CriticSociety- film reviews

Review

21

Director

Robert Luketic

Year

2008

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, June 30, 2008

When you go to see a movie I always say you need to know what you are getting into. It’s no secret that most movies we get around the world come from Hollywood and that a lot of them are crap; you can smell the stink by a mile. But then there are those that Hollywood is an expert in creating which take a true story and turn it into a commercial product, concocted for minds who don’t ask too much of their movie-going experience and only want to be entertained. I don’t have a problem with that at all, that is, if I know what I’m getting into. 21 is such an example.

Ben Campbell (Jim Sturgess) is a Math genius who wants to get into Harvard but needs either money or a scholarship to do so. Professor Micky Rosa (Kevin Spacey) discovers him and soon asks him to join a team he’s put together to play blackjack in Vegas and win lots of money by counting cards. Jill (Kate Bosworth), Choi (Aaron Yoo), Kianna (Liza Lapira) and Jimmy (Jacob Pitts) are already on board and soon Ben is packing his bags for the big, and dangerous, adventure.

Robert Luketic directed from a screenplay by Peter Steinfeld and Allan Loeb based on the book “Bringing Down the House: The Inside Story of Six M.I.T. Students Who Took Vegas for Millions” by Ben Mezrich. I really don’t know how much of the movie, or the book for that matter, actually happened, but there’s no denying that it contains every possible cliché you can think of in the genre. The naïve boy ultimately hooks up with the hottie of the group, becomes an expert and goes all arrogant on his old pals, fights with a jealous teammate and decides he can do things without the help of his mentor, learns the lesson and acknowledges his mistakes, etc., etc., etc. There is absolutely nothing surprising in this movie except for one twist at the end which many people might see coming, so the fun lies in the proceedings.

And are the proceedings up to it? You can say so, although not in a consistent basis. The scenes where the team is actually playing and going ahead with their plans are a hoot; I could’ve had more of these in a heartbeat. But then we have to suffer through character interaction scenes which are a bore. There’s also a subplot about security people getting a grasp of what they’re doing which seems to belong to another movie, although it plays a big part in the suspense-filled last third.

At the end of the day you can say it is competently done. Technical aspects are fine, cast is good, story is interesting and it is easily digestible. Problem is, once you’ve chewed on it there’s no after-flavor.

Jim Sturgess, so good in Across the Universe, proves once again he has what it takes for leading man status if the character is right. He’s also good here and carries the story with no difficulty. Kevin Spacey is solid although he can do this type of thing in his sleep, nothing memorable. Kate Bosworth is appealing, as are the rest of the teammates. Laurence Fishburne also appears, albeit in a thankless role.

“The only thing worse than a loser is someone who won’t admit he played badly.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Déficit

Director

Gael García Bernal

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, June 26, 2008

Not long ago, I spent one of my most memorable nights ever with a few friends. We were in the house of one of them, and all we did was drink beer, eat potato chips, and talk about everything and anything that came to our minds. These are friends I don’t see often, and whenever we gather the fun is unlimited because we reminisce the times of old and we comment on everything that’s new, and it’s good, plain fun. I laughed so hard I thrice doubted I would recover my breath. We didn’t even notice that we spent the whole night like this, and soon enough, it was dawn. That was really a night to remember.

If I was asked to tell the story of that night on film, I would quit before even considering it. Not only would I deem myself unable to make it fun to other people’s eyes, but I wouldn’t even know where to start, or how to show what we were talking about, or how to make it entertaining. It would most certainly be a bore from start to finish, and as a bad a film as it was a good real-life experience. The same would happen if we wanted to show any real-life party, conversation or typical day without making it significant in an extraordinary way. It’s great in our minds, but how to show how great it was if its greatness lied in countless previous experiences and particular emotions that simply cannot be defined without showing a much larger panorama of the people or the situation involved?

That it manages to do this, like very few movies before it have, is Gael García Bernal’s directorial debut Déficit’s great success. It is not a great movie, but it holds together despite its seemingly inexistent plot and wandering characters that drift from one storyline to the next without seemingly even leaving a mark. Looking closely, the party that screenwriter Kyzza Terrazas has created and Bernal has brought to the screen is not so much about hidden meaning as it is about human crudeness, the dead-end happiness that some cling to, and the inner demons that each of us has to struggle with every day of our lives. No one can deny that we do. We all lack something, and that’s what the title refers to.

No better scene for this than the Mexican high society. In a contrasting country like this, where the social classes are so opposite, things become unreal pretty soon and it’s quite easy to lose sight of reality. The privileged are not necessarily shallow or carefree, but that’s the way they can become after so much covering their eyes to reality’s unpleasantness. It’s even worse for many of those who are on the verge of losing their lucky life, or worse, for those who are only pretending. More than anything, despite any luxury and fortune, no one is less human. That some people owe to life their luck but don’t even know what that luck means or how to handle it and feel obliged to behave in a certain way because of it, drives people mad. Déficit tackles all this and more.

Bernal plays one such young man: he’s always had everything he’s wanted but he’s morally bound to follow his father’s professional path though he knows his old man is less than respectable and even, as it seems, a fugitive of the law who’s spending an indefinite time away from home, evading his troubles. While Cristóbal (Bernal’s character) tries to make his absent parents proud, he forces himself to be free in any measure, and does stupid things like disorienting his girlfriend in order to spend more time with an Argentine beauty (Luz Cipriota) someone brought to his house in the outskirts of the city. The whole action happens in this hacienda; Cristóbal has brought his friends, and his sister, Elisa (Camila Sodi), has brought hers. The latter is a group of stoners while the former is more on the neat side, but both look awkward, not only to each other, but in general, because no one seems to believe in their own role.

As the plot progresses, we learn that there are hidden sexual preferences, deep desires and an overpowering need to hide one’s true feelings, because that’s the way it should be. The presence of a gardener’s son, Aarón (Tenoch Huerta), marks the most significant representation of the cultural boundaries of Mexican societies: while Cristóbal and Elisa treat him like a friend, other people see him as a mere servant, a subject of jokes, a subject of dare, or a forbidden sexual toy, and others simply can’t see him; the Argentine girl can’t see why he should be treated differently, while one character goes from unconditional respect to utter disrespect when a combination of drugs and booze make things go wrong—I can’t get into detail about this scene or I would spoil it; suffice it to say that when it happens, it’s the most significant among the movie’s climaxes, even more than a later one where the same character confesses, among sobs, all the anxieties that haunt him, though it’s too late to number them.

Filmmaking-wise, Déficit is far from stunning, but that, perhaps, is the intention. It really looks like a photographed party, and that’s not saying it doesn’t move enough. It makes the viewer feel like they’re the ones getting drunk or high, but without the actual unpleasantness. At times, I wanted to stay in that place, or at least to see the party continue, and I even felt that there was some homage to The Rules of the Game (1939). Be this the case or not, this is a respectable effort by the promising director Gael García Bernal. Let’s allow this guy to continue showing us his multiple chops.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Kung Fu Panda

Director

Mark Osborne

John Stevenson

Year

2008

Rating

Reviewed by

Alejandro Legorreta a.k.a. Lego

Review date

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Oh what a joy to see that Dreamworks Animation has come to the right path again! After last year’s utterly disappointing Shrek the Third (2007) and the average Bee Movie (2007), Kung Fu Panda storms into this year’s blockbuster summer season with a resonant bang.

With a combined résumé that includes a modest and eclectic mix, from directing “SpongeBob SquarePants”, some storyboard art from Shrek 2 (2004), Madagascar (2005) and James and the Giant Peach to “King of the Hill”, “Mad TV”, “Bulletproof Monk” and “Tales from the Crypt” screenplays, a group of newcomers led by directors Mark Osborne and John Stevenson and writers Jonathan Aibel, Glenn Berger, Ethan Reiff and Cyrus Voris, bring a so much needed infusion of new blood to the animated pictures world and together come up with the tale of Po, a chubby, fuzzy, nonchalant giant Panda, destined to become the greatest Kung Fu warrior the world has ever seen.

This is a fast-paced, gorgeous-looking, funny movie that effectively combines some ancient philosophy and martial arts; noodles and dumplings; disillusionment and frustration; destiny and desire, in an exhilarating, non-stop ride with a beautiful background inspired by China’s magnificent mainland landscapes.

Po (voice of Jack Black) is the fat Panda that works for his, oddly enough, goose father, Mr. Ping (James Hong), at his humble noodle restaurant. Po dreams about greatness, Kung Fu and glory, but when he wakes up he even has problems getting himself out of bed due to his obvious weight problems.

Meanwhile, at the top of the nearby mountain, Oogway (Randall Duk Kim), the old, wise turtle and Grand Master of the Kung Fu Temple has a premonition. He announces that the evil snow leopard warrior Tai Lung (Ian McShane), former student of his own protégé Shifu (Dustin Hoffman), will escape from prison and return to threaten the Valley of Peace. And then, he says it’s time for the Dragon Warrior to be chosen. Five contenders have been selected, the “Furious Five”: Monkey (Jackie Chan), Tigress (Angelina Jolie), Mantis (Seth Rogen), Viper (Lucy Liu) and Crane (David Cross). This chosen warrior will bring peace to the region that had already fallen once before under the attack of a frustrated, mad, Dragon Warrior wannabe Tai Lung.

After a series of frustrated attempts to get in the temple to witness the appointment ceremony, Po crash-lands in the middle of the temple square and is immediately pointed out by Oogway as the Dragon Warrior, much to the dismay of tough Master Shifu and the displeasure of his five slick apprentices.

Needless to say, after the obligatory rough treatment and gruesome fights and training, Po, with the unexpected help from his humble but loving dad, eventually unveils all his potential and superior Kung Fu skills, and then sets off to face Tai Lung who, sooner or later, will realize how formidable an opponent this chubby Panda really is.

This is such good moviemaking that it catches you off-guard with its fast pace and gives you no chance to weigh up its predictability, cruelty, or even excessive violence, and gives you no choice but to nod and approve the uncomplicated and straightforward way of giving the “against all odds” cliché a regal, spot-on, treatment. And perhaps, the idea of picking up the cutest animal to lead the way has more to do with merchandising than with any other thing, yes, but it doesn’t matter. When a movie, like this one, comes as a complete package, it is just a fluke that the adorable panda had to be the main character. If you give it a chance and think really hard, it could’ve been an ant, it could’ve been a small clown fish, it could’ve been even an old cowboy toy and the result would have been exactly the same, don’t you think?

The movie’s tempo also doesn’t allow for the cast to particularly shine, but Dustin Hoffman does it and gives Shifu the deepest personality and the means to steal the key scenes and dialogues. Jack Black owns Po for sure, and he is perfect for this role as his usual antics find fertile soil in the giant Panda’s wildness and irreverence. The rest of the solid supporting cast, highlighted by Angelina Jolie, does an excellent job and gravitates around the main characters, letting them do what they’re supposed to do.

It is interesting to realize that the way this movie looks enhances the overall experience. I’ve seen a lot of animated features, and, I must say, Kung Fu Panda stands out as one of the better looking movies of the recent computer animation era. The palette, the colors, the textures, everything looks as if it had been always there waiting for the story to spawn from within it. Congratulations for this engaging ensemble to cinematographer Yong Duk Jhun, art director Tang Kheng Heng and production designer Raymond Zibach. All of them, also, come from within the guts of the animation industry.

It is evident, after looking at the crew behind Kung Fu Panda, that Dreamworks and Jeffrey Katzenberg decided to shake up the ranks at their animation studios, went the unconventional way, and assembled a team with no major credentials to show off but, obviously, with enough passion, imagination and desire to create a rock-solid movie that might as well become one of the best movies of the year. This is, definitely, the result of a well-oiled machine where everybody does the job they’re supposed to do.

It is great, and unusual, to see that a movie targeted to the younger audiences can have a positive effect on grown-ups. As with every other animated feature, I took my kids to see Kung Fu Panda. They are my most trusted critics when it comes to this genre. They loved Po, they feared Tai Lung, and they laughed and applauded. And, to my amazement, just after we had come out of the movie theater, they both started begging me to take them to see the chubby Panda again. Hadn’t we had something unavoidable to do afterwards, I would have seconded the motion right away and I would have been the first one to run up to the box office again. What else can I say?

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of Kung Fu Panda (2008): Groucho

Review

Kung Fu Panda

Director

Mark Osborne

John Stevenson

Year

2008

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, June 24, 2008

Some film critics love to say that reviewing a good film is quite boring because there’s very little they can bash hence enjoy. Others claim that reviewing a successful comedy is tortuous because there’s very little to discuss; the film simply works. For the first time in my life and perhaps not coincidentally, both things are happening to me right now. I sat in front of the blank sheet for a while before I even found a way to start my review. I even thought of perhaps initiating with what I disliked about it, but that would’ve been unfair. What else was I to do? Praise it like there is no tomorrow? How boring would that be. Ironic that a film review of a fun film should be the opposite. Maybe you should stop reading right now and just go see it, or go see it again if you already have.

Let’s, instead, try to remember all that is so good about this film, in an attempt to dismember it so that the awesomeness can become understandable for future creation and appreciation of any piece of entertainment. Watching a classic film the other day, I thought about how it’s funny that there’s rarely any film nowadays that begins with a long sequence of credits with not much else going on. Audiences are getting increasingly impatient, and that can’t be condemned, because indeed the information has increased and each one of us has less and less time to spend without something relevant happening, even if we are, to other people’s eyes, “wasting our time”.

If watching a film means the world to me, it’s my choice to decide whether spending five minutes sitting through the opening credits is important enough, but I might lose interest if a film hasn’t proved to me that it is, and that’s why many “respectable” movies these days end with the credits and don’t even bother to open the film at all! What for? We all know what movie we’re watching, no need to tell us what it is or even how it’s called. For instance, do you realize that the “Indiana Jones” signature typography is only in the franchise’s merchandise, but never in any of the films per se? If we could choose to be in a world where we can spare every trailer, poster or ad, films would need to be very specific, but that is not the case, so time becomes a very valuable asset because much can be spared, which otherwise would be redundant.

There are still movies with deliberate pace, but it’s getting harder each day to have a long running time in mainstream entertainment. It certainly doesn’t or shouldn’t happen in an animated film, unless its magic lies precisely in the beauty of its calmness, as is the case of some of Hayao Miyazaki’s beautiful works or art, which can also get pretty hazy when required. But rushing doesn’t mean sacrificing quality; The Maltese Falcon (1941) is one of the fastest-paced movies I have seen in my time, and one of the most entertaining and dramatically effective. If you ask me, I’d much rather a film moves. (That a slow film doesn’t waste a second because even in its leisurely rhythm it’s making the plot progress is an entirely different story and a completely admirable chore that very few accomplish, and which is also well-worth my admiration.)

The case of Kung Fu Panda is a perfect example of a film that moves and works. It doesn’t waste a second, and that’s not saying that things happen very quickly, but that there’s always something going on, something important, and that not a second is spent on unneeded sentiment or repetitious drama. What we see is what we get and I got the feeling that we were barely introduced to the title character and that we could’ve easily not fell for him but that’s where you see how well time is used that an outstanding opening sequence (in amazing hand-drawn, Chinese-style 2D), followed by a hilarious reality check, is more than enough to get us to like a big, fat, black and white bear. A big colorful shell with no substance is not only meaningless but makes it all the more frustrating for the viewer since so much was spent on so little (see: Elizabeth: The Golden Age (2007)), but when both things are at the top of their possibilities it becomes a truly mesmerizing experience. Because it looks so incredibly good and it is so entertaining inside, Kung Fu Panda is greatness wrapped in greatness, and that’s what makes it undeniably and uniformly awesome.

The fun of watching a strange setting can rarely be achieved if the audience feels alienated, identification must exist if we’re to believe in the story no matter where or when it’s set, because if there’s relatable human emotion in any character, no matter how strange, then we’re there, a part of us is in the character and we live the story along. In the usual animated film, not that I don’t hate to take a broad view of them, especially now that so many are being made, some of them with revolutionary approaches, the way to create empathy with the characters is to make them so familiar that they become out-of-place in their fictional context. I knew, and I was right, that that would be one of the flaws (albeit minor, and with many advantages otherwise) of casting Jack Black as the Panda. The script makes it an all-Black character with that peculiar informality that makes him so easy on the ears and so close to home that he’s irresistible. Luckily, aside from Black’s success in being so funny, the scene is full of characters that, if not as informal, are quite relatable in their own ways, not seeming aliens to their own world but rather showing that everybody everywhere is the same, only some have to be a little more uptight given their position.

As Po (that’s the name of the Panda) becomes more and more professional about his given role in the Kung Fu world, his master, a significantly smaller Red Panda called Shifu (and voiced perfectly, in both wise and tongue-in-cheek modes, by Dustin Hoffman), reveals more and more of his sensitivity and weakness, and becomes more human than it can probably be expected at first. In fact, I thought Shifu would be a typically obnoxious little villain, the sort of which we saw in the Sous Chef of Ratatouille (2007), but instead found him to be a rather focused but also terrified and responsible master who really cared about the well-being of his town and its people, while also worrying about his own prosperity, but never by stepping on others. His own master, the wise old turtle Oogway (voice of Randall Duk Kim), who is also, by the way, an adorable character, might have been, in the past, as flawed as the pupil who is now master, and we end up realizing that the one seemingly hopeless student of Kung Fu that we tag along with will surely one day follow that path. It’s a beauty to realize that.

The other characters, mainly those called The Furious Five, aren’t quite as endearing, but are colorful enough and sufficiently important to be memorable, at least as a group. Voiced by Angelina Jolie, Jackie Chan, Seth Rogen, Lucy Liu and David Cross, they’re quite a bunch.

I haven’t said much about the story and I feel that I shouldn’t, because discovering it is part of the fun, but it’s a story about following one’s dreams and never letting go or quitting, no matter how impossible they seem. There are only two plot points I felt awkward about: an unresolved father-son mystery and an unredeemed antagonist (Tai Lung, voiced by Ian McShane) who seems to have been more a victim of circumstance than a fully-fledged evildoer; this left me with a sour aftertaste that I still am unable to shake off; it’s a minor fault though.

The guys at Dreamworks have managed to make me believe that anything is possible, by making use of the fact that this is an animated picture to make a character change radically in terms of physical ability, while making it look hard enough to seem like it wasn’t in fact easy at all. Doing this with humans would’ve been harder to accomplish, perhaps, but finding the right balance in an animated film is praise-worthy to say the least. Take, for instance, the fighting scenes, all of which made me laugh until I lost my breath, but were still serious enough to be profound. Much of this achievement is owed to the touching but dynamic music by John Powell and Hans Zimmer.

Also, talking about animation, and as I said before, it had been a while since I had seen something as beautiful and harmonic on the screen, and it’s no doubt the best I’ve seen in computer animation. After saying that, adding the word Bravo should be considered a waste of time, but joking about it should not.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of Kung Fu Panda (2008): Lego

Review

Hulk

Director

Ang Lee

Year

2003

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, June 23, 2008

I have never been a fan of comic books, yet the string of movies based on these over the last years have been so thrilling that I’ve become a huge fan of the genre… movie-wise. I followed Hulk’s making since the beginning and I couldn’t be more excited when Ang Lee was announced as the director of the project. Whoa! Then the cast gathered and it all seemed perfect. So finally it was time to see the movie and well… that was kind of sad.

Bruce Banner (Eric Bana) and Betty Ross (Jennifer Connelly) are scientists working on a project involving the curing of live species by means of gamma rays. One day Bruce has an accident that triggers the abnormality he’s always had in his body: the tendency to become a monstrous green creature when he gets angry. His father (Nick Nolte) experimented on him even before he was born so now he’s cursed and not even the government, by means of Betty’s father (Sam Elliot), can stop him.

Ang Lee directed from a screenplay by John Turman, Michael France and James Schamus. Lee may have actually done the most pretentious and artistic blockbuster ever brought to the big screen. I thought the idea of him directing a movie of this sort would pay off in very cool way, but unfortunately he made all the wrong choices; he directed his actors as if they were sleepwalking throughout the entire thing, created action scenes that never reach greatness and worked with a script that doesn’t work. Only pluses are the editing and the visual style; they are impeccable, even remarkable.

The saddest part is all the potential lost. The movie starts rather interesting; Danny Elfman’s music kicks in and we’re off. Then again, the pace is so slow at the beginning that even when Bruce finally transforms into the Hulk you have to adjust and believe that it will be fun from then on. But it just drags a lot and becomes overlong.

The ending (one of many) is so over-the-top it’s almost hard to believe. There’s a great confrontation that is kind of theatrical and that sums up what the movie is trying to say about a father who never really loved his son, but then the movie goes completely nuts and an epic fight ensues. This sequence goes far beyond ridiculous.

Then there are the special effects. They are, to put it simply, underwhelming. I couldn’t stop thinking it was a computer-generated character; sometimes it even looked like a cartoon. And some of the things the Hulk does are just laughable, especially for those who don’t know that the “power” to jump high distances comes since its conception by Stan Lee.

Acting-wise I thought Eric Bana did a great job. He’s got charisma and acting chops and carries the movie effortlessly. But Jennifer Connelly, whom I love, has a range of expressions from A to B here. She’s gorgeous, but I never truly identified with her character. And Nick Nolte… is Nick Nolte, just more so. Sam Elliott, Josh Lucas, Cara Buono and Celia Weston also star, while TV’s Hulk Lou Ferrigno makes an appearance.

“You wouldn’t like me when I’m angry.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of Hulk (2003): Groucho

Review

Witness for the Prosecution

Director

Billy Wilder

Year

1957

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Saturday, June 21, 2008

I cannot imagine a greater clash of brilliancy than mixing the talents of two of the world’s greatest (and most successful) writers, each of them with a completely different style and genre, and put them to work for a common goal, but without expecting any of them to give up their specialties. One would think that if their niches are so different, if not contrasting, the point would be lost in the middle, but the proof to the contrary, and a tribute to Billy Wilder’s unlimited vision, is Witness for the Prosecution, his adaptation of Agatha Christie’s famous play, in turn adapted from her short story, which Wilder expanded by adding plotlines and characters from his own imagination but without forgetting what the plot was about. Christie’s ingeniousness, bombastic revelations and mystery are here, but also are Wilder’s wickedness, sense of humor and wit.

I wouldn’t know why this film isn’t more famous. I had heard about it but never enough of it, in fact, I wasn’t even aware that it was based on a work of Agatha Christie. Only when I was researching Christie for different reasons did I come across the title of her play and remembered it to also be the title of a Billy Wilder film. What surprises me is that the outstanding result didn’t lead to greater fame, but anyhow, I have read after seeing it that it is usually regarded as the best Christie adaptation, followed closely by And Then There Were None (1945) and Murder on the Orient Express (1974), and no surprise there: “Witness for the Prosecution”, being a play, had a lot of cinematic advantages which an average Christie novel lacks. Gifted though she was, and I’m an admirer, Christie doesn’t seem to have been a film visionary, and I’m quite glad, because it’s in literature where her treasure abounds.

But I’m even happier that Billy Wilder took on the project of filming Witness for the Prosecution and turning it into one of his irresistibly hilarious, frankly poignant and irreverently twisted pieces. The play, as the title hints, takes place in a courtroom, with its focus on a prisoner, Leonard Vole, accused of murdering a rich, old woman. Wilder changed the focus by making Vole’s defender, barrister Wilfrid Robarts, the main man of the story.

Wilder and co-scripter Harry Kurnitz take their time to introduce Robarts at first—though Vole’s story is already running—as a man with several weaknesses but two great strengths: a passion for intricate cases and an obsession with justice; add to that his intelligence, and he’s the man to own a story like this.

One can’t seem to take matters too seriously when Robarts, a patient just out of rehabilitation after a heart attack, is chased around by his seemingly straight-from-a-cartoon nurse carrying a syringe and telling him what to and what not to do, and Robarts acting as a rascal, fleeing from her and taking on a quite distressing case against the doctor’s orders, like it’s nothing. But what Wilder achieves here is lightness, but without losing interest, so when we’re completely relaxed, and suddenly things start getting tremendously serious around Robarts and his nurse, the impact is intensified exponentially. Also, as we will eventually find out, Nurse Plimsoll, a creation for the film, turns out to have quite an important role, if not directly related to the procedures, but directly related to the leading character, and she steals the spotlight more than once, always returning Robarts to that much needed lightness, if only for a few seconds, but always with that off-putting attitude that helps us breathe, as if we were in the very courtroom, desperate for a recess after so many heated declarations.

The actors portraying Robarts and Nurse Plimsoll are Charles Laughton and Elsa Lanchester, real-life husband and wife whose admirable histrionics were largely praised and awarded. I have seen some of Laughton’s best work and I can say this is my favorite among those performances, since here he’s allowed to show much more of a human side despite his inevitably picaresque mood and his characteristic antics that irresistibly permeate his persona and invade his character, something that most filmmakers must have disliked, but which Wilder, like it or not, made the best out of. I found the Laughton-Wilder team heaven-sent.

On the Christie side, the case is as absorbing as it is surprising. One can’t but be a fan of hers as her story twists and turns but without ever being predictable or over-complicated. The accused is played by Tyrone Power in quite a sensible performance that becomes heartbreaking soon enough. Marlene Dietrich has one of her unforgettable showcases here as Vole’s wife, whose testimony becomes so crucial for the course of the case. Kudos to her! It’s funny how thinking back about this film either takes me to her scenes or Laughton’s, as if they were from different shows altogether, but when I think about the whole, it glues together perfectly well; that’s Wilder’s craft, and his actors are, as it usually happens, gifted in his hands.

Revealing the intricacies of the case is forbidden, so may I just say they’re brilliant from start to finish, hiding powerful revelations until the end, and delivering the goods despite any possible skepticism along the way. I just can’t believe how much Agatha Christie produced and how good it usually was. My guess about her secret is she never restrained from pouring out every one of her best ideas, fighting the anguish that they would stop coming, but instead exercising her mind and demanding her imagination for more and more of them; keeping them for later would’ve made them old, rusty and useless, and would’ve prevented the rest from coming. That gives me something to think about, concerning the creative process. Let’s let it flow.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Persona

Director

Ingmar Bergman

Year

1966

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, June 19, 2008

How is it possible that a movie of only (for the most part) two characters is so complicated to talk about? Add to that the fact that one of the two never (for the most part) speaks. That’s the complexity achieved by Ingmar Bergman’s Persona, and if you just consider that, and realize how truly complicated it is, you’ll understand why this film is such an utter triumph, or at least almost universally considered to be. Fact is, it’s such a big puzzle that most people prefer to just regard it as brilliant, hint about their own interpretation and leave it at that. I have searched for reviews from the time of the film’s release and the present day and not much has changed: everyone talks about what they got, they mention Bergman’s greatness and the fact that he couldn’t have just made something like this without a deeper meaning, and then they talk about what can be seen and heard in the film.

My review won’t differ much. I am also bewildered, rather confused, and convinced that Bergman had something in his mind, if only to cause exactly this in us. He could give himself that luxury, to be sure. Perhaps that’s what’s so great about the movie: that it makes people think. That’s because it’s not all surreal; it begins that way, but then it becomes a mostly coherent story, and then it goes all wacky again, and then again it glues together. Some symbolism is so dark it’s easily missed, and some is so obvious it invites immediate reflection. I saw it as a frantic experience, and had, not a hard time, but a busy one, keeping up. I thought the experience was beautiful, but mostly because the little of it that made straight sense was poignant. This is the kind of film that you’re in a hurry to finish seeing, not because it’s unbearable or uninteresting, but because you already want to order all your ideas in your mind to see if you can make heads or tails out of it.

Yet, as I said in the beginning, it’s all about two women: Elisabeth and Alma. Elisabeth is a stage actress who suddenly lost her voice during a performance of “Electra” and chose not to speak anymore though her mind seemed to work normally otherwise. Alma is assigned to care for her, keep her company and talk to her, not an easy task for all the loneliness that it could imply, which indeed is clear from the very first moment they’re together. When a doctor decides that Elisabeth and Alma should spend some time away from the clinic, namely at the doctor’s summer house, it all gets tougher for Alma, and simpler for Elisabeth: Alma just keeps talking, opening her heart and her mind to Elisabeth, and expecting some reaction or even action from the patient. The caretaker becomes the patient, and vice versa. This is a strong game of psychological roles.

It’s at this point where the explanations differ, but mainly there are two: that this is a wicked portrait of multiple personalities, or that psychoanalysis is dangerously deep. Alma’s unraveling is triumphant. I find it irresistible how she opens layer by layer herself until she’s completely naked, vulnerable and in complete submission against Elisabeth who has the power to shatter her completely, adding just the right ingredient to either make her blow or wrap herself once more and forever maybe, allowing her to continue her unsatisfying plans, having forgotten all about the strong memories that she has let Elisabeth into, which contain all the angst and all the happiness that she has ever experienced, put into one or two events, and four or five sentences.

Bergman bookends the movie with strong imagery of the first pictures on film, shocking still images, and disturbing people behaving like impersonated traumas. This causes much questioning among interpreters of Persona. I instead can’t help but dismiss these uncomfortable moments, or perhaps regard them as random thoughts or insights which could reflect what lies inside a human head in the realm of the subconscious. All throughout, the photographic work of Sven Nykvist is stunning, also when photographing the two actresses. Much is made of their physical similarity: Liv Ullmann’s Elisabeth is perfect, almost an ideal version of Bibi Andersson’s Alma. One talking too much, the other not at all, both actresses are perfection at work.

But going back to the distressing imagery, I’ll say that much more valuable to me are the images that are shocking but unseen, except they’re the opposite: they can’t be seen onscreen, but end up quite real inside our heads. I’m talking about the monologues of Alma. With much pain, excitement and catharsis, she talks about shocking experiences that define her persona much more than her interaction with another talking person would allow. The “strong” images at the beginning and the end of the movie are related to cinema, and apply to the human mind; Alma’s words are related to human experience, and apply to cinema: they create in our minds the experience of cinematic joy and pain, without more scenery than a room or more acting than a person talking and another listening; it can be called otherwise, but, to me, that it makes the mind revolt, enjoy and imagine, while effortlessly experiencing something that as a whole cannot be grasped, is movie magic.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Incredible Hulk

Director

Louis Leterrier

Year

2008

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, June 18, 2008

I remember when the previous Hulk (2003) movie was released I was so excited, especially since Ang Lee was directing it... Ang Lee! The cast was also awesome and it all seemed to be going its way. Well, as history would tell, the movie was a disappointment, way too dense for its own good. When I read the announcement that a new Hulk movie would be made I couldn’t believe it... why would anyone want to touch this character again so soon after that fiasco? I certainly had no craving for it. But things change, marketing helps and a good movie speaks for itself.

Bruce Banner (Edward Norton) has been living in exile at a Brazilian favela while he tries to find a “cure” for his extreme exposure to gamma rays that makes him turn into a green giant whenever he gets too excited. When Gen. Ross (William Hurt) finds about his location he recruits a group of experts led by Emil Blonsky (Tim Roth) to go catch him, but he escapes and ultimately travels back to where it all started, eventually reuniting with former flame and Gen. Ross’s daughter Betty (Liv Tyler).

Louis Leterrier directed from a screenplay by Zak Penn. This time around the focus is on action above anything else. This is a straight-forward fast-paced non-stop movie that tells a simple story in which the characters are also given some room to breathe. We identify with Banner’s struggle, want to see him find some peace and, yes, get the girl. We believe in the villains and understand both Gen. Ross’s obsession to catch him and Roth’s obsession to be like him. It’s the classic good vs. evil tale with a tragic twist added for good measure.

The movie is filled with strong action sequences which Leterrier keeps under control despite the huge mayhem involved. The persecution in Brazil is the standout and even though the final New York confrontation is predictable it provides plenty of excitement and is well-done. If anything, the movie suffers from a lack of suspense regarding the Hulk’s defeat, as he seems to be invincible, but is filled with plenty of tension regarding how much more the military is going to do to get him, always appearing to ruin the day.

A late appearance by Mr. Blue is welcomed, providing some necessary comic relief with a dark touch. There are comedic moments throughout the movie, but they’re widely scattered; it’s mostly an intense movie with tormented characters trying to find a way to fulfill their own path. Kudos also for not making of it an origin story, instead explaining what happened to Banner in an effective initial sequence during the opening credits. The last scene, by the way, is a hoot but the kind of goodie that should’ve been placed after the end credits rolled, not as an ending to the movie per se.

If there is a downside to The Incredible Hulk it might be that it’s a bit forgettable. It works and is a solid entry into the Marvel world, but it’s nothing to write home about either. It does what it set out do and goes away, as simple as that.

Cinematographer Peter Menzies does a good job and gets to stand out during the opening scenes in Brazil. The special effects are a step-up, and although imperfect (Hulk’s face doesn’t really cut it for me) they get the job done. Craig Armstrong’s score is solid, and even includes some queues from the classic TV show theme. I hate to compare though, but Leterrier’s movie does not have an ounce of the artistry that Lee’s contained.

Edward Norton, an actor better known for his talent than for his box-office draw, makes for an excellent Banner; he embraces the torment and confusion that distinguishes the character and makes it his own. Liv Tyler is beautiful and charismatic as Betty, and William Hurt is suitably imposing as her dad. Tim Roth is also very good, although he goes too over-the-top at times; the twirling of a moustache was all that was left for him to cross the camp line. Tim Blake Nelson and Ty Burrell provide solid support. Lou Ferrigno also makes an appearance and provides the Hulk’s voice.

“Hulk smash!”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of The Incredible Hulk (2008): Groucho

Review

The Happening

Director

M. Night Shyamalan

Year

2008

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, June 17, 2008

I’m not too happy to have to start a review of an M. Night Shyamalan film by getting into how his previous films worked and how his career has evolved since his first huge success, The Sixth Sense (1999). Doing so kind of predisposes you as reader the same way as even thinking about it previous to watching one of his films prejudices the viewer, because we’re all so eager to either trash or highly praise his efforts like he’s the most important person in the world. I would prefer perhaps to say that this guy is so fascinatingly narcissistic that he designs his work in such a way that, love it or hate it, it makes everyone talk about how he either glorifies or devastates the screen with his pretentiousness.

Hell, if we could only forget everything we know every time we watch anything. I’m one to talk though: if you read most of my recent reviews you’ll notice a tendency to compare everything with anything, but in the case of Shyamalan I’ll make an exception. I was lucky enough to know nothing about The Happening when I walked into the theater, and somehow I managed to not think about who had written, directed and produced it, so I wasn’t expecting the cameo, the grudge, or the plot twist. The result was pure entertainment, and only later did I evaluate the work considering the whole of this man’s opus. It mostly stood alone.

Today’s subject in the movies is the environment, how we’re tearing it apart and what risks we run if we continue. Even Jerry Seinfeld jokingly tackled the possibility of a bee strike in Bee Movie (2007), and the very same thing is considered here: if the bees disappear, we’re doomed. They’re vanishing, says a professor in New York, and the mysteriousness of this fact reflects what’s going on, unbeknownst to him or his class, very near their location: people have begun to massively kill themselves so calmly it’s alarming. When the teachers are notified of this, a terrorist attack is supposed, which is as startling, and another subject touched upon very often nowadays in movies, and very real by the way, comes through: paranoia. Fleeing from this, the teacher who mentioned the bees, Elliot Moore (Mark Wahlberg), gets a chance to live his life to its fullest, though he’s kind of dull so the fullest would still seem insufficient for a leading character of a summer blockbuster film.

What follows isn’t dull, though. If a sight of apocalypse is expected, it could be, but I prefer the way Shyamalan handles it: by showing only little (though quite graphic) of humanity’s self-extermination, and then just making it an awful dread that seems to chase Elliot and his party wherever they go, because it’s in the air and spreading. I only wished we were allowed to care more about, for instance, the relationship between Elliot and his wife Alma (Zooey Deschanel), so that the threat was bigger. However, I was horrified enough of what I knew could happen to them as to want them to stay alive, if only to hope that I would be safe too a little longer to write this review, which luckily, as it seems, is the case.

But let me stop joking: the problem of this movie’s script is its aloofness. The characters seem too smart for their own good and aren’t relatable. Though everyone is scared, they don’t seem to fully grasp the danger, or suffer from what they know is happening to their relatives. Only one character transmitted that to me, the one played by John Leguizamo, but he was too weird to give enough importance to.

Some of these people seem to know they’re in a movie, which is a capital mistake. And when they want to get human, like when Elliot and Alma talk about her near-infidelity, it’s not even funny or poignant; it’s blah. Then they meet a wacky old woman, brilliantly played by Betty Buckley, and despite those scenes’ effectiveness, the whole sequence belongs to a different movie. All this works together to seemingly “achieve” this: to minimize the actual antagonism to the point of irrelevancy, which is only worsened at the resolution. The main characters only survive, even though they do their best to do it, but they don’t resolve much. Everyone knows a movie like that is ineffectual. Notice James Newton Howard’s score: it seems like he never knew where to emphasize his tunes, where to make them suspenseful, where calm, where romantic. It’s just music, and not even that good in itself because, I bet, he was never into it.

But the film is not all failure, because with a little suspense, a bit of humor and some exciting moments, it entertains. I’m also quite haunted by some of the suicides, and those scenes will surely be the ones I’ll remember clearly years from now when I think back about this movie. “The Happening? Hmmm, isn’t that the one with all the people killing themselves?” Not sure that’s what the auteur wanted, but better than oblivion it surely is.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of The Happening (2008): Morris

Review

The Incredible Hulk

Director

Louis Leterrier

Year

2008

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, June 17, 2008

My prayers were heard! Or, perhaps, the guys responsible for deciding which Marvel comic book goes to the big screen heard the millions of complaints about the first Hulk (2003) and thought for a minute about any such predecessor that had been successful, to follow its example… Bingo! The TV show starring Bill Bixby and Lou Ferrigno! I have become so obsessed with that series after revisiting it so often in my mind with all this remaking that I’ll definitely get the DVD collections and warm up the seat for a few hours watching it because it has either grown on me or it’s an undisputable masterpiece, or maybe a little of both. I say this because even after they have taken every successful element from it (down to the hitchhiking), I still wanted more from the movie. But, if I may say so, this is a huge leap forward.

I thoroughly enjoyed The Incredible Hulk. It’s got an ideal casting, a perfect mood and a touching story, plus a good dose of sense of humor. The Hulk is not a superhero in the strict sense, or not yet, because so far he’s an uncontrollable, well, hulk who embodies a man’s gargantuan rage and kicks the asses of everyone responsible for making him angry. As the show jump-starts, Dr. Bruce Banner has already poisoned himself with gamma rays after an experiment gone terribly wrong (or terribly right, a character says with chilling irony), has already become a fugitive, is hiding in a Brazilian favela, and seeks desperately for a cure, not because he wants to prevent more damage to the world, but because his present condition prevents any kind of comfortable, happy life, which is a perfectly human and relatable motivation.

This character is played by Edward Norton at his best: his persona is poignant, his look is sad, and his physiognomy seems to state that he’s all right as long as he keeps breathing, but he prefers to feel good. The same as in the previous installment directed by Ang Lee, this one screams “Action!” during the opening credits, but now is followed by real action because, as if the filmmakers wanted to correct every mistake, not much is said before Banner is angered to the point of becoming the Hulk, much to his enemies’ regret.

This sequence happens during the first few minutes and most of what’s good about the movie is here: Banner is a mild-mannered escapee but not a loser; he does everything in his hands to avoid his transformation but seems almost happy to give way to it when there’s no other choice; when this happens, his eyes go bright green, like Bill Bixby’s; and then The Hulk smashes his enemies through great visuals and perfect editing (by Rick Shaine and John Wright). Also, in addition, this happens with the favela as background, shot glamorously but this time intentionally so, unlike the glamour of City of God (2002) which was, or at least seemed, unintentional. Kudos to cinematographer Peter Menzies Jr.

This introduction also helps us meet the other two colliding forces of the story: General Ross (William Hurt), in part responsible for Banner’s condition and forever obsessed with catching him, and Emil Blonsky, the Marine assigned to catch the monster who becomes so fascinated with the gamma-induced creature that he longs to suffer a similar fate.

From then on, it’s all recycled once and again, but there’s always something to keep the interest up. I’m not too happy about the plot involving the military unloading their entire ammo against the Hulk every time they get a chance, but all right, that comes from the comic books and has always been successful in this story. I prefer the sadness in Hulk’s other self, Dr. Banner, here perfectly portrayed by Norton, and much aided by director Leterrier and musician Craig Armstrong who, humbly enough, allowed the TV show’s classic theme, “The Lonely Man” by Joseph Harnell, to blend with his own score in key scenes (I wish he had been humbler and allowed that to be the inspiration for the movie’s main tunes though—à la The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957) where Malcolm Arnold used Kenneth Alford’s “Colonel Bogey March” and still went on to win much acclaim for his own additional creation—instead of delivering a typical and unmemorable action score).

Along with Norton is Liv Tyler as Betty Ross, his ex-girlfriend whom he had to run from. Though Tyler isn’t much of a histrionic match for Norton here, she’s still lovely, and I loved everything about this relationship. The fact that he had to forsake her because of his condition and her relationship to General Ross (she’s his daughter) is beautiful and credible. Even more so is that she has moved on and settled with a new boyfriend. Better yet is her unhesitating decision to leave this new guy when Banner comes back. And to make matters even more intense, these two can’t even have sex because Banner might get too excited and green and huge. This is used for the laughs, but they aren’t having a good time. In fact, that’s something that I much appreciated of Zak Penn’s script: that even though the characters are rarely, if ever, having a good time, that doesn’t mean we have to suffer as much, but instead we’re allowed to chuckle here and there. Welcome, absurdity! Real life is like that.

As I said, the military thing is over-used and so are the visual effects. I wonder why they have to make the Hulk so big and unreal. He’s an improvement over Ang Lee’s because he’s heavier, he looks like he has a rough texture and somehow you can feel his presence, but he looks nothing like Norton and he’s just too big to be believed. If you get into his eventual nemesis, there’s no end to this criticism. I enjoyed the subplot of Blonsky’s obsession (and Roth is good!), but could’ve done without the exaggeration of his final battle against the Hulk.

Even though caricature abounds, I still believed that it could all be real, which is or should be the goal of all fiction, until they reminded us that this is just intended to make money and help others make it too, and they have to be so damn obvious about it. Ah, what the hell, as long as they’re good, let ‘em come.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of The Incredible Hulk (2008): Morris

Review

The Happening

Director

M. Night Shyamalan

Year

2008

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, June 16, 2008

I have always been in the M. Night Shyamalan bandwagon. The man has received a lot of baggage when it comes to his last three, even four movies. People either loved them or hated them, but the general impression right now is that he is going downhill and let’s face it... it is even hip to trash him. That is one of the reasons I was so devastated after watching his latest, The Happening, because there’s no way I can keep defending him. This is, for me, his first misfire and a catastrophic one at that.

One sunny day the people in Central Park, New York, suddenly stop, become disoriented, start mumbling nonsense and go suicidal. A science teacher, Elliot Moore (Mark Wahlberg), takes his wife Alma (Zooey Deschanel), friend Julian (John Leguizamo), and the latest’s daughter Jess (Ashlyn Sanchez) on a train to escape what is initially regarded as a terrorist attack. They are then stranded on a small Pennsylvanian town much to their own fates.

Shyamalan directed from his own screenplay as is always the case. This time he was supported by a different studio, as the previous two he’s worked with didn’t really want to take the plumb. Another difference is the much-publicized R-rating, a first for the director. Having watched the movie I must say the rating was unnecessary, only there to be able to show the suicides in all their glory. Shyamalan has always excelled at suggestion but for some reason he decided to be graphic this time around.

That’s the least of the movie’s problems though. I don’t even know where to start but I believe that for a thriller to work we need to identify or even empathize with a character; that’s not the case here. Shyamalan’s movies have always had weird characters front and center, but they’ve always been approachable. Elliot, Julian, Jess and especially Alma seem to be from another planet altogether; the things they say, the way they react, the conflicts they have, it’s all so bizarre that I couldn’t feel anything for them.

The movie’s premise and the whole suicide thing are awfully interesting, but I got the feeling that a lot more could’ve come out of it. Barely anything happens except for characters escaping and talking mumbo-jumbo about science and plants and switching on radios exactly when a news broadcast begins or not running for their lives when a man with a shotgun starts shooting people. It sounds twisted, but the suicides are the only exciting bits in the movie, as is the late appearance of Mrs. Jones (Betty Buckle), an old lady I was more scared of than whatever was happening outside.

Speaking of which, the movie’s ecological theme is noble, but leads absolutely nowhere. Why did it last that long? How did it choose whom to attack? Why only the North East portion of the country? One wishes Shyamalan would’ve not listened to his critics and inserted a couple of twists in there. The very last scene wishes to shock, but since nothing made sense before that I barely cared by that point.

Despite all this, the most disappointing aspect for me was that the director didn’t seem to be at the top of his game, not even at what he’s usually good at such as crafting suspense sequences, letting his trademark dialogue flow, using the camera to his advantage. He also employs a couple of slow-motion shots that are laughable and the slow pace, usually a good thing when it comes to his movies, is perfunctory here. His work in The Happening is incompetent and that’s not a word I thought I would ever use in relation to him.

Tak Fujimoto’s cinematography is good, nothing more. And James Newton Howard makes an effort to provide a haunting score, but the surroundings do not help him.

Acting-wise the movie’s leads are awful most of the time. I love Mark Wahlberg and Zooey Deschanel but this is without a doubt a bump in their careers. Wahlberg seems forced, like he doesn’t believe a word of the dialogue he’s been given to mutter; Deschanel is plain wacko and I do understand what she was trying to do but the result was alienating instead of relatable. John Leguizamo is his usual annoying and little Ashlyn Sanchez fails to deliver an impression. The best performances come from supporting characters such as Frank Collison and Victoria Clark, the couple who gives them a ride; but most of all from Betty Buckley, who steals the movie and injects it with some much-needed energy.

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of The Happening (2008): Groucho

Review

Persepolis

Director

Vincent Paronnaud

Marjane Satrapi

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Friday, June 13, 2008

The gorgeously plain visual style of Persepolis that turns out so captivating despite its extreme simplicity is not a coincidence: so much to see all around us and so much of it presented so spectacularly has finally alienated audiences who were once surprised and are now fed up by too much containing too little. The opposite is a beauty: big things in small packages, like they say, and there’s no better example than this film. It is an adaptation of Marjane Satrapi’s successful graphic novels that depicted her life starting in Iran and spanning a couple of decades, during which she went many places, but somehow always stayed in Iran, if a long-gone version of it.

If you read the graphic novels, you’ll find that there’s no greater pleasure than a good story well told through amiable drawings that never get in the way of the tale’s impact. The film is exactly the same: the drawings are easy on the eyes and the story is so awesome it fills the screen with greatness. That’s not to say that the art isn’t admirable, because it is: using strictly two dimensions it contains some of the most expressive illustrating work I have seen in my time. I wouldn’t have it any other way than this appealing black-and-white that goes through every gray in the spectrum but never looks gloomy, not even when the story is! But the story isn’t really all that gloomy, even at its saddest, because Satrapi’s vision of life is optimistic, as taught to her by her unique family, and even at her most depressed you can see a ray of light and feel sure that not all is lost for this peculiar young woman.

Marjane’s childhood is composed of happy memories. Though her family wasn’t happy with the way the shah was leading the country, they were hopeful about his fall and the change it would bring. Marjane knew how to be happy and did it every day, and there was one simple reason: love. There is no way to not love Marjane’s family while witnessing the unconditional love that they give this lucky girl. That includes sending her away from Iran when things don’t go as well as they expected: the Islamic revolution resulted in oppression for women and absurdly extremist measures to ensure morality and block any sign of “western decadence”.

In her years outside Iran, Marjane proves to be no heroine, and that’s when we realize this is not a history lesson but the story of a girl caught in the midst of a turning point of history and trying to understand the tumultuous happenings around her while attempting to achieve happiness. Admittedly, given the interest generated by the backdrop, her times outside Iran are the least interesting, but still it’s a pleasure to accompany her wherever she goes.

The story is at its best back home because no matter how bad things are, the Satrapis remain the same and that’s a treat. Marjane’s grandmother in particular is a towering figure of wisdom and understanding. Voiced ever so warmly by Danielle Darrieux, she’s easily the most memorable character. Following closely is Uncle Anouche, voiced by François Jerosme, whose story fascinates little Marjane and changes her life. Simon Abkarian lends his voice to Marjane’s father, also an unforgettable part. Marjane is voiced as a child by Gabrielle Lopes and as a youngster and adult by Chiara Mastroianni; both are really good though the first is more magnetic, in part because of the enchanting phase of her character. Mastroianni is the daughter of Marcello Mastroianni and Catherine Deneuve; Deneuve voices Marjane’s mother.

Established in France, Marjane Satrapi told her own story through art and it’s an admirable work from start to finish, and one that seems effortless and is outstanding. After achieving international success with her graphic novels, she went on to adapt them to film along with Vincent Paronnaud; they had little to no filmmaking experience. That the film turned out so good talks of their love and devotion for the material. I guess this experience could be made into yet another chapter of Satrapi’s graphic story. I wouldn’t mind it if she kept them coming.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Hulk

Director

Ang Lee

Year

2003

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, June 12, 2008

It’s hard to be tough to Hulk because it challenges the comic book cliché that this media is intended to contain brainless entertainment accessible to everybody and without more depth than perhaps a dramatic backdrop that sets the table for excessive action and adventure and maybe a few cool costumes. Here, instead, the drama is all throughout the story, getting, in fact, deeper and darker as the plot advances, and making the gargantuan action scenes not an escapism but a realization of the human tragedy that we’re witnessing, hence becoming depressing and sometimes unbearable, and, to be objective, unsuccessful.

I don’t know the key to finding equilibrium in comic book adaptations, because the lightness of the source must be maintained while some or much effort must be made to sell the characters as real, identifiable human beings. The way that Hulk was handled went for the heavy-handed, and there’s nothing comic-bookish about that, nor anything human if I may say so, because I have always thought that even when life is tragic it’s not all tragic, so a reality where no one is capable of a darn chuckle is unacceptable in my book.

I remember with great joy the 70s TV show where Bill Bixby got infuriated and became an all-green and rather grumpy Lou Ferrigno with a bad wig and heroic intentions despite his bestiality. A greater tragedy I couldn’t think of: David Banner (Bixby) was a drifter who had to change zip codes every once and again because a hound-like reporter, McGee (Jack Colvin), was on his trail and constantly popped up after a newly-settled Banner stumbled upon some villainy that made him angry and summoned the green giant. After usually solving the local problem and being haunted by McGee, Banner had to flee, leading to the now-famous closing scenes where he hitch-hiked towards the unknown. I can’t think of a sadder scenario, and yet, when I think back and remember the countless afternoons I spent with The Incredible Hulk, a smile comes to my face.

The gloominess of Hulk is off-putting from the start, so Ang Lee’s comic-book visual style, including a scene framing that makes the film look like a moving comic book, is contrasting and loses all its punch on account of the story, becoming annoying, and making us tired of it soon enough. Plus, it makes it evident how weak the story is, which by the way also makes the running time (of over two hours) unforgivable.

In this adaptation, Dr. Bruce Banner (Eric Bana) is not responsible for his unusual abilities, but instead his father is, after experimenting on himself and passing on contaminated genes to his child. Though Bruce grows up away from his father, and doesn’t even know who he really is, he inherits the interest on experimenting with gamma rays (that’s the kind of things one inherits, of course), and one day, a little accident unleashes what had always been inside, and the Hulk is created.

Enter the crazed father, played by Nick Nolte at his wackiest, to further worsen the situation. Bruce had something with his colleague Betty Ross (Jennifer Connelly), but not anymore, and it’s not quite as if that past relationship means much to the current story, except perhaps to make us lose interest in the loser protagonist who can’t even fight for love, and not for a good reason. Josh Lucas plays a man who’s interested both in Betty and in using Bruce’s secret force for profit, and when a love triangle is suggested, but never quite comes true, the movie touches bottom. But we don’t really care anymore.

If there’s anything more I can add to the negative, I’ll tell you the visual effects are dreadful, the Hulk doesn’t look real, and the action is not exciting, but in fact, quite boring! Danny Elfman’s music sounds as if he slacked off and then took his own rejected tunes intended for Spider-Man and submitted that as a score that, by the way, doesn’t fit.

Whoa, that was a relief… But I would like to close with the one positive thing that I found in this big green mess: the approach was daring. It didn’t work, though.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of Hulk (2003): Morris

Review

You Don't Mess with the Zohan

Director

Dennis Dugan

Year

2008

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, June 11, 2008

When it comes to Adam Sandler I’m fairly mixed. I love The Wedding Singer (1998), Big Daddy (1999), Reign Over Me (2007) and... that’s it. Everything else he’s done I have my quibbles about, so it was surprising that I really wanted to see his latest foray. To tell you the truth the trailer did it for me, specifically the shot of him punching a man’s face in the street with his foot. Sometimes silly is just what the doctor ordered, and here silly is what you get.

Zohan (Adam Sandler), a Mossad agent, fakes his own death while fighting his main rival, The Phantom (John Turturro), in order to go to New York and have his dream come true: becoming a hairdresser. He eventually meets a friendly face in Michael (Nick Swardson) and is welcomed at his home by his mother Gail (Lainie Kazan). But it is with the help of old pal Oori (Ido Mosseri) that he decides to ask for a job in a salon owned by gorgeous Dalia (Emmanuelle Chriqui), a Palestinian.

Dennis Dugan directed from a screenplay by Judd Apatow, Robert Smigel and Sandler himself. Previous collaborations between the director and actor had been more miss than hit, so maybe the hand of current golden boy Apatow had something to do with this being such a funny outing. The premise itself is outlandish, but you have to see the execution to understand why it actually works.

The beginning of the movie takes place in Israel, where Zohan is tired of his job despite being the best at it. These first 20 or so minutes are so over-the-top that they set the bar pretty high for what’s to come. Fortunately the movie stays at that level for the most part and the (successful) jokes never stop coming. Laugh out loud I certainly did.

Now, when I speak of jokes I do mean gags of the lowest order, from oversized crotches to an excessive mention of hummus to a great amount of sex with old ladies to... you name it. And despite what sounds like overly juvenile humor Dugan gets it; if you’re going to touch ground like this you better go all the way and that’s exactly how it’s handled here. Machismo is overly satirized with Zohan playing a character that beyond his tough exterior is actually an innocent softie who does not live his life according to what others think or say, but rather by his own standards.

Political issues are also delved upon amongst the comedy, specifically the rivalry between Israel and Palestine. The movie does become preachy, especially at the end, but for the most part it sends across its message by joking around it and showing how people should, and could, get along with each other despite their differences.

Not everything works though, and with a comedy this broad there is certain to be jokes that don’t hit a home run. Those that do far outnumber those that don’t, so we’re in safe ground. A subplot involving enemies who want to unmask the Zohan is mostly blah (although the phone calls are hilarious) and the stuff with the Phantom is not really good when Zohan is not on-screen with him.

Adam Sandler brings a different side of him to this project, he’s his usual low-key self but he’s also tackling an accent, doing stunts and yes, looking buff. He is spot-on and delivers a truly funny performance. John Turturro seems to try too hard at times and that’s when the amusing stops, but he’s mostly a good match to Sandler. “Entourage”’s Emmanuelle Chriqui is gorgeous and perhaps the only character playing it straight. Rob Schneider is his usual annoying, the whole goat thing is perfunctory and he’s just not a good comedian; and then there’s Mariah Carey, whose cameo was going well until she shamelessly promoted her latest CD. Everyone else, and that includes Lainie Kazan, Ido Mosseri, Nick Swardson, Dave Matthews, Chris Rock, George Takei, Alec Mapa and many more, are superb.

“I just want to make people silky and shiny!”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of You Don't Mess with the Zohan (2008): Groucho

Review

You Don't Mess with the Zohan

Director

Dennis Dugan

Year

2008

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, June 10, 2008

I’ll get it off my system before I say anything else: I could never shake the feeling that Zohan was a poor attempt at Borat despite its obvious differences with the modern classic. I have read a bit about it since and I understand that this is not the case, but yet, as I was watching, I was reminded of the awkwardness of a man from a completely different culture trying to adapt to the squeaky clean society of the United States of America which is actually anything but. Happy news is, before I was done comparing, I started having such a good time that I didn’t care much about it anymore. Also, I was very comfortable with the lead character. I was all for the Zohan.

This superdude is a sort of super agent from Israel who, seemingly possessing few brains and less heart, hides an unforgivable secret: he dreams of being a hair stylist, making everyone silky smooth. He even sobs at night, alone in his room, disgustingly admiring a much-seen Paul Mitchell catalog from a couple decades ago, which he thinks is universal and timeless. He’s such a magnificent guy that there’s never a doubt that he’ll do whatever it takes to make his dream come true, and so it is: during a “mano a mano” with his arch-nemesis, Palestinian The Phantom (John Turturro), he fakes his death and vanishes to the US where he quickly reinvents himself as a hair stylist who’s out of date and not quite stylish, but with a lot of heart and much stamina.

Adam Sandler can easily get to the annoying side but when he manages to stay on the sweeter one, he scores. This is the case here, and I assume his co-writer Judd Apatow had something to do with that, since he’s a specialist when it comes to sweet guys starring in gross-out comedies. Thankfully, this isn’t very gross-out either. If you leave out a scene where Zohan and a buddy play hacky-sack with a cat, the worst there is is an excess of hummus jokes that is more silly than gross. The rest, though easily catalogued in the cheaper side of comedy, comes so candidly that I couldn’t complain. The sex, for instance, used first for comedy, then for plot progression and later for romance, is in fact managed as something perfectly healthy and positive, and if society wasn’t still so uptight in some ways, it wouldn’t even be outrageous, and it looks like Sandler’s comedy implies that it’s not, which is great.

For example, I enjoyed how Zohan’s first American pal, Michael (Nick Swardson), winces at his mother’s sexual ventures with Zohan, and how Zohan constantly undermines the guy’s views by telling him how beautiful and healthy sex is for everyone, and how the lack of it is what could be detrimental. When it comes to Zohan’s love interest, the owner of a Palestinian hair shop that hires him, the sexual implications are so naïve that it even seemed like it was an old-fashioned comedy. I loved this girl, by the way. She’s Emmanuelle Chriqui, whom I hadn’t noticed before, and who’s totally lovely and gorgeous.

Because this is a story of personal struggle rather than a fight against something external, the plot drifts a bit when it comes to finding antagonism, and when it does, it’s weak. For a while it seems like a Palestinian cab driver, played by Rob Schneider, is going to be a pain, but he turns out to be an additional comedic part that works for the laughs and nothing more (Schneider has rarely been better, by the way, than in this controlled part with scarce but highly effective screen time). This gives way to a positive message of union between Jews and Palestinians that won’t bother anyone. In fact, it contains a positive moral that, if viewed from a wider scope, means a lot: most fights in this world are senseless, and the people who die for most causes aren’t even the ones who started the rumble.

I laughed all throughout the film and couldn’t avoid smiling later on. I still laugh at some jokes while writing this review. There’s nothing really memorable in this movie but a good time is guaranteed. Good for Adam Sandler.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of You Don't Mess with the Zohan (2008): Morris

Review

Sex and the City

Director

Michael Patrick King

Year

2008

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, June 09, 2008

I need to start this review by warning whoever reads it that it will be very hard for me to be objective, but I will try my best. See, I am a huge fan of the highly successful TV show it is based on and the movie was made for the fans, not for gaining new ones nor for people who haven’t seen an episode; it is what it is. Now, getting that out of the way, I’d also like to make myself clear in regard to my liking of it: at the end of the year it will surely come out as one of my favorite movies released in 2008 and if it were for me I’d rate it higher, but I do realize that as a stand-alone picture it isn’t as perfect as I personally see it. It is a delicate line, but let’s try to dissect it...

Carrie (Sarah Jessica Parker) and boyfriend Mr. Big (Chris Noth) are about to settle in the apartment of their dreams and eventually decide to get married, but he starts having second thoughts and that brings plenty of complications. Samantha (Kim Cattral) has moved to Los Angeles to be with her actor boyfriend Jerry (Jason Lewis), but finds that a monogamous life is far more difficult than she thought. Miranda (Cynthia Nixon) is not finding much excitement in her relationship with husband Steve (David Eigenberg), and a confession he makes brings a much necessary separation. Meanwhile Charlotte (Kristin Davis) is there for all of them and little suspects that her life will drastically change after unexpected news come her way.

Michael Patrick King, creator of the series, wrote and directed the movie based on the characters from Candace Bushnell’s book. Back in its heyday, the show was considered one of the smartest-written products on TV and went on to garner critical and audience success throughout its six seasons. Here was a show that wasn’t afraid of delving into women’s sexuality and their view on relationships and men. It was frank, funny and fast.

Now the women are all in their 40’s, continuing were they left off since, as we all know, there’s no such thing as a happily ever after. But, to put it simply, the movie is merely an episode extended to more than two hours. That is exactly what its followers wanted though, so I don’t see it as a negative. A movie has to work in respect to what it tried to achieve, and in this case it hits a bull’s-eye. I actually never wanted it to end and certainly hope that given its box office success the suits will greenlight a sequel.

Then again, if I had to sit back and criticize it merely as a movie I would have to say that character identification is perfunctory; you have to have seen the show before to get these women and root for them. And their men are barely in the movie! Also, it’s overlong, with a middle section that drags a bit after a killer first third. And for all the frankness that the series was known for the movie is surprisingly tame; there is only a handful of scenes where the characters speak of sex and even less when they’re actually shown having it.

But I’m not complaining, I actually laughed all through it and loved every minute. I love these women, their men, their friends, their stories and their struggles. They sure live in a fantasy and in a world that in real-life is not as fabulous as it is portrayed, but who cares? We know that, and in a way they represent many women’s fantasies. The girls have been criticized for being shallow and materialist, but whoever thinks that way is not looking closer; the show is about a lot more than merely fashion and speaks volumes about friendship and relationships. That they also dress well and live so comfortably is a plus; what’s with having so many shoes if you love them and can actually afford them? And besides, each women represents different sides of the equation, so there’s a little of everything to savor.

King avoids for the most part imbuing the movie with a TV feel, although there are times when his inexperience as a movie director shows; the editing is also a little off and I think it’s the result of his own work while shooting the footage. But he ultimately does a good job and the movie is large in scope when glamorizing New York, the city that is regarded as the fifth main character in this saga. The costumes, not to anyone’s surprise, are amazing; from Carrie’s over-the-top outfits to Charlotte’s more conservative ones Patricia Field nails it and clearly has a lot of fun.

Sarah Jessica Parker is radiant as ever despite spending most of the movie in a gloomy state-of-mind. She made Carrie a classic character and gets right back into the ride with no difficulty. Kim Cattral, Cynthia Nixon and Kristin Davis are also as good as ever. Supporting performances include those of show regulars Jason Davis, Chris Noth, David Eigenberg, Evan Handler, Mario Cantone, Willie Garson and Lynn Cohen while being joined by newcomers Jennifer Hudson, Candice Bergen, Joanna Gleason and Gilles Marini.

“And we were dressed from hair to toe in love... the only label that never goes out of style.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian

Director

Andrew Adamson

Year

2008

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Sunday, June 08, 2008

After the first Narnia I wasn’t expecting much depth in the sequel and not only was I right, but I found even shallower entertainment here, but entertainment nonetheless, which is appreciated. Despite the parallels with Christianity and some philosophical insights, C.S. Lewis’ saga doesn’t shy away from what it is, a collection of stories intended to appeal children, and for what it is, it succeeds.

The story goes on centuries later in Narnia, but only a year later for the kids that we met and learned to care for in the previous story, as they return to the magical land that they now consider home. Their expectation was almost like that of the fans of this and other sagas whose installments come every few years: they can’t wait to go back to the adventures that they enjoyed so much, even if they know they’ll suffer in the process, but usually getting to a happy ending.

As Lucy (Georgie Henley), Edmund (Skandar Keynes), Susan (Anna Popplewell) and Peter (William Moseley), the Pevensies, wait for a train, they get more than they bargained for: a trip back to Narnia, not that they have much of a choice, because the same as before, they’re summoned to this faraway realm without their intending to, and are supposed to bring big change to its people. They love it, though. They didn’t want to leave in the first place and now they find that a thousand years have passed and that people resent their sudden departure, more than they thank them for the salvation that they represented.

Now Narnia has suffered more than it did under the reign of the evil White Witch (Tilda Swinton) as a population of humans called the Telmarines have taken over, stealing lands from the Narnians and reducing them to myth, turning such things as talking animals into a fable that seems to be impossibility. As evil Miraz (Sergio Castellitto) bears a son, he intends to eliminate his nephew, and rightful heir to the crown, Prince Caspian (Ben Barnes), becoming King himself. Caspian flees and unwillingly summons the kings and queens of Narnia of yore, thus bringing the brothers and sisters Pevensie back into the desperate land. Talking animals and good ol’ Narnians are forgotten but still around, and together they set to bring balance to Narnia, defeating the Telmarines, or at least those who are evil.

That’s pretty much all there is to it. Pretty soon, war is planned and then it happens. The few more or less intriguing aspects of the procedures come when Lucy claims she has seen Aslan the Lion, but almost nobody believes her. When belief comes, Aslan shows up and saves the day. The question is, where was he all along, and why did he wait for the Pevensies to come back? It’s a metaphor for faith, of course, and how keeping it helps even after a thousand years. As it is embodied by a lion, it’s not too well justified. But in the end, battles are fought and matters are settled, even if we knew all along that they would. That’s it.

Harry Gregson-Williams is back to add gorgeous music to the saga, and the cinematography by Karl Walter Lindenlaub is handsome. Liam Neeson as Aslan again steals the show, followed closely by young Henley as Lucy. Some characters from the first installment are sorely missed, but the saga will constantly switch characters and some very dear ones will be missing in every one, so we best get used to it.

As Caspian, Barnes does a good job, but his character is more symbolically than actually effective. I still rather spend time with Edmund, whose character has a conflict that is more potentially dramatic than that of the others, because he’s still far from being in the spotlight, and it seems to me that he continues to resent it. A close encounter with the White Witch, apart from being an awesome scene because of Swinton’s cameo, is the best for what it means and the conclusion that it has, involving Edmund.

The battle is outstanding and visually impressive, and the Telmarines have their own internal conflict which is more effective than that of the participants in the first chapter’s battle. The final explanation of where they came from and what Aslan offers them is quite satisfying. Then everything’s done, and it’s all like nothing happened, and it’s exactly the same for the viewer: loads of fun, but not a life-changing adventure, or even a memorable one.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe

Director

Andrew Adamson

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, June 05, 2008

My knowledge of C.S. Lewis’ “The Chronicles of Narnia” is limited, but I know enough to realize that it enchanted a few generations from the 1950s on to make it worth updating and releasing on film, even though it’s been adapted before to other media, but thanks in great part to the success of the Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter film sagas, it was worth the celluloid. For some reason, I never took Narnia seriously, and now that I have seen it, a couple of years later, I realize that the vibe I got was exactly right: it’s rather unmemorable entertainment, not without its values, but, like they say, “nothing to write home about”. I still wouldn’t dispose it, especially because I know that there are many episodes to come, and they might get better. Also, I had a good time, though not much more than that.

One can’t help but like a story about sad, bored kids who find a hidden world inside a wardrobe. One also couldn’t expect that world to be all fun and no threat, because there wouldn’t be any drama in that, but in this case I couldn’t quite get why these kids would be interested in helping out the people of Narnia, who are condemned to eternal Winter and no Christmas thanks to an evil White Witch who has declared herself Queen and is no sweetie pie.

The kids don’t have much choice but anyhow they find it in their hearts to help the Narnians and become what these people think is prophecy. Imagine one day being told that legends of yore talk about your coming to save a magical realm though you fancied yourself not much more than a puny little kid. I believed the kids’ reactions particularly because they adapted well to their ages and distinct personalities. The Narnians are fun to discover—many of them are talking animals—and spend time with, too. And even the evil witch is quite attractive, as discovered by one of the kids, who causes good amount of trouble.

This kid, Edmund, played by Skandar Keynes, steals the show from his brothers and sisters by being, instead of bland, good and submissive, a rebel who wants to have his way even if he knows he’ll only find trouble for himself and others. Illogical though his actions might seem, he never looks like a fool, but rather like a kid striking puberty and needing to be different and bumping his head a few times before he finds the right path. As opposed to him, the older brother, Peter (William Moseley), is a know-it-all who needs to learn a lesson himself, and I also enjoyed that his being on the good side never meant that he was right. The sisters are adorable: teenage Susan (Anna Popplewell) is wise and little Lucy (Georgie Henley) is smart and curious, and somehow leads the way. I loved this little girl.

Enter the talking animals. Like some classic authors, Lewis would probably be astounded by today’s technology allowing his imaginative world to come true thanks to CGI, and I might add that I’m as astounded as he would be, because I really believed that those were animals talking, not because they really look like animals, but because the blend of computer animation and good acting is done to perfection here. The star among the animals is Aslan the Lion, voiced with incalculable dignity by Liam Neeson, and becoming as endearing and “human” as any actual actor. Besides him, there are two standouts: James McAvoy as a fearful faun, Lucy’s friend who is the first mythical creature that we meet, and Tilday Swinton as the White Witch, playing the villain with so much gusto that one even wishes she won the battle.

I had read that Lewis created several parallelisms between his work and Christianity, so, during the film, I wasn’t surprised to see Father Christmas come about giving presents to the children. What I was surprised to see, however, was an obvious reference to the death and resurrection of Christ, but I enjoyed that as much as the metaphorical recount of the same story in The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951). It’s a great tale, so why not adapt it to other realities?

In the end, what in The Lord of the Rings proved so alienating to me, identifiable humans being rather irrelevant, was the opposite here and proved effective: real, palpable humans not unlike us as viewers being the heroes whose participation in the procedures is not only helpful but crucial. I regretted that the denouement was such a clichéd battle, but I really cared about the humans involved, which made a big difference. That and the music by Harry Gregson-Williams would be my selected standouts. Other than that, and in fact, as a conclusive opinion, I see this film as only good enough to pass the time, a good alternative to hiding in a wardrobe while playing hide-and-seek.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Speed Racer

Director

Andy Wachowski

Larry Wachowski

Year

2008

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, June 04, 2008

When Speed Racer came out most admirers of the original cartoon were devastated. Everything was looking good at first: the Wachowski brothers at the helm, a strong cast, lots of colorful special effects in the trailer. So what happened? Excess. As simple as that. And yet here I am, a guy who literally knew nothing about this cult show, watching the movie for the sheer fun of it and finding it underwhelming just like everyone else.

Speed Racer (Emile Hirsch) is obsessed with racing cars, something that began as his late brother Rex (Scott Porter) became a huge phenomenon in the sport. He grew up immersed in that world and eventually became a mighty fine racer himself, lured by business mogul Arnold Royalton (Roger Allam) to join his team but plain rejecting him after finding about the corruption behind the man. Pops (John Goodman), Mom (Susan Sarandon), little brother Spritle (Paulie Litt) and girlfriend Trixie (Christina Ricci) support him, even when he is convinced to help unmask evil Royalton by working together with competitor Racer X (Matthew Fox).

Andy and Larry Wachowski directed from their own screenplay, based on Tatsuo Yoshida’s animated series. The brothers are not known precisely for restraint, but their ego simply went too far this time around. Their pic is an unquestionable failure (not without its joys) and that’s a huge disappointment considering the guys are naturally talented and only make movies once in a while.

Speed Racer starts out putridly. Seriously, the movie had gone for half an hour and I honestly thought of walking out. We see Speed as a child and there’s a confusing (at first) sequence in which he recalls his brother and a parallelism is made between them. Then Royalton enters the picture, taking the family to his premises and making an offer. All of this is excruciatingly bad, there’s no connection, no heart, nothing; just a bunch of people standing in front of blue/green screens that were changed for fake backgrounds in post-production.

But just as I was getting impatient the movie started to get better. That’s not saying much, but I do believe the movie gets better as it rolls along. By the time it ended I was fully immersed, although not blinded by its shortcomings. The high point for me was the cross-country race where they join forces with Taejo Togokahn (Rain). It is exciting, dangerous and epic… I loved it. And the climax is also tension-filled despite its obvious level of predictability. People have complained about the races not being well-edited and how you never know what’s going on. I actually didn’t care about it, it looked like a cartoon all right and I think that was the intention.

Now, if there ever was a movie that screamed of being made with 3-D technology it’s this one. With all the computer graphics involved I can’t believe no one thought of it… or was it too expensive? I think it would’ve been a hell of a ride.

There’s also no denying the fact that the movie running almost two hours and a half is almost a crime, especially for the genre. The beginning, particularly, should’ve been trimmed considerably. And the stuff with Racer X is kind of blah. I liked Speed’s confrontation after practicing together and was even surprised when he mentioned a certain piece of information I didn’t see coming. But how it was handled after that was a bit too much and truth be told the guy didn’t have that much of a personality. As for the whole corruption theme, well, talk about taking the excitement out of the sport; the movie is quite dark in that department and stays that way all the way through. But yes, I did fall for all the family-bonding theme. As I said, it did grab me eventually.

As for all the digital shenanigans, they sure are interesting and a feast for the senses. But like every feast… enough is enough. I was hooked at first, but you get used to it and there has to be a story to sustain everything else. Unfortunately the movie’s a mixed bag in that corner. Not even Michael Giacchino’s score can save the tediousness.

Emile Hirsch is forgettable, a pity; and so is Matthew Fox. John Goodman and Susan Sarandon do what they’re required of and bring some humanity amongst all the artificiality. Christina Ricci is the standout performer, as she seems to belong to this world more than anyone else. Paulie Litt is sometimes funny, most times not; but his chimpanzee is quite fun.

“Maybe not, but it’s the only thing I know how to do and I gotta do something.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Martín (Hache)

Director

Adolfo Aristarain

Year

1997

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, June 03, 2008

The title comes from the H (hache) of “hijo” (son), referring to the junior of a homonymous, strong-willed man, the sort of which makes it hard for their firstborn to have the same name because his identity will forever be diminished or completely lost on account of his father’s, in this case, of course, Martín, played by the über-talented Federico Luppi as a man with so much complexity that he can be disliked in the first take, loved in the next, and hated a second later, only to be redeemed subsequently. Martín’s so much of everything that there’s no chance for his son to not be eclipsed next to him.

Not surprisingly, the son, Martín (Hache) (Juan Diego Botto), is an inferior character who never really gets the chance to flourish, even if the title bears his name, a title that, it should be noticed, emphasizes the Hache, which by the way is what everyone calls the guy, a sign that he won’t be the leading character of this beautiful story. Unjust as it may seem, the star is the father, who can not and will not allow anyone else around to shine, not because he wants attention, but because he just gets it, if only to be hated most of the times. A situation surrounding the son only allows life to give splendor to the father, his girlfriend and their actor friend, and that’s not saying a lot, since every character in this film, except—you won’t be surprised—for Hache himself, is splendorous in a certain way.

Martín (Hache) works as a fine play where the staging is of the least importance as compared to the character development which, by the way, should be the main element of every piece of drama in any media. As Hache is found with an overdose in Argentina, his mother decides to ask the father, estranged Martín, to take their son to live with him in Spain, where he lives now. They mislead Hache into thinking that he’ll go there for vacation though it’s everyone’s plan to make him stay indefinitely.

Drifting 19-year-old Hache really doesn’t get why they make such a fuss about an accidental overdose, which they think was a suicide attempt, or why they think he’s stupid enough to believe they’re not planning what they’re planning. He doesn’t care though. He’s just a normal kid who doesn’t worry or want to worry much about anything yet because he knows he’ll have plenty of time to do so. Everyone around can worry the hell out of their lives but he won’t carp. That’s what makes this film so interesting: the title character doesn’t really change, he just goes through the experience as spectator while everyone else finds meaning and/or meaninglessness in life, and in the end, he’s the one who signified only the catalyst of such situations without wanting to or caring much about it.

Instead, as stated, there are three characters whose lives are completely changed after the proposed story: Martín, his girlfriend Alicia, and their friend Dante. The three of them use drugs like there is no tomorrow or there is but it doesn’t matter, but they’re completely different: Martín is stiff and conservative, Alicia is carefree and wild, and Dante is responsibly liberal. Interacting with Hache, each one of them gets to reflect on their existence one way or another and each of their lives comes to an important conclusion, some more definitive than others, but all quite conclusive, at least in respect with the story being told. Playing these people, Luppi, Cecilia Roth and Eusebio Poncela show what acting is all about. The film can get hard to bear at times but it’s never because these people are unendurable, but because their characters are too intense, but never in an unreal way, but in quite a real one, which is much worse.

Finding truth can take a lifetime, but director Aristarain and Kathy Saavedra have done it in one of the most enlightening scripts I have seen filmed. Notice how I’m not calling this a brilliant piece of writing, because it’s not, but some of the dialogue in it rings truer than real life because there’s nothing but naked truth in it, which is awesome. Dante has the best lines and Alicia doesn’t lag behind, and when it all comes together it explodes beautifully and disastrously all at once. When all is said and done, there’s nothing but frustration, but this isn’t a story about change, but about truth, and even though entertainment is sacrificed, there are many things to take home with you, and sometimes that’s what matters.

All this doesn’t mean that I’ll be praising this movie more than I really should. I would take three scenes, albeit long ones, put them together, and watch them tirelessly, but not as much for film appreciation as for philosophical learning. It’s a brave effort, however, to put together so much poignancy and make a story out of it, if one that leaves a bad aftertaste. I was not longing for corny change of character that would seem implausible, but some hope wouldn’t have been bad… That’s not too much to ask; it happens every day in life.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

Director

Steven Spielberg

Year

2008

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, June 02, 2008

Many people consider the making of a fourth Indiana Jones flick to be an affair of purely monetary reasons. There’s no denying the fact that this might be right, but I wouldn’t call it the only motive. If passion wasn’t involved then a second-tier product would’ve come out of it; but everyone implicated waited until the stars aligned to commit to it and made plenty of right decisions. Count me in as a skeptic through all these years, but also as a believer now that it’s actually come out.

Now in the 50’s, archeologist/teacher Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford) is lured into finding a legendary crystal skull in South America by rebel Mutt Williams (Shia LaBeouf) after his mother is captured along with his old mentor Professor Oxley (John Hurt). The Russians are also after the artifact, led by agent Irina Spalko (Cate Blanchett), for it is said to contain knowledge beyond the imaginable.

Steven Spielberg directed from a screenplay by David Koepp based on an idea by George Lucas and Jeff Nathanson. It’s been well-documented how the movie took years to take off, being the main reason that Spielberg, Lucas and Ford did not agree on a screenplay despite many talented writers having had a go at it. Koepp’s work met everyone’s expectations and production finally started. No wonder this was the case, for the movie contains all of the elements that make of the saga a success.

Almost two decades have passed since the last installment and Indy has gotten old. No problem though, the man’s still got it and his age is fully acknowledged from the very first sequence. This exciting set-up, which takes place in the same warehouse we last saw at the end of the first movie, is a little taste of most everything that is yet to come: it introduces the villains, provides a glimpse of sci-fi elements involved, shows Indiana doing his thing and establishes the relationship with buddy George McHale (Ray Winstone). Then a bang and we’re off.

Indy and Mutt start their trip in order to follow clues and make discoveries. I’ve always loved how the archeology thing is always rubbed in our noses but how well it plays; the way Indiana manages to make sense of hints he stumbles upon is far-fetched, but a lot of fun to watch despite some slow moments. Soon enough the Russians are on their trail and even old flame Marion Ravenwood (Karen Allen) enters the picture. From then one it’s one action sequence after the other, with the big highlight being a car chase through the Amazon jungle culminating with the appearance of giant ants and plenty of falls. The supernatural elements that permeate the movie and give way to a larger-than-life climax are more than suitable for this hero’s world. Spielberg is a master at this sort of filmmaking and he’s at his very best here.

That said, the most winning aspect has to be the character interaction. Indiana and Marion take it off right from where they left it and their rapport is hilarious (Indy’s expression when he first sees her is priceless). Mutt is also a great addition, playing off Indiana as only someone with a strong personality would, and being vital to the expedition and its outcome. And then there’s Irina, who proves a frightening counterpart and whose motivation is the same as Indiana’s, a rarity when it comes to movie enemies.

Technically-wise the movie is flawless. Janusz Kaminski is said to have studied the cinematography in the previous installments and it shows, for the movie blends perfectly with them and feels as if it were made then. Michael Kahn’s editing is also vital to the proceedings and hearing John William’s classic score along with these new images is simply joyous.

Harrison Ford knows the character too well and has no trouble stepping back into his shoes; the man is in top form. Shia LaBeouf does a good job, especially since his character could’ve been an annoying addition but he grounds him and makes it work (the monkey escape is a bit much though). It’s also wonderful to see Karen Allen smiling and bitching around once again. And Ray Winstone and John Hurt provide solid support, but it is Cate Blanchett who almost steals the movie if only because she is so fascinating to watch; such a rare creature.

Welcome back!

“Same old, same old.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter