), unemployed for a long while and overjoyed when he finally finds a job plastering posters all over Rome, which requires him to use his bicycle. The catch: he pawned his bicycle and has no money to get it back. His loving and supportive wife Maria (Lianella Carell) decides to pawn their linen to get the bike back, and off goes Antonio to his first day of work, happy and hopeful.

Then, on that very day, his bicycle is stolen.

Unable to get any other bicycle, Antonio looks for the stolen one along with his son Bruno (Enzo Staiola). The film depicts the shattering adventure Antonio and Bruno live together, desperately trying to find the bicycle before the next day of work. Throughout this heartbreaking road, De Sica presents all sorts of vignettes that depict society as harsh as it was back then and still remains in so many places around the world: people are desperate for work, there’s very little of it, the contrast between rich and poor is abysmal, and an essentially honest man can be reduced to delinquency in the wake of complete desperation.

De Sica chose to cast only unprofessional actors and took this task so seriously that, for instance, Maggiorani was in real life a working class man who struggled for survival. This adds to the neo-realism as this amateur not only convinces completely but gives the character an extra touch—he’s real. No professional actor could’ve done it so well (just look at that final scene!). Staiola is also perfection as his son, and the relationship between them is pivotal to the story. The rest of the cast is superb.

Alessandro Cicognini’s score and Carlo Montuori’s cinematography are perfect ingredients for De Sica’s simple film that doesn’t employ fancy camera movements or other such effects, but rather sticks to the simplest techniques and follows the main character with faith and devotion. We’re there to follow this poor man’s adventure while the filmmakers unforgivably transmit the harsh realities of a society where it’s every man for himself against countless enemies who sometimes look as honest as anyone—and probably are, at their core.

This gem is not to be missed.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

X-Men: The Last Stand

Director

Brett Ratner

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, June 05, 2006

I have to admit to being disappointed when director Bryan Singer left the third installment of the X-Men franchise to do a new Superman movie. I just loved those two movies so much that I wanted the same man at the helm. Then at the last minute Brett Ratner was appointed when director Matthew Vaughn left the project and that was disappointing as well. The man is not bad, but he’s not really good either. His movies are always ho-hum, sort of mediocre, not great. But I was hopeful and positive. I really was. That is, until I saw the movie.

The government has found a “cure” that can make normal humans out of mutants. The solution comes from a young mutant named Leech (Cameron Bright), who is secluded in the new laboratories where Alcatraz Prison once was. This new discovery infuriates most mutants, but the reactions vary. Professor Xavier (Patrick Stewart) urges his alumni to proceed as they wish, making a decision of their own. But Magneto (Ian McKellen) takes it in stride and decides to declare war on those responsible. Meanwhile, Jean Grey (Famke Janssen) comes back to life as Phoenix, a more powerful being than she used to be, and a different person altogether, something that troubles both Cyclops (James Mardsen) and Wolverine (Hugh Jackman).

It is no secret that Brett Ratner is not the only one to blame regarding this misstep. Fox and the producers were so eager to release the movie in time that they didn’t care it was half-baked, with a lot of tweaking and fixing and preparing still needed. As it is, the movie seems rushed, and it even looks so. Two photographers were hired at different stages of shooting, but you wouldn’t believe how bad some scenes are lighted. Special effects-wise the movie is good, with only a couple of scenes looking fake; I could pinpoint those involving Phoenix coming out of the water, for example. Costumes are the same as in the previous movies, although a lot of baddie mutants join Magneto this time around and they all look like they are into S&M. Lame. Action scenes are well-done, although not one stands out. There’s a big set-up involving the Golden Gate Bridge, but that’s about anything mesmerizing I can remember.

The most important aspect, as anyone who knows anything about movies will tell you, is the script. And in this case it’s a mess. You only have to look at its two predecessors to realize the difference. There used to be a structure and a main theme. This movie has no structure and its themes are all over the place. The potential to tell an interesting story was there. The whole cure subplot is fascinating. Imagine that anyone “different” (regarding race, sexual preference, you name it) could suddenly decide to be “normal”. It is provocative and risky. Both the good and bad sides in the movie have good points, which also make for an interesting debate. But it’s all treated superficially. And it is mixed with lame scenes both in Magneto’s camp (with a set so fake it’s unbelievable) and Professor Xavier’s school.

This leads me to another disappointing aspect. I used to love these mutants. Their stories had heart and we used to care about them. In this movie a lot of mutants die and many others take the cure. But only in one case did I give a damn. As for everyone else I sure was shocked, but I forgot about it the next scene. And it shouldn’t be that way! Rogue and Iceman are given a love triangle, but it is forgettable. And I used to care about both! Jean Grey/Phoenix’s story started interesting enough until it became boring and ridiculous (the special effects and makeup on her character were cool, though). Storm is given more screen time this time around, mainly to keep Halle Berry in the movie, but she only becomes more annoying than usual. And there are far more mutants here than in any of the previous movies, yet with a shorter running-length the pic feels over-crowded. I only cared and was satisfied by one, yes, one, subplot, and that’s the one about Angel. The guy barely mutters a word, but his story is the most effective thing in the entire movie.

And don’t get me started on the dialogue. Cheesy, hokey and unbearable only start to describe it.

Despite all the trashing I have to admit the movie is entertaining and sometimes surprising. But that’s not enough.

Hugh Jackman and Ian McKellen, as usual, are the highlights when it comes to acting. Kelsey Grammer as Beast is a nice addition and Ben Foster as Angel leaves an impression. Everyone else do what they’re required to.

Don’t forget to wait until the end credits are over. There’s a final scene which is certainly important.

“Since when did we become a disease?”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of X-Men: The Last Stand (2006): Groucho

Review

X-Men: The Last Stand

Director

Brett Ratner

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, June 01, 2006

I’m not the type who went nuts over X-Men (2000) and X2 (2003), but I always enjoy a fun super-hero movie. Bryan Singer, who helmed the first two installments, went on to direct Superman Returns and Brett Ratner took his chair for this one. I had heard a lot of hype about that, concerning fans that feared Ratner wouldn’t do as good a job. I didn’t see why; as long as the script was good, a fine action director should do a good job. Indeed, if there’s a problem with X-Men: The Last Stand, it’s not only its director.

Mutants are widely accepted now by the government and general population. There are still some rebellious ones, mostly those led by Eric Lensherr/Magneto (Ian McKellen), but mostly the environment is peaceful. However, when a scientist (Michael Murphy) develops a “cure” for the mutant gene, inspired by his own son’s state—young Warren Worthington III (Ben Foster) grew wings and can fly—, mutants are indignant and a war of sorts, between humans and mutants, begins.

In the meantime, the deceased Jean Grey (Famke Janssen) rises from among the dead, it seems, overpowered and uncontrollable after what must have been an unimaginable odyssey. Her old boyfriend Scott/Cyclops (James Marsden) and her devotee Logan/Wolverine (Hugh Jackman) are helpless and even Professor Xavier (Patrick Stewart) can’t control her. If Magneto got a hold of her, the “good” mutants and probably the whole humanity would be in grave danger.

The film is fun and works, overall. It has lots of references to the comic books and most of the characters we learned to love from the previous two films. The only problem is it’s sort of episodic and stretches credibility even for a farfetched story like this. The whole cure thing is badly handled and so is the deal with mutants protesting against it. In the previous films, particularly the second one, there was a metaphor concerning mutants as an oppressed minority that defended and fought for their rights. Here, it doesn’t ring true, it seems more of a stubborn fight, there’s no way to identify with it.

Furthermore, there’s a general feeling of unsettledness throughout the film that I could never quite get over. I felt like the film needed to find a structure and never could.

Brave decisions were made concerning the characters. Some major ones die, other lose their powers, and it’s all very shocking if you think of it. However, for some reason it’s not as bad while watching the film. I remember being devastated by Jean Grey’s fate in X2, but here I could care less about similar demises. Writers Simon Kinberg and Zak Penn and director Ratner are to blame; how could such epic events happen with so little impact?

Anna Paquin, Rebecca Romijn, Shawn Ashmore as Iceman and Aaron Stanford as Pyro, and others keep up the good work. New additions Kelsey Grammer and Shohreh Aghdashloo are wasted. Ellen Page as Kitty Pryde and Cameron Bright as the boy who suppresses mutant abilities leave a stronger impression. Ian McKellen’s character is turned into a caricature, ironically the same thing that happened to him in the recent The Da Vinci Code.

“Not everybody heals as fast as you, Logan.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of X-Men: The Last Stand (2006): Morris