CriticSociety- film reviews

Review

The Bridge on the River Kwai

Director

David Lean

Year

1957

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, July 31, 2001

During WW2, a British brigade of soldiers commanded by Colonel Nicholson (Alec Guinness) is captured and taken to a Japanese Prison Camp, run by arbitrary and stubborn Colonel Saito (Sessue Hayakawa) who intends to put his prisoners to work in the construction of a bridge that will join two ends of a railroad. Nicholson, a man who goes by the book and follows all the rules of the civilized world, disapproves Saito’s intention to make Commanders work, which gets him into a lot of trouble and results in the slow advance on the bridge’s construction. Therefore, Saito must decide between giving in to Nicholson’s intentions or finding trouble with his own superiors.

Meanwhile, an American prisoner, Major Shears (William Holden) runs away from the Camp and finds freedom—right before Major Warden (Jack Hawkins), a demolition expert, asks him to return to the camp so they can destroy the bridge.

After some chaos in the camp, the bridge becomes a goal for the British soldiers and the construction goes on harmonically under Nicholson’s direction, which is exactly the same that happens with David Lean’s direction of this movie. It is one of the most beautiful and rewarding movies ever, as it contains many genres, all of them perfectly developed and combined with the others, until there is a point when absolutely everything is intense and interesting beyond limits. While there is a war going on and people with dark intentions, one war is even stronger and it’s going on in the head of the Colonels, whose wills they are capable of defending with their own lives.

This movie also raises a big question about war, which involves the prisoners’ cooperation with the enemy… If such cooperation makes everybody happy, including the prisoners, isn’t it the best thing to do?

A memorable finale and awesome performances all around (especially by Guinness and Hayakawa, who was one of the greatest stars during the silent era and is unforgettable here) are only a couple of elements that make this a classic. Explosive, intense, poignant… A marvel of a film.

“Madness! Madness!”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Piano

Director

Jane Campion

Year

1993

Rating

Reviewed by

a.k.a. Jacinda

Review date

Monday, July 30, 2001

The Piano evokes a wide range of memories in me. I must have been around 15 when I discovered my deeply rooted love for the movies. Thus I spent my weekends in a local arthouse theater called Casablanca. It was the time when multiplexes took over and my favorite cinema was closed and turned into an Italian restaurant. The Piano was the last movie I saw in that theater – one of their last screenings ever. I went alone and I remember how bewildered and touched this movie left me. I had never seen anything like it before and the fact that it was one of the last screenings at the Casablanca made it an even more memorable experience.

Jane Campion tells the story of Ada (Holly Hunter), a woman who has refused to speak since her childhood. Ada is married to a man she doesn’t know and is sent to New Zealand accompanied by her nine year old daughter Flora (Anna Paquin). Ada’s only way of expressing herself is to play her piano, it is an essential element of her personality. When she arrives on the distant shore of nineteenth century New Zealand her new husband Alisdair Stewart (Sam Neill) refuses to transport the piano and it is left behind.

George Baines (Harvey Keitel), a tattooed illiterate neighbor who is close friends with the Maori tribe, takes her to the shore so that she can play her piano. Fascinated by the otherworldly sound and Ada’s strong personality Baines buys the piano from Ada’s husband who orders her to give Baines piano lessons. She will earn the piano back if she lets him do certain things while she plays. An emotional and sexual bond evolves between them but Ada refuses to give in. As a result Baines withdraws and tells her he does not want to force her into something she does not want. Ada ultimately discovers her love for this sensitive man but her husband is not willing to let her have her way. When he finds out about her secret passion he is prepared to take away the most precious thing in her life – her music.

I normally don’t like to give away too many details of the story but in this case it is necessary to understand the characters. Holly Hunter’s silent performance of the introverted, yet determined Ada is extra-ordinarily powerful. Her facial expressions say so much more than words ever could. She is a person lost in the world, a woman trying to emancipate, an individual dying to speak up. The only thing that is able to make her happy is her music.

The score by Michael Nyman has haunted me for years. Nyman describes his composition as follows: “Since Ada doesn’t speak her piano music substitutes for her voice, is her voice. The sound of the piano becomes her character, her mood, her expressions, her unspoken dialogue, her body language. It has to convey the messages she is putting across about her feelings toward Baines during the piano lessons, and these differ from lesson to lesson as the relationship, the state of sexual bargaining and passion, develop. Ada’s music is described by one of the characters in the film as “like a mood that passes through you... a sound that creeps into you.”

Sam Neill plays Ada’s husband, a man who is the victim of his own ambitions. He is the product of Puritan society. His major failure is his complete lack of sensitivity. He is not able to understand another person’s needs – especially not the needs of this fragile woman. When he realizes that Ada is able to give love to another man he loses his temper and gives in to his rage. Neill portrays this shift from the patient civilized Puritan to the raging wild man in a shocking way.

In contrast Harvey Keitel’s character Baines is a man with less ambition who is able to connect to Ada. He is sensitive and sensual and breaks down Ada’s walls – one after the other. Keitel gives this character a very specific feel that is perfect for the mood of the movie. He is the man to understand her needs and to capture her heart.

Anna Paquin stars in another important role as Ada’s daughter, her only companion. Flora voices her mother’s words when it comes to translating her sign-language. She seems very mature for her age. In the end we realize that she is only a child who has to take responsibility both for herself and her mother.

I have always related Holly Hunter’s Ada, to the incredibly stunning cinematography and to the piano music. There are images in this movie that I never lost memory of. As I said earlier I had not seen anything like this before when I watched this movie in 1993 - and to be honest I have not seen anything like it ever since. I doubt there will ever be a movie that can even be compared to The Piano.

It is a one-of-a-kind movie with a lasting impact. Jane Campion’s The Piano is a masterpiece that has found a place in my all-time favorite list.

A movie that creeps into you - and never lets go.

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Memento

Director

Christopher Nolan

Year

2000

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Sunday, July 29, 2001

Another brilliant movie this year.... and there’s still the best to come! You can’t blame me. Even I can’t believe it. But the movies are there, the perfection is there and I’m there to dig it all!

Leonard Shelby (Guy Pearce) suffers from short-term memory loss since his wife was killed and he was injured as well. The only thing that keeps him going is the desire for revenge, so he spends most of his time looking for clues in order to find the responsible man and kill him. He also keeps meeting Terry (Joe Pantoliano), a mysterious man, and Natalie (Carrie-Ann Moss), a bartender. To say one more word about the plot would be criminal. It is to be discovered by the viewer.

It is widely known that this soon-to-achieve-cult-status movie does something quite unique to tell its story. Christopher Nolan uses two parallel storylines to bring the narrative forward. The main one is actually told backwards. The movie begins with the ending and keeps moving until the start. Complicated? Only at first, but this movie definitely ain’t for the lazy. It requires willingness and intelligence. I think everyone can agree with that.

Doing this king of thing is risky. Fortunately, Memento is a movie that works in every level imaginable. It isn’t so much about unveiling a murderer, but about discovering, guessing, experiencing. We are in the same position as Leonard. He doesn’t remember anything that happened three minutes ago, so we keep learning stuff just as he does. It is that which makes the experience so fascinating and exhilarating, not to mention demanding and chilling.

Memory can be a tricky subject to play with. Memory can interpret things, it can change them and distort them. The truth, the facts, are what Leonard must trust in order to survive. He keeps taking Polaroid pictures at everything he considers important, taking notes in order to figure out later what’s going on, marking tattoos on his body. As a matter of fact, Leonard’s body becomes a character of its own. When watching the movie I wondered what I would do if I was in Leonard’s place. Believe me, it wasn’t a pretty picture...

Nolan keeps characters at its minimum in order to comfortably play with them without confusing the audience too much. There are three key players here who might or might not be what they seem. The movie is filled with surprise twists at every turn and is not afraid to play with us too. It’s got one of the most clever scripts in recent memory. It kind of resembles The Usual Suspects and Fight Club in that way, although this movie is way more imaginative, leaving the audience with an open-ending and a lot to figure out by ourselves.

Guy Pearce, of L.A. Confidential fame, is fantastic. He makes of Leonard a guy we can identify with and he is completely credible all the way. Carrie-Ann Moss proves once again she’s got chops and can handle a difficult role like this with ease. Joe Pantoliano is his usual-self, although that’s a good thing here and creates a character of his own admirably.

The mood, the pace, the dialogue, the pay-off, the direction, the acting, the suspense, everything is down-right perfect. An ambitious, excellent dramatic thriller that requires multiple viewings and will be remembered for ages to come...

“Now... where was I?”


CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Planet of the Apes

Director

Franklin J. Schaffner

Year

1968

Rating

Reviewed by

a.k.a. Jacinda

Review date

Thursday, July 26, 2001

My unconditional love for Tim Burton is no secret among CriticSociety’s members. I can hardly wait for his highly anticipated next movie Planet of the Apes which is based on the 1960’s classic I am about to review. I was eager to give the original version another look but Burton was not necessarily the reason for that. I remember this movie to be one of the many scifi flicks that I watched in my youth or in my childhood. I loved to check through my father’s video collection and Planet of the Apes was certainly a highlight. I enjoyed the movie a lot even though it scared me to death. Through the years I continued to watch reruns on TV and got to understand that this movie offers more than cheesy scifi action. The four sequels were not quite as good as the original but I think I still liked Beneath the Planet of the Apes. However the sequels never came close to the original first movie.

In 3978 an astronaut crew crashes on a distant planet. The three men led by George Taylor (Charlton Heston) discover that the planet is inhabited by apes who have acquired speech and the ability to invent technology while man is uncivilized and unable to speak. As a result the dominant race has enslaved men who are considered to be wild animals. On the run Taylor is separated from his crew members and caught by the apes. They take him to a laboratory where Dr. Zira (Kim Hunter) conducts experiments to prove that men can be tamed. While Zira realizes that Taylor is something special, Dr. Zaius (Maurice Evans) is trying to undermine her scientific findings and charges her with religious heresy. The only way to save Taylor’s life is to escape to the forbidden zone of the planet where Taylor has to face the unbelievable truth...

Dystopias set in the future usually deal with problems in the present. Planet of the Apes is a perfect example of this phenomenon. It criticizes social, cultural and religious aspects of the real world. The movie takes on a philosophical approach to anthropomorphism. The protagonist Taylor is best described as a cynic who is sick of his own species. He is willing to give up his life among men to go on a mission in space and never return. Even though he disapproves the human species he is not prepared for the world of the apes.

The portrayal of the ape society actually is a mirror of men’s society. Therein lies the criticism of culture as we know it. It is an archaic culture and a totalitarian state with religious rules based on the superiority of the ape species. There is even racial separation in the ape society: Gorillas are warriors that obey orders and serve as soldiers while the compassionate chimpanzees are scientists trying to prove the evolutionary connection between apes and man. Their plan is severely undermined by the ruling class of the sophisticated orang-utans.

Among them there is Dr. Zaius who is the most colorful and fascinating character of the movie. He is fully aware of the connection between apes and man but does everything to hide the truth. He makes his knowledge his religion: Men slaughter among their own species and go so far as to destroy their own planet. Dr. Zaius’s words capture the human essence perfectly and in the end one understands why he tries to keep the truth under wraps. The ideas of the movie obviously derived from the cold war and the fear of a nuclear catastrophe.

Franklin J. Schaffner’s movie depicts a world that may not be too different from the one we live in. The ending reveals a terrible truth that found its place in film history. With a haunting score and groundbreaking make-up effects Planet of the Apes undoubtedly deserves to be called a cult movie.

“Somewhere in the Universe, there must be something better than man!”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Village of the Damned

Director

Wolf Rilla

Year

1960

Rating

Reviewed by

a.k.a. Coffee

Review date

Wednesday, July 25, 2001

Sometimes digging deep into the dirty soil that is motion picture history reveals strange truths. We often find that the key to today’s blockbuster success lies in the clever recycling of ideas borrowed from long-gone classics which are unknown to today’s younger audiences.

That method is quite a safe one and therefore immensely popular with Hollywood’s directors – what worked thirty years ago will still work today and nobody but those darn critics who are always nagging anyway will notice.

Sometimes the resulting films are better than their forerunners, either due to better special effects, actors or a more sophisticated plot or simply because the direction is better. But sometimes it also happens that the remake is rather lame compared to the original which is especially depressing if the original movie was low-budgeted while its offspring doesn’t suffer from that problem.

Village of the Damned by Wolf Rilla is one of these forgotten movies. Although it was favorably received when it was released it never achieved the status of a cult movie and its remake from 1995 by John Carpenter was dubbed “Film of the Damned” with the subtitle “I’ll be damned if I watch such a crap again!” by most viewers.

Rilla’s original VotD is quite an interesting film to see, even today. Although it is clearly visible that the director ran out of time and money at the end of the project the flick still gave many impulses to other horror/sci-fi productions which followed in its path. In the picture strange events take place in the small community of Midwich, England. Every inhabitant of the village falls into a deep coma-like sleep and every outsider who attempts to trespass Midwich’s boundaries is also affected. When after a certain period of time everybody suddenly wakes up again it is revealed that all female villagers are pregnant. The situation seems to return to normal until nine months later a band of children is born who appear to have super-human powers. And some entirely inhumane goals...

I like the idea behind the plot of Village of the Damned and even though at times the “effects” make us smile instead of shiver the film was scary to me. The actors (most notably George Sanders in the role of scientist Gordon Zellaby) work solidly and the camerawork is quite innovative at times. It’s a shame that Rilla couldn’t fully step up to his goals and this flaw becomes very visible towards the end of the movie. Altogether VotD is an interesting piece of movie history and a simple yet effective piece of work.

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Belle Epoque

Director

Fernando Trueba

Year

1992

Rating

Reviewed by

a.k.a. Jacinda

Review date

Monday, July 23, 2001

Spanish director Fernando Trueba takes us into a world full of lively characters. In 1931 shortly before the civil war Fernando (Jorge Sanz) deserts from the army and hides in a country farm. He befriends the owner Manolo (Fernando Fernán Gómez), who advises him to leave when his four daughters arrive from Madrid. Fernando is overwhelmed by their beauty and deliberately “misses the train”. Manolo warns of the trouble his stay is likely to cause. However Fernando is not prepared for what is to come. The four daughters are all beautiful but different in their character. Each of them tries to seduce the young man - and he simply can’t resist their charms.

This delightful comedy is equally irresistible. While the story is rather simple the characters are more than unique. First there is Manolo who is played in a very compelling way by Fernando Fernán Gómez. He has some of the best lines in the movie ridiculing the church, the Fascists and the Republicans in a hilarious way. The four daughters Clara (Miriam Díaz Aroca), Violeta (Ariadna Gil), Rocío (Maribel Verdú) and Luz (18-year-old Penélope Cruz) steal the movie though. Their performances are enchanting and more than enjoyable. Jorge Sanz remains a bit pale due to the fact that he is the confused man trapped in the girls’ play of love and desire. It suits him well until the end when he has to decide for one sister. Unfortunately he cannot fully convince us he has settled with only one of them.

Belle Epoque is a light-hearted comedy full of love, lust and liveliness. The erotically charged scenes are surprisingly funny and add much to the comic appeal of the movie. Most of the humor is very down to earth while part of it is satirical. Manolo’s family can be called more than liberal in many ways. One of the highlights of the movie is the arrival of Manolo’s wife that goes along with a ‘melodic’ scene. When Amalia (Mary Carmen Ramírez) returns we suddenly understand the nature of the girls’ behavior. The movie conveys a warm atmosphere combined with a certain feminist attitude. However our hero Fernando cannot possibly be considered a victim of their vigorous love life.

While the revolution is basically used as a background for the magical story omens of war break loose in scenes that are related to death and suicide. These scenes actually feel a bit out-of-place. Strangely enough they are more comic than tragic. Nevertheless they fit in the movie and prepare us for the ending that foretells the war.

Belle Epoque reminds me of a Shakespeare comedy like Much ado about nothing – possibly because of the beautiful scenery and the subtle usage of dialogue. Fernando Trueba delivers a very special movie with incomparable characters. Hilarious, intriguing and highly enjoyable!

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Bicycle Thief

Director

Vittorio De Sica

Year

1948

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Sunday, July 22, 2001

Vittorio De Sica’s The Bicycle Thief is a little Italian gem of undisputed proportions. A classic movie that transcends language, culture or ideas. A movie that is 53 years old but still resonates in modern society. A masterpiece.

Antonio (Lamberto Maggiorani) has been unemployed for months. Suddenly he is offered a job which requires him to use his bicycle. Soon after he starts working, a man steals it from him. Thus starts a search for his bicycle throughout the streets of Rome aided by his young son Bruno (Enzo Staiola).

The Bicycle Thief is one of the simplest movies in the history of cinema. It is unpretentious and goes to the point. It is a movie about one man’s search for his dignity. A movie about the things a man is capable to do in order to survive.

Antonio is a poor man with a family to sustain. And it is not an easy world the one he populates. It is an unjust world. It is a difficult environment populated by the strongest. A world that doesn’t understand. A heart-breaking place with only a couple of honest people in it. This movie shows it all with its easy-going storyline. And it is as accurate nowadays as it was then.

The father-and-son relationship is also worthy of mention. It isn’t an easy one. Both of them are going through a harsh situation seen from different points of view. Desperation and impotence bring out hidden feelings. Feelings with one central note at the core.

The final scene is one you won’t ever forget. It says so much by showing so little. It sends a universal message and ends up in a poignant note if there ever was one.

All of the actors are excellent in their roles, but it is Lamberto who leaves the strongest impression. His performance is dead-on perfect.

A classic example of Italian neorealism filmmaking, The Bicycle Thief emerges as Vittorio De Sica’s masterpiece per excellence and goes on to show how great a filmmaker he was. A master indeed!

“You live and you suffer.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Jurassic Park III

Director

Joe Johnston

Year

2001

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Sunday, July 22, 2001

As quite a fan of Jurassic Park (1993), the movie that first introduced us to realistic dinosaurs ever, I was really disappointed to see how awfully Steven Spielberg followed the “saga” with a second film, still somewhat based on Michael Crichton’s writings. That film featured very similar dinosaurs and scares but a much duller script and awful new characters. The only one character that was good was Dr. Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum), from the first film, who had a much better role back then when he was a supporting character speaking all the clever lines. About dinosaurs, he knew nothing, which made him even more fun; that simply didn’t work when he leaded the second film. I thought The Lost World: Jurassic Park was a waste of money, talent (notably Steven Spielberg’s and Jeff Goldblum’s) and time.

Then came the third part. What to expect of it? No Spielberg (at least not in the director’s chair), no Goldblum, no Crichton and no John Williams… Sam Neill back as plain and boring Dr. Grant… much better visual effects and a new giant dinosaur that beats the hell out of a T-Rex… What is this? It sounded to me like they were using the title of the most famous dinosaur’s movie franchise to make a successful movie no matter what. Well my friends, I expected a REALLY good pop-corn movie. That is: no plot, no real quality, but some pure mindless fun of the best kind. And that’s just what I received.

As a matter of fact, I was quite delighted to find out that this film was not only really fun but also much better than the first sequel to the classic 1993 movie. I thought that Jurassic Park III kind of maintained the spirit of the first film, which the prior sequel sadly lost. This film promised good enough scares and thrills and didn’t try to top or even match the plot of any one of its predecessors. This film is a big excuse to make money but, as simple as it is, it works as a completely harmless entertainer. Due to the very low expectations that many of us had, its results, I think, are quite satisfactory.

The story, as you may know, involves a couple (William H. Macy and Téa Leoni) that offers a lot of money to Dr. Alan Grant (who’s still doing the very same kind of research) to have him guide them in a tour above Isla Sorna, the island still inhabited by dinosaurs. Grant accepts, naively thinking that they have no intentions of landing. Predictably enough, that’s just what happens as soon as they arrive, against all warnings from Grant. Not five minutes pass before they are attacked by a giant dinosaur, the Spinosaurus, which makes the T-Rex look like a puppy. Stuck in the island, the gang must struggle for survival, which is a very hard thing to do as the whole place is filled with meat-eating beasts that seem to be as smart as humans, only worse-intentioned.

The score, the plot and many sequences seem rip-offs from the first film, which is in a way not that bad. Alan Grant never speaks a non-clichéd dialogue, yet his presence is great and his knowledge makes the adventure quite exciting. The all-new Pteranodons (flying dinosaurs) were sorely missed before, and make up for one of the most exciting sequences. A cameo by Laura Dern as Dr. Ellie Sattler and much more realistic Velociraptors add to the fun.

All in all, a wild ride that’s worth the while!

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Pledge

Director

Sean Penn

Year

2001

Rating

Reviewed by

a.k.a. Jacinda

Review date

Thursday, July 19, 2001

“Tell me what happened, Mr. Black.”

“It was my last day at work.”

“I believe you were a police officer in Nevada?”

“Exactly. My colleagues were giving a party for me when they found the body. She was only 9 years old... very pretty...”

“And you went to the place where they found the body?”

“Yes. She was lying in the snow.”

“Why did you go? It was your last day..”

“I felt I should do it.”

“You also told the parents about their loss?”

“I did. The hardest thing to do in my life. They have a turkey farm, very decent people.”

“How did you react when they found the killer?”

“I didn’t believe they caught the right man. He was insane and didn’t match the profile.”

“He confessed, didn’t he? Maybe you didn’t want to quit the life you knew.”

“I had evidence. There were other murders matching the profile: blonde girl, about 9 years old, red dress. The Indian was in prison at the time the other girls were killed.”

“Are you sure you weren’t just trying to prove yourself you could still do it, Jerry?”

“No. There was this drawing that showed the girl with a stranger who gave her porcupines. She called him the giant. She must have known the man – he didn’t look like an Indian in the drawing.”

“Porcupines? It could have been the girl’s fantasy.”

“It was real. It really was.”

“Answer me one question: why didn’t you give up when they closed the case officially?”

“I promised... I promised them... I promised them to find him...”

---

The words of a man desperately trying to prove that the killer is still free and dangerous. The retired man doesn’t find peace – obsessed and haunted by his own imagination. Jerry buys an old gas station in the mountains near the places where the murders were committed. He leads a solitary life until he comes closer to a woman and her young daughter. It is then when he has to face his fears again.
Will his paranoia destroy his happiness or is it for real?

A question that is raised by director Sean Penn who based The Pledge on a novel by Friedrich Dürrenmatt. Penn keeps us guessing in this unusual drama. Jack Nicholson’s performance is very subtle, yet powerful. I felt that I had to go through the same things as Jerry. I almost could feel his fear physically – his paranoia became mine as well as his self-doubts. The uncertainty doesn’t let you go until the stunning ending. Penn delivers an unexpected plot twist that is as brave as it is brilliant.

The Pledge is a quiet drama about an aging man who has to face his inner demons. Jack Nicholson portrays this process in one of his best performances ever. Sean Penn proves himself an excellent director who is willing to take risks. A daring character study that works both as drama and thriller.

Highly recommended!

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Jurassic Park

Director

Steven Spielberg

Year

1993

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Wednesday, July 18, 2001

Michael Crichton’s acclaimed bestseller about living dinosaurs inhabiting an island near Costa Rica became a hit film, directed by Steven Spielberg who, for once, relied mostly in visual effects to attract audiences of all ages, and no wonder; there is no plot that can be more interesting than the feeling of watching a living dinosaur. The story is not terrific, neither is it truly dull, but it makes no difference: the spectacle is unprecedented, and there is no cinematic experience that can match watching this film for the first time.

I still remember when I saw it first, back in 1993. As a teenager I felt completely absorbed and marveled by the world this film offered to my eyes. Having seen nothing of the sort in the past, I became a huge fan, like the rest of the world population, I think. A new world had begun, thanks to the genius of Steven Spielberg. Nothing would be impossible from then on…

The ultimate Dr. Frankenstein of contemporary cinema, John Hammond (Sir Richard Attenborough) manages to give life back to the long extinct creatures that once ruled the Earth: dinosaurs. Visualizing his South American island as an amusement park for people around the world, he names it “Jurassic Park” and invests millions in his project. In order to make sure the project is safe, he invites Dr. Alan Grant (Sam Neill) and Dr. Ellie Sattler (Laura Dern), experts in the subject of dinosaurs, and Dr. Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum), expert in the theory of chaos. Hammond’s grandchildren also come along for what will surely be the most exciting experience of their lives.

Everything seems ok, until the man in charge of the functioning of most of the park, Dennis Nedry (hilarious Wayne Knight), decides to betray Hammond and therefore causes big trouble around the park. Nedry’s treason only shows how things couldn’t be completely under control no matter what, since the simple conception of the park is chaotic.

From then on, there is no breathing calmly again. There are chases, scares and risks all around. All matched with an excellent score by John Williams and clever dialogues spoken by Dr. Malcolm. As a piece of entertainment, this film is pretty good in itself.

Every second with a dinosaur onscreen is worth gold.

Not one of Spielberg’s best, but an episode of film history by definition. A definite must-see.

"Dr. Grant, my dear Dr. Sattler, welcome... to Jurassic Park!"

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Hudsucker Proxy

Director

Joel Coen

Year

1994

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Tuesday, July 17, 2001

I’m a huge fan of the Coens. I love most of their movies and I’m specially fond of their sense of humor. They are so unique that they should be treated in a separate context from other filmmakers. It is because I love weird and rare stuff that they almost never disappoint me. And this movie, referred by respected critic Leonard Maltin as “the Coen brothers’ most extravagant creation to date’”, is no exception. It’s certainly one of my favorites along Fargo and Raising Arizona.

The latter movie is the one perhaps Hudsucker resembles the most. They both share unique characters and a wacky sense of humor. But is it Hudsucker which has a stronger social commentary.

Waring Hudsucker (Charles Durning), head of Hudsucker Corporations, has just died. Greedy Sidney J. Mussburger (Paul Newman) is then in charge. He and his people suddenly make up a plan to choose a looser common guy in order to make him president of the company and thus scare investors. That way the stocks value would diminish and they would be able to buy them all. One day Mussburger finds the perfect candidate, a stupid new employee (Tim Robbins) whose only aspirations in life are to create something... you know, for kids. A Katherine Hepburn-like fast-talking Pullitzer-prize winning reporter (Jennifer Jason Leigh) starts to suspect and gets involved in the process.

It would be impossible to try to describe how crazy this movie is from start to finish. Since the opening credits we know we are on for something out of this world. The few minutes next to Waring Hudsucker’s death perfectly set the record straight about what we are about to witness, and believe me, it is funny as hell.

There’s always something going on underneath all the wackiness that satirizes the way big corporations work, the role capitalism plays and how we people always judge others by their appearances. After all, The Hudsucker Proxy is a very well-done satire filled with sparkling dialogue, over-the-top characters and an exceptional work behind the cameras.

Actors working at the helm of the Coens have always had a special way of delivering lines. This movie is the perfect example of that. And the performances are all outstanding. Tim Robbins is perfect as the naive dreamy guy prey of a big conspiracy who will have to learn a couple of things in order to survive. Paul Newman is an ideal villain and Jennifer Jason Leigh goes way overboard as the talky reporter. I’ve always wondered how it would look in modern movies to give a 50’s style performance, which is exactly what Jennifer does here. It is an excellent work and it perfectly fits the movie given the context of the script (which, by the way, Sam Raimi coscripted). I loved the overall acting here!

Shot as an homage to 40’s and 50’s movies, with the aid of Janusz Kaminski’s extraordinary camerawork and Cartor Burwell’s great score, The Hudsucker Proxy works in every level. It is a hilarious, one-of-a-kind riot!

“Everyone’s wearing these up there. It’s a fad!”


CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

It Happened One Night

Director

Frank Capra

Year

1934

Rating

Reviewed by

a.k.a. Jacinda

Review date

Monday, July 16, 2001

I have always been deeply in love with Capra’s movies – especially with those starring Jimmy Stewart. Capra gave us some of the most touching and sincere moments in film history. In this regard It Happened One Night couldn’t be more of a Capra classic.

Ellie Andrews (Claudette Colbert) is a rich girl who secretly marries a man her father doesn’t approve. Too stubborn to admit she made a mistake Ellie runs away from her father. On the bus she meets the attractive Peter Warne (Clark Gable), who helps her stay undiscovered on her journey. Warne is a newspaper journalist in search of a good story. He seems to have found it in Ellie. During their road trip Warne’s interest shifts from a professional to a personal level though.

These characters couldn’t be more different. Ellie Andrews is perfect as the young girl who does not know much about the ordinary life, as she has been treated like a princess for as long as she can think. Warne knows his business and speaks his mind. He shows Ellie her limits and lets her know that she has to learn how to treat people in a decent way. Her wealthy background doesn’t make up for her flaws. With a lot of charm and humor Warne teaches the spoilt girl some important lessons for life - and both fall for each other.

I never knew Clark Gable could be this charismatic and charming. As Peter Warne he proved me completely wrong. His sexual appeal is imminent from the very first scene Colbert and Gable meet. The screen seems to sizzle with electricity whenever Colbert comes close to Gable’s seat. We can almost read her mind: “If I sit down next to him what will happen?” Another priceless scene is the one in which Gable slowly undresses while telling her that every man has his own way of taking off his clothes. A perfect example of what sexual tension can be all about.

There are a lot more unforgettable scenes in this movie. One of them is actually said to have inspired the famous cartoon character Bugs Bunny. In it Gable leans against a wooden fence while chewing on a raw carrot. His unique way of raising his thumb to hitchhike will also remain unforgotten. The humor is incomparable and reaches another level in every other scene.

Capra constituted the screwball comedy genre with It happened one night. He created characters who grow in social and sexual maturity when class differences get in the way of their romance. Capra shows in a positive way how people can find a way to overcome their differences by interacting with each other. It happened one night has inspired innumerous movies and variations on this subject matter with cultural or ideological conflicts involved in romantic relationships.

It happened one night never loses its appeal and wit. Capra also creates a romantic atmosphere with a special sincerity and warmness that can only be found in his movies. A timeless classic that you will never forget!

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Chicken Run

Director

Peter Lord

Nick Park

Year

2000

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Sunday, July 15, 2001

Having not previously seen the Wallace & Grommit trilogy, I was introduced to the wonderful world of Nick Park by Chicken Run, a movie that is simply magic when seen through the eyes of this reviewer.

Ginger (voice of Julie Sawalha) is an unhappy chicken not satisfied with her life as a “slave” in order to later become food for her owners, Mr. and Mrs. Tweedy (voices of Tony Haygarth and Miranda Richardson). It is too harsh a destiny and thus she dreams of escaping along with each and every single chicken in the farm. The problems is that her dream is not that easy to accomplish, and it is until Rocky “the Flying Rooster” (voice of Mel Gibson) unexpectedly arrives that she, and all of her pals, start believing they can really do it.... by flying.

Nick Park and Peter Lord are as good in what they do as their chickens are not in flying. Using the stop-motion animated technique, he and his team accomplished the near impossible task of crafting an excellent motion picture filled with great dialogue, impressive animation and characters we come to care about. Don’t worry about these being the funniest-looking chickens you’ve ever seen, because that’s part of the charm.

And there’s nothing like the sight of panicked chickens!

The subject matter of Chicken Run is actually much more serious than most animated movies we’ve seen. Early on we witness how one of the chickens is killed and later eaten with no mercy. This is no game. They must escape for their own lives, and that’s one hell of a motivation to make the movie work and be believable. That’s why we root for these characters and want them to succeed badly!

It also helps that they are all specially charming and charismatic characters. Voiced by a very talented group of actors, the characters come to life. From the way they dream about a better future, the way they are willing to do anything to escape, they way they help each other, the way Ginger never stops hoping. They are all a great ensemble, although the character of Babs is definitely a highlight.

Being a homage to such classics as The Great Escape and Stalag 17, Chicken Run is a winner all the way. The chicken-pie machine sequence is a classic. The party sequence, the training sequence, the final sequence, they are all amazingly compelling and funny. You won’t stop laughing and enjoying the humor. It is a very well-written movie that is full of surprises and clever gags. It’ll entertain kids and adults alike. It’ll make you smile!

All kudos should go to the team behind the shooting of the movie. It is such a slow and meticulous process that I just don’t have words to express how much I respect them. Brilliant guys! Brilliant movie!

“Lose our heads?! Aaaahh!”


CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

M

Director

Fritz Lang

Year

1931

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, July 12, 2001

Early morning, you hear your children laughing. They go to school by themselves, right after you warn them for the millionth time to stay away from strangers. After some hours, the time has come when they must return. But they’re late. Will they ever be back?

Probably they will, and when you see them smiling as they walk through the door of your house, you’ll think to yourself that you were too paranoid. You’ll get that little feeling of safety back.

But probably they won’t. A children murderer has been terrorizing the city, and though you have always thought that such things can’t happen to you, it is possible indeed. As the clock ticks, second by second, you know you might be the next one to lose a child. But how? You’ve told your kids a million times to be careful. Is it possible that the murderer is such a charming man, that no matter how many warnings, he manages to captivate your kids and eventually kill them after giving out candy, balloons, and all sorts of things that might be attractive to them? Well, yes… And that’s the scariest part.

Or is it? The results of such vile crimes are not half what one might expect. The Police is going crazy, every strong influence is putting them under pressure, everyone is afraid, the criminal must be caught! Maybe the Police is not enough… A manhunt must begin…

M is Fritz Lang’s first talkie and one of his finest films. It is also a spectacular thriller and one of the best films ever made. It tells the tale of a child murderer but manages to criticize society and politics all in one. The results are not what expected, as the whole panorama changes drastically during the process. All in all, the murderer is merely an excuse for people to demonstrate what they’re made of and what they will do to protect their own interests. Even catching this awful human being is more harmful to society in a way than it would be to just leave him alone. It puts you to think, whether it is best to trust the law or to let crime be if there are more chances to stay safe that way.

The fact that a film from a long time ago raises such a contemporary issue is as scary as it gets. Is there a solution to any of society’s problems? How can the world go on like this?

An intense film that spans from horror to courtroom drama, this triumph is a masterpiece in every aspect, leaded to perfection by Peter Lorre in the title role, the very role which made him famous. Every second is outstanding and intense to the last consequences. A must-see.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Limey

Director

Steven Soderbergh

Year

1999

Rating

Reviewed by

a.k.a. Coffee

Review date

Tuesday, July 10, 2001

Sometimes one look is all it takes.

If you look into the weathered face of Terence Stamp you’re looking at a history book with the chapter on the sixties opened. The man has been making movies since 1962 (Term of Trial) and he’s still one of Great Britain’s best exports right after The Beatles and Harry Potter.

Sometimes one look is all it takes.

If you look into the somewhat geekish face of Steven Soderbergh you can guess right away that the man is either a brilliant oscar-winning director or a tax accountant. With Erin Brockovich (2000) and Traffic (2000) under his belt, Soderbergh has established himself as a director who needs just a phone and twenty minutes time to round up a cast that makes film buffs squeal out of delight.

Now picture these two working on a movie together and you get... The Limey. Sounds cool? You’re not even close. Soderbergh has put something together that makes the screen almost freeze over at times while still having the impact of a Shakespearian tragedy.

The plot has about the complexity of Rambo – First Blood. After having served a long sentence in prison, Old-English gangster Wilson (Stamp) learns that his daughter Jenny (Melissa George) has recently been killed in a car accident. Of course the aged gangster doesn’t believe in accidents and crosses the great pond to find the bloody bastard that is responsible for his daughter’s death. He finds himself in a world full of violence and obscenity (The United States), where kids sell guns on the playground and the cops are willing to work around the law if necessary to get the bad guys. With the help of Ed (Luis Guzmán), Wilson gets on the trail of Terry Valentine (Peter Fonda) a rich rock music producer who is doing money laundry for the mob. When “the Limey” (nickname for a British sailor) finds evidence that Jenny found out more than was good for her about Valentine’s illegal business it seems like nothing can stop him from taking revenge...

Steven Soderbergh takes us on a journey into the world of Wilson and what we see ain’t pretty. The long dreamy takes, the muffled sound and the lighting which takes on a leading role in this epic tale of loss and revenge all come together to glue the audience to its seat through the whole ninety minutes. The characters don’t throw their emotions at us in lengthy monologues, but instead their actions have to be analyzed, de-scrambled like a secret code. Soderbergh succeeds where most of his colleagues fail. He can show thoughts. He can show memories. He can create something that is almost an anti-film in the sense that it feels as though you’re participating rather than watching. The extremely vivid atmosphere is supported by the superb score which shifts from a homage to the wild sixties to a thick jungle of humming and echoing sounds.

Wilson is more than an aged Dirty Harry. He’s a man who’s come to fight his past in order to secure his future. And while it’s almost impossible to determine his ambitions through listening to his words – because he has the thickest Cockney accent you can imagine – we still understand him perfectly. Soderbergh drives Stamp to deliver his best performance ever and his colleagues do a remarkable job as well (most notably Peter Fonda as the corrupt Terry Valentine and Luis Guzmán as the street-wise Ed). As I don’t want to spoil the intensity of the plot or give away the sarcastic jokes the film offers in this review I’ll just wrap it up for now. If you’re into Soderbergh, Stamp or Fonda you have to see The Limey. And if not you should go and see a doctor.

“People tend to hate me
‘cause I never smile.
As I ransack their homes
they wanna shake my hands...”

-The Seeker (The Who)

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Love in the Afternoon

Director

Billy Wilder

Year

1957

Rating

Reviewed by

a.k.a. Jacinda

Review date

Sunday, July 08, 2001

Love in the Afternoon is one of Wilder’s not so well-known movies. Set in Paris, it tells the story of Ariane (Audrey Hepburn), a private detective’s daughter. Claude Chavasse (Maurice Chevalier) has been investigating the illicit affairs of Frank Flannagan (Gary Cooper) for years when his own daughter falls in love with this notorious playboy. Although Ariane has knowledge of his immorality the lovely young girl falls for Flannagan. The aging playboy sees nothing special in her though. With clever methods Ariane tries to convince the superficial womanizer that love exists after all.

As this movie stars one of my favorite actresses of all time and is written and directed by Billy Wilder I had high expectations. Unfortunately I discovered that Love in the Afternoon is more than a disappointment. I wouldn’t dare to call it bad because it is still Wilder and it has its moments, however I can call it the worst Wilder I’ve seen. I had expected a cheerful romantic comedy full of classic moments and good laughs. At times the movie delivers great comedy but all in all the flaws outweigh the profits.

The main problem of the movie is the casting of Gary Cooper. I would not care for the age difference between young Audrey and Gary Cooper if it wasn’t for the missing chemistry. Cooper just doesn’t fit the role of an aging playboy. He acts so wooden that you might think he himself feels uncomfortable or even embarrassed in the role. Cooper makes it almost impossible to accept that Audrey’s character falls head over heals for this man – especially since she knows all about his attitude towards women.

Wilder often wanted to cast Cary Grant in his movies. This would have been the best way to save the movie. Grant could have added comedic elements to the otherwise colorless character. Cooper doesn’t manage to play Flannagan in a compelling way. However it is not all Cooper’s fault. Some ideas in the script simply don’t work onscreen. We cannot understand why the lovely Ariane feels attracted to a man with a dark past like Flannagan. Even if Grant had played him it would have been difficult to like a man who drove women into suicide without caring. For these reasons we don’t get to understand the outcome of the movie either. When Ariane’s father discovers the liaison he doesn’t intervene – even when Flannagan says he is not in love with his daughter.

Despite these major flaws there are some fine moments in the movie. Maurice Chevalier gives a great performance as the private detective and young Audrey Hepburn shines as always. The way the naive girl pretends to be a female version of Flannagan is intriguing and funny. These scenes make the movie worth watching. Undoubtedly Love in the Afternoon could have been much more, but it could have been even worse without Audrey Hepburn. Not a classic, but still a Wilder!

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Children of Heaven

Director

Majid Majidi

Year

1997

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Saturday, July 07, 2001

I didn’t really want to see this movie. I’m not that much into Iranian cinema and there was nothing that could convince me otherwise. Even when I heard it was Oscar-nominated as Best Foreign-language movie I was unimpressed. But I have persuasive cousins, you see, and they didn’t give up until I finally saw it. How much I thank them now!

Ali (Mir Farrokh Hashemian) has just lost his sister Zahra’s (Bahare Seddigi) just-repaired shoes. They are both part of a poor family living in harsh conditions. Their mother is always sick and caring for their baby brother, while their father works all day long to get some money for the family. Thus, they can’t tell their parents about the missing shoes because they would get into trouble. Ali then starts a quest to get his sister a pair of shoes she can wear. Meanwhile, they both have to use the same pair of shoes and that isn’t going to be that easy.

Premises don’t come as simple. This is a nice little movie dealing with universal themes. Even if it takes place in Iran and is quite interesting to watch solely in that basis, the movie is all about what a family really means. It is a movie about the human spirit. It is a movie about the love for one another. It is specially about the search of a boy trying to see a smile in his sister’s face. Poignant? You bet.

There’s nothing more heart-breaking than hearing Zahra tell her brother Ali: “What will I wear for school tomorrow?”. And there’s nothing more heart-breaking than the way she is willing to help him in order to get his way. There’s a running competition near the end of the movie that is far more suspenseful than many other scenes in big splashing movies showing in theaters nowadays. Ali must arrive in third place. No matter if the first and second places are more lucrative. He wants to arrive in third place to get his sister a pair of new shoes. His goal is simply to leave behind hundreds of kids except two. If you don’t break apart with Ali’s look in his face after the race is over, then there’s something wrong with you.

Director Majid Majidi accomplishes the rare task of delivering such a powerful movie with so much simplicity. The two young actors portraying Ali and Zahra are excellent. And the movie’s visual style is quite something.

A movie for the whole family. A movie you’ll never forget. A movie that’ll deeply move you.


CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Mummy Returns

Director

Stephen Sommers

Year

2001

Rating

Reviewed by

a.k.a. Coffee

Review date

Thursday, July 05, 2001

Script: “Review for The Mummy Returns”
Written for the screen by Coffee
CONFIDENTIAL! DO NOT PHOTOCOPY!

(We see a very large grayish building, many stories high. Over the entrance is a sign which reads “MCA/Universal Pictures”. We hear an off-scene voice that melodramatically intones:)

“Muhahaha!”

(crazed laughter)

“The year is 1999 A.D. Deep in the not-quite-so-ancient company buildings of Universal Pictures, a man is brooding over a sacred scroll. The scroll is actually a script and the man has entitled it ‘The Mummy.’ The man which other mortals usually refer to as ‘Stephen Sommers’ has a plan.
He is scheming to resurrect an object from times long gone... the monster movie!”

(The scenery changes, we see a fat greedy man who shows Stephen Sommers a piece of paper with several very long columns of numbers printed on it. The voice speaks again:)

“The man called Stephan Sommers had done well. His demonic masters were delighted about the great riches that his vile act of grave-robbery had brought them. Indeed, they were already planning an even greater evil that would spread across the entire planet, bringing darkness to every single movie theater that existed. A sequel!”

(The camera shows the ancient ruins of Petra, Jordan. Stephen Sommers is ordering a large group of actors and extras around under the merciless rays of the hot, yellow sun. Voice...)

“In order to please his superiors once again, Stephan Sommers had gathered an able band of henchmen which called themselves actors. Among this group was a man called Brendan Fraser and a woman called Rachel Weisz. Neither of the two chosen ones were great among their craft, but both had served Stephen Sommers well before. They would be re-incarnated as Evelyn Carnahan O'Connell and Rick O'Connell to fight the evil emperor Imhotep (physically represented by the mortal with the name ‘Arnold Vosloo’) once again. The male observers of the ‘film’ would fall to the irresistible charm of a maiden who was called Patricia Velazquez. To make the spectacle even better and bloodier than its forerunner, Stephen Sommers added another sinister behemoth to plot against the forces of light – Dwayne ‘The Rock’ Johnson would pose as The Scorpion King. The audience would be completely overwhelmed by the witchcraft of a group of wizards that were also hired by the so-called ‘director’ and went by the secret name ‘Industrial Light and Magic.’ This time he thought nobody could possibly escape his deadly charm...

(The scenery changes once again. We see another fat greedy man who shows Stephen Sommers a piece of paper with several even longer columns of numbers printed on it. Both grin wickedly and the room is filled with insane laughter. The voice speaks for the last time:)

“And right he was! Once again the follower proved his abilities. The ancient gods were indeed pleased. Few other ‘directors’ had managed to ensnare the hapless mortals as efficiently as Stephen Sommers had done it. And although the tale of his coup would not be told for ages to come still great pyramids and temples would be built by his acolytes. They would continue to wait for an even greater feat that would make the first two turn pale....

...another sequel!!”

;-))

(THE END)

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

A.I. Artificial Intelligence

Director

Steven Spielberg

Year

2001

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, July 02, 2001

Blown away. There are no other words to describe my feelings after watching this movie. I’d been eagerly expecting it for a while you know. I’m the biggest Spielberg fan, I’m the biggest Kubrick fan, and the cast looked amazing. Now, I’m not a sci-fi expert. That title actually belongs to my fellow critic and pal Coffee. But everything I saw, everything I was shown and everything I experienced left me breathless.

A.I. has an apparently simple premise. “Apparently” because the basic point of the movie is easy to describe. The thing is, I’m not spoiling anything for you. So the routes the movie takes, the journey through which our characters go, and the complicated turns of the story will be nowhere to be found in this review. I’ll just tell you that it is the story of a robot boy in search of love. Sounds corny? Believe me, it isn’t.

It is very difficult to say whether this movie is more Spielberg or more Kubrick. I can assure you that I was actually shocked when I saw some scenes and realized that it was Spielberg who as a matter of fact directed them. Kubrick actually possessed him. But on the other hand, there is an underlying sensibility to all the proceeding that wouldn’t have fit Kubrick. Spielberg was the man. So what am I saying? This movie is the perfect blend of two brilliant minds with totally different styles but one common vision. It is a bizarre mix, but a fascinating one.

Now, I’m sure this movie is going to divide people like no other movie this year. It has already done it with critics, whose reactions range from calling it a masterpiece to calling it bullshit. I love when a movie is able to exude that kind of reactions. It makes me feel as if the movie were mine and only mine. I loved it, and I sympathize with the people that saw the same things as me in it. I’ve went through completely negative reviews of the movie and didn’t find one single argument that made me change my mind. I’ll put it this way: this movie has all the ingredients to become either a classic or a cult movie.... or both. Time will only tell.

The ambitiousness of the movie really surprised me. I knew it was going to be an epic journey. I knew it was a pretentious experiment. But I didn’t expect it to be this big and to work this well. The movie raises so many questions. And then it goes on to play with some of them, while others are left unanswered and for us to judge. How responsible are we humans of what we create? Where is the ethic line crossed? Or the moral one? Is a robot able to love a human? Is a human able to deeply love a robot? Are we creating our own path of self-destruction? Are we really aware of the consequences of our acts? Is love something you can play with?

Much has been said about the movie being divided in three segments. That is true. Each has its very own style and substance. The first one is the most dramatic. The second one is all about discovery, kind of a road movie. And the third one is where science fiction takes full speed. Obviously, the latest has been the must debated aspect of the movie. I must say that it is controversial and unique, but for me it was the perfect way to conclude.

This is not the same Spielberg. He has matured as a director. He has matured as a writer. It is a completely different experience from anything we have seen before. The movie is well ahead of its time, but that makes it even more special. Wherever he is, Kubrick must be smiling.

Jude Law is fantastic. His presence is really strong. And it helps that his character is amazing. Gigolo Joe is an old-model robot created for the sole purpose of giving pleasure to women. He then starts a friendship with our protagonist. I loved their relationship, because you should consider the fact that they are both robots, not humans, and the feelings present in real life cannot be experienced by them. Frances O’Connor is wonderful as the conflicted mother who has to confront her feeling in the most peculiar way. Brendan Gleeson, William Hurt and the voices of Meryl Streep, Ben Kingsley Robin Williams and Chris Rock round out the wonderful cast.

But I should make a stop here, because Haley Joel Osment deserves it. As usual, Spielberg has managed to get a jaw-droppingly good performance out of a child actor. I’m talking about something you have never seen and that is masterfully performed by the highly talented young actor. We never ever question the fact that he is a robot, and that, by itself, is impressive. Then consider his facial expressions, his movements, his reactions, and you will think as I do. This is an award-worthy performance. And watch out carefully for the fact that he never blinks!

This is a movie with ideas. A movie toying with statements we might have never considered before. A movie that is not manipulative, but frighteningly real, provocative, disturbing. A movie that takes place in a world filled with imagination. It is visually impressive as it is emotionally heartening. You have to see a flooded New York with your own eyes. You have to see Rouge City with your own eyes. This is a movie dealing with a future not so distant. A movie about intolerance, about responsibilities, about love.

It will stay in your head for a while, believe me. And scene after scene you’ll be marveled. I specially loved the scene at the dining room, the scene at the pool, the heart-breaking scene at the woods involving Haley and Frances, the last look in the face of a robot made to nurse, everything involving Teddy, the scene where Haley discovers an awful truth, the last sequence. But I can’t tell you about my favorite scene of all because it would spoil a magic moment for you. I’ll just say that it takes place for 2000 years. And I also loved the way the story of “Pinnochio” played such an important role in the movie. I saw it as kind of an homage. A beautiful one indeed.

“Please make me a real boy”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

10 Things I Hate About You

Director

Gil Junger

Year

1999

Rating

Reviewed by

a.k.a. Jacinda

Review date

Sunday, July 01, 2001

10 Things I Hate About You is loosely based on Shakespeare’s comedy The Taming of the Shrew. Bianca Stratford (Larisa Oleynik) is one of the most popular girls at Padua High School, but noone is allowed to go on a date with her. Afraid of the possible consequences a date could have for a naive girl her father sets up the rule that Bianca can only date when her sister Kat (Julia Stiles) is going too. Sounds easy? It isn’t, as Kat is the one to be tamed in this movie. She is sarcastic, self-determined and speaks her mind. However two guys try to arrange a date for Kat in order to set Bianca free. One is Padua High School’s most popular guy (Andrew Keegan), the other one is Cameron (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), the new kid at school who has fallen in love with Bianca. The school’s outlaw seems to be perfect for a deal. Patrick Verona (Heath Ledger) is said to have sold his liver, so why not pay him for a date with Kat. After a while he feels attracted by her shrewish behavior and Kat’s principles start to crumble as well.

Although this movie aims at a young audience it is not the typical teen movie you would expect. I was surprised to see the most intelligent teen movie in years. It would be unfair to give this movie a worse rating because of its genre. Of course there are stereotypical elements included (for example the school prom) and the ending is predictable, but let us see the movie for what it is. In my opinion it cannot be compared to dull movies that only serve as mindless vehicles for uninspired stories and uncharismatic actors like Freddie Prinze Jr. 10 Things I Hate About You is so much more: With an extremely talented cast of young actors it succeeds on many levels. Unlike other recent movies there is no need for gross humor in this well-crafted romantic comedy.

The dialogue is witty, the pace fast while the references to Shakespeare add up to the comic appeal of the movie. Adults are portrayed in quite a funny way – for example the Stratford father and the literature teacher, who prefers to rap Shakespeare’s sonnets. The real stand-outs are Julia Stiles and Heath Ledger though. Their performances make the two characters Kat and Patrick more than adorable. Their constant teasing is simply irresistible while the chemistry between them works perfectly. Not to mention the ‘Can’t take my eyes off of you’ scene in the football stadium. I also loved Kat’s stubborn attitude and the way she loved the things she really wanted to hate.

10 Things I Hate About You is a heart-warming and fresh experience. There are definitely more than 10 things I love about this movie. Sweet, endearing and incredibly charming... go see it!

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter