CriticSociety- film reviews

Review

Elephant

Director

Gus Van Sant

Year

2003

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Thursday, July 29, 2004

I saw Elephant with huge expectations alter it won the Palm d’Or at Cannes over a very controversial competition. Besides, I almost always love Gus Van Sant movies, and tackling such a touchy subject as the one he does in this movie could’ve resulted in a very interesting and insightful romp. As it is, the movie disappointed me quite a bit, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s not an important movie or a good one at that.

The story takes place in an American school where nothing seems to be out of the ordinary. We watch kids playing football, a boy meeting his girlfriend, a bunch of kids eating at the cafeteria, a guy arriving late for class, teachers giving their lessons. It’s just life as we know it. But then we also witness how two best friends, Eric (Eric Deulen) and Alex (Alex Frost), hang out together as they watch some Hitler footage, play the piano, receive a powerful weapon by mail and ultimately are the perpetrators of a horrible shooting at their school.

And yes, that’s totally absolutely shocking.

Director Gus Van Sant’s movie tries to be a lot of things, but I think it is him that understands his movie better than anyone. For about 80 minutes we watch footage of everyday life without any real “incident” going on. The camerawork is simply breathtaking, as we go from one character to another employing flawless editing and pace. We know something’s going to happen but the movie keeps going and going without anything really happening.

And then... BOOM!!!

For the last 10 minutes we watch as these two kids go insanely mad and kill people at ease without any kind of remorse or pity.

The movie is based mainly on the Columbine shooting. Van Sant is critical of a society that at the core seems to be as decent and ordinary as it comes, but that hides a darker side if you scratch the surface. Of course, not everyone is a mad killer, but then again, no one should be. He shows how the problem not only lies in the guys per se, but in their parents as well, and, to some extent, in the society in which they live. These guys are widely considered losers. Are they really? What has led them to that point?

It is also a shocking portrait about how one instant can change the lives of many. How one’s actions, no matter how big or small, can change the course of entire lives without they even knowing it at first. It is critical of a society that thinks it has it all under control, while it most certainly doesn’t.

So what’s exactly wrong with that society? That’s for you to decide.

The movie might not be especially thrilling or entertaining, but it does have some points and the characters are never judged. It is for each of us to witness and ultimately think... or do something.

“So foul and fair a day I have not seen.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Reservoir Dogs

Director

Quentin Tarantino

Year

1992

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Wednesday, July 28, 2004

Quentin Tarantino went from nobody to the most promising Hollywood newcomer when Reservoir Dogs hit the Sundance Film Festival. The film got done at all thanks to the faith of Harvey Keitel, one of the first witnesses of Tarantino’s brilliancy. Nevertheless, the budget of the film was terribly low, and the writer/director had to cope with that and make it as austere as possible. With just a couple of sets (mostly a big, empty one) and many actors whose salaries were low or did this for the same reasons as Keitel, a great film of the 90s was born.

The story has a bunch of thieves, put together by mobster Joe Cabot (Lawrence Tierney, whose work hadn’t been this remarkable in decades) and his son, Nice Guy Eddie (Chris Penn), about to rob a diamond store. The members of the team don’t know each other, at least not all of them, so Joe gives them nicknames: Mr. White (Keitel), Mr. Orange (Tim Roth), Mr. Blonde (Michael Madsen), Mr. Pink (Steve Buscemi), Mr. Brown (Quentin Tarantino), and Mr. Blue (Edward Bunker). First we get to see the team having breakfast, and soon we jump to the moment when the robbery has been perpetrated, not with much success. As it seems, one of the guys was a cop, and told on them, so the police struck them much sooner than expected. Some are dead, some are wounded, and those who survived meet at their rendezvous site, an empty warehouse, where Mr. Orange’s health slowly degrades from a bullet wound, and Mr. White takes care of him like a loving father.

As they all get to the place, however, suspicion takes over them, wondering who’s the telltale among them, going mad as they can’t reach an agreement, and trying to deal with their desperate situation.

The story goes from past to present and back again as we get to know more about some of these characters, their relationship with Joe, and their real intentions. As we get to know the truth about the betrayal, it all gets heart-pounding, and we know from early on that it just can’t end well.

Tarantino’s characters are colorful not only on account of their nicknames. They all have hidden layers that suddenly emerge, and while some of them hide a caring human being, some of them hide an even worse monster than can be spotted at first sight. The chilling but irresistible Vic Vega, a.k.a. Mr. Blonde, is particularly monstrous, and a scene where he tortures a policeman is memorably gut-wrenching. Other than that, very little violence or action is shown onscreen. It’s all in the dialogue, and most of the happenings are told instead of shown, which is usually a flaw, but not here; Tarantino knows exactly how to tell this kind of stories, and he benefits from his masterful ability to write dialogue to save himself some budget and just tell us how it happened. The dialogue exchanges are fascinating in that they’re both tense and funny, and often more effective than any action scenes could possibly be.

Tarantino also established himself as a director of great performances. Every member of the cast is remarkable, particularly (in my opinion) Keitel and Roth, and they all seem immersed in the universe of the film like it’s all really happening.

With modest production values, a low-key soundtrack of old songs, and a sense of true filmmaking, Reservoir Dogs is an outstanding film, and a classic from the 90s.

“Joe, if you kill that man, you die next. Repeat. If you kill that man, you die next.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Girl with a Pearl Earring

Director

Peter Webber

Year

2003

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Tuesday, July 27, 2004

If Girl with a Pearl Earring got a limited release in the US, you can picture how it did overseas. In fact, the movie never hit theaters where I live, and that was quite frustrating, especially since it started getting awards nominations. Still, my urge to see it never ceased, mainly because it looked like a beautiful period piece with a good performance by star-of-the-moment Scarlett Johansson. I was not wrong…

In 17th century The Netherlands, poor girl Griet (Scarlett Johansson) ends up working as a maid for painter Johannes Vermeer (Colin Firth). The artist is instantly stricken by her beauty and aura, something his wife Catharina (Essie Davis) and daughter Cornelia (Alakina Mann) certainly don’t like. But they need money out of his paintings, and his mother-in-law (Judy Parfitt) understands it and knows the importance of pleasing Vermeer’s contractor van Ruijven (Tom Wilkinson), who also happens to be attracted to young Griet.

The movie is based upon Tracy Chevalier’s novel, which is, in itself, part fact part fiction. No one really knows for sure about Vermeer’s life or his relationship with the girl in his famous painting “Girl with a Pearl Earring”, but the novel, and thus the movie, paint a beautiful and haunting portrait of what could’ve happened behind such a wondrous creation.

I was instantly hooked by the story of this innocent girl who only wants to do her job amidst a society where the division between lords and servants was palpably notable. But suddenly she finds herself intrigued by her master’s work and becomes his assistant, finding in that job the liberation that her daily life does not provide, even when she has a lover (Cillian Murphy) willing to marry her.

The relationship between Vermeer and Griet is touching, heartbreaking, and profoundly spiritual. Here are two souls that feel trapped in a world they don’t really like, surrounded by people who annoy them more than divert them. They don’t necessarily seek a sexual relationship, but, as the movie shows, a more spiritual, amicable, romantic one.

Of course, conflict ensues, and the movie never ceases to be tense in more than one aspect. As a matter of fact, Girl with a Pearl Earring plays as a romantic drama/thriller, but none of these genres is really forced or obvious. The movie is subtle, just as its main character, and it flows naturally and flawlessly.

I have to say the movie is impeccably made regarding technical aspects. Alexandre Desplat’s score is the most beautiful thing I’ve heard in a long time. Eduardo Serra’s cinematography is something to behold. And the production design and costume work are truly handsome.

It also helps that Scarlett Johansson is such a beauty, because her sole presence gives the movie its weight. She barely speaks, but her performance is just stunning, conveying to perfection every emotion that this girl must’ve gone through under such circumstances. I also enjoyed the work of Essie Davis as Vermeer’s wife and that of Judy Parfitt as her mother. Both deliver very strong performances.

Beautiful and haunting.

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Fahrenheit 9/11

Director

Michael Moore

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Monday, July 26, 2004

After years of solid work, Bowling for Columbine (2002) finally consolidated Michael Moore as a successful filmmaker of mainstream documentaries, whose films could be enjoyed not only by those deeply interested in the subjects he exposed, but virtually by anyone, due to his accessible approach to serious themes. His way of crafting Bowling as a funny film that eventually touched the innermost part of anyone’s heart was outstanding.

Two years after that highly successful film, Moore has released another one, more on the propaganda side than the documentary side, and with one sole purpose: to expose George W. Bush as an illegitimate president, an irresponsible and incompetent leader, and a liar. It ranges from the less than honest presidential election of the year 2000, to the terrorist attacks on September 11, to the war on Iraq.

The difference between Fahrenheit 9/11 and Moore’s previous works is that here he relies strongly on footage, and very little in his persona. We see little of Moore, though his narration gives us his point of view of things all the time. Since he’s been blasted more often than not for fabricating footage for his films, presenting undeniable evidence is a very good choice. His trademark humor is not absent, either. He begins with a very humorous look at the 2000 election, wondering if Al Gore’s Florida victory was a dream, or it really happened; he goes from there to how things were manipulated until finally Bush was elected president by the U.S. Congress. As it often happens with Moore’s work, it goes from funny to compelling, and the introduction to his film is a very good example of that.

The rest of it tirelessly shows that Bush is incompetent. Most of it is no surprise to anyone at least a bit interested in politics (as a David Letterman fan, I had little doubt myself), but Moore uses new footage to shatter viewers: Bush’s reaction to the second airplane crash on the World Trade Center, while in a Florida elementary school classroom. No advisor was there to tell him what to do, so he stayed put for 7 more minutes, listening to the children read “My Pet Goat”, while he wondered what to do next. The expression on his face is absolutely priceless.

From there, Moore moves on to explore the relationship between the Bush and Bin Laden families. He presents things in a way that it becomes obvious that George W. has managed things in respect to the 9/11 attacks to protect his interests with the Saudis. It’s a dishonest move and Moore just doesn’t get tired of reminding us of it. In the end, Bush and every close member of his staff is shown as a villain, and that really works.

The only footage that might be questionable in Fahrenheit 9/11 is that of a Flint, Michigan mother, first proud to have encouraged her children’s enlistment, later shattered by her son’s death in Iraq. A reading of his final letter shows his unhappiness and disagreement with the war, which of course changes his mother’s heart concerning Bush and the way the country is going. Despite doubts of the footage’s authenticity, the result resonates and definitely rings true. Through this and some interviews to veteran soldiers, as well as footage of obscene behavior of American soldiers in Iraq, Fahrenheit 9/11 becomes an anti-war piece as well, especially when the war in question is unjustified.

I find it noble of Moore and everyone involved to hurry and get this film ready before the next election happens. Nevertheless, I happen to believe that such rush shows in the final product and mars it a bit. It’s a priceless piece in compiling so much footage and information, but it’s poor in giving most of us any sort of news. The film went on to win the Palm D’Or at the Cannes Film Festival, but its strength doesn’t really lie on its quality, but in its power to spread the information and hopefully change some voters’ minds. As a film, however, it could be better.

Nevertheless, it’s a must-see film, and one funny and compelling piece of propaganda. Kudos to Michael Moore for having what it takes to give it to the world!

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Stepford Wives

Director

Frank Oz

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Thursday, July 22, 2004

I have not seen the original movie upon which The Stepford Wives is based, but somehow when I heard Nicole Kidman was doing its remake I wasn’t too excited. Then an impressive bunch of actors joined the movie and I had more hope. Too bad, because when the movie was shooting there were a lot of reports of trouble on set, not to mention test screening results that showed the movie needed some reshoots. Finally it got released, and while it didn’t get ecstatic reviews it did get a pretty decent response, both from critics and audiences. I’m glad.

Joanna Eberhard (Nicole Kidman) is a reality TV producer who practically runs a network until one of her shows’ participants goes nuts and she’s fired. She then packs her bags and moves with her husband Walter (Matthew Broderick) and their children to the beautiful town of Stepford. Soon they meet Claire (Glenn Close) and hubby Mike (Christopher Walken), the leaders of the women’s and men’s clubs, which they immediately join only to find there’s something wicked going on in there. Apparently the women of Stepford are all perfect-looking, devoted, caring, brainless wives while the men are all geeks who do whatever they want with them. That’s how Joanna befriends Bobbie (Bette Midler) and Roger (Roger Bart), who don’t fit the Stepford mold and with whom she’ll discover more than she might’ve wanted.

The Stepford Wives has a lot to say about many things. It might be considered a comedic thriller, but I saw the movie more as a satire than anything else. It starts by satirizing the television business and the phenomenon of the so-called reality shows which are so in vogue nowadays. It then moves on to satirize what I would call the battle of the sexes and especially feminism, as we know it. Oh, and it also throws some stabs at what technology has become and what it could ultimately provoke when not under control.

Is the movie funny? You bet. Is it hilarious? Not quite, but it does have some over-the-top scenes which had me literally in stitches. Just watch how woman exercise in Stepford, or how they make love. Oh boy, I’m laughing as I’m remembering those scenes. It’s all silly indeed, but that’s exactly the point and you have to go along with it in order to enjoy and let all the ideas sink. The movie does drag at parts, but it is mostly full of energy, has great music, great performances, a witty script and a lively tone.

As an ensemble this movie succeeds in every possible level. Before going into the movie I thought that so many stars would outshine Kidman, but she’s such a fine actress that she’s the one who gets all the attention despite being the straight counterpart to all the crazy people in the movie. Glenn Close is simply amazing. For an actress to go that far and trust so much the material as to make such a fool of herself needs guts and talent. She’s terrific! Bette Midler is also a scene-stealer. And Christopher Walken is his usual mysterious weirdo. Peter Bart makes us laugh and Faith Hill appears in a minor role to great effect. Oh, and Broderick doesn’t shine that much, but that’s the whole point of his character, so after all it’s a job very well done.

The movie does have one fatal flaw but if you don’t want to know it you’d better just skip this paragraph. There are obvious traces of last-minute tweaking regarding what it is that the men of Stepford actually do to their women. My theory is that the original movie had the men actually killing their spouses and creating robots. But it must’ve been too much for the tone of the movie, so they went for some scenes explaining that the women actually have some chips inserted in their brain. It is so ridiculous, because the movie contradicts itself drastically. I really can’t believe they did what they did, but hey, I forgive them because I had so much fun, but that’s no funny, you hear me?

Overall, good entertainment.

“They were all sold out. Here, have five hundred dollars!”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Dave

Director

Ivan Reitman

Year

1993

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Wednesday, July 21, 2004

Even though Kevin Kline has gone as far as winning an Oscar for A Fish Called Wanda (1988), I get the impression that he’s rarely regarded as a great actor. I don’t know if it’s his tendency to play less than serious characters most of the times, but I think his greatness lies exactly in pulling off such disparate characters. One of his greatest performances, I think, is that of the American President look-alike in Dave. He plays the President too, of course, and he convinces in both roles, which is a great merit as he rings true in being convincing as a look-alike among those close to the President, though we know it’s not him, and he doesn’t play it identical. That said, I proceed with the story.

President Bill Mitchell (Kline) is less than ethical. His public image is a fabrication that distances considerably from his true self, as he’s way more interested in himself than in the country’s well-being. Another little difference from his image is the fact that he’s completely distanced from the First Lady, Ellen Mitchell (Sigourney Weaver), and has numerous and constant love affairs. For the sake of this last series of “peccadilloes”, a look-alike is hired, Dave Kovic (Kline), who’s been imitating the President for a while now as he looks so much like him, and is so good at acting like the most important man in the country. The idea is to have Dave standing in as the President for the occasions where, ehm, business calls elsewhere.

So far, I think, the premise doesn’t go too far from what possibly happens all the time in politics. But things drastically change when President Mitchell suffers a stroke (while in action with a girl) and is fully incapacitated. His two closest collaborators, Chief of Staff Bob Alexander (Frank Langella) and Communications Director Alan Reed (Kevin Dunn), fear the Vice President Gary Nance’s (Ben Kingsley) righteousness, and decide to set Dave as the President’s stand-in until the actual man recovers (which is unlikely, by the way). Bob’s secret ambition is to take the Presidential chair himself, but whichever the case, the country is fooled into thinking that the President is fine.

The inevitable consequences come, as Dave can’t act as a stand-in only. He doesn’t quite act like the President, he’s livelier and more involved, and becomes more interested in the country’s needs than Mitchell ever willed to. He grabs the attention of the media, fellow politicians (in both cases featuring cameos of real figures), and even Mitchell’s estranged wife. Soon, a once indifferent President becomes one of the best and best loved, but as Mitchell’s dirty laundry emerges, things get difficult for Dave, though not so for Bob, who’s already benefiting from the President’s bad reputation.

Screenwriter Gary Ross managed to pull off a more than farfetched premise and make of it a credible and even realistic look at the White House and the people in it. The film is a comedy, and Kline manages to make most scenes hilarious, but the satire is mordant, and often thought-provoking. Just watch out for Ben Kingsley’s electric appearance midway through the movie, it surely grabs the attention in quite a different way than you thought the film intended. In that way, the movie has an important resonance… It gives enough weight to the First Lady’s emotional problems as it does to a Secret Service Agent’s (Ving Rhames) loyalty, and in both ways it’s indelible.

Nevertheless, the movie is more attached to its comedic nature than anything else, and that’s how it’s finally remembered. As a comedy, it’s certainly effective, so it’s not a complaint. This is a good movie, certain to entertain, and offering a bit more, so I highly recommend it.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Mambo Italiano

Director

Émile Gaudreault

Year

2003

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Tuesday, July 20, 2004

When Mambo Italiano came out in the U.S., many people said it had the potential of My Big Fat Greek Wedding (2002). Both movies shared more than one similarity, especially that of being a crowd-pleasing comedy about, above other things, ethnicity. But of course, that was impossible. Why, you ask? Well, because Mambo Italiano is about homosexuals as opposed to heterosexuals, and that small barrier in which non-gay people can also enjoy gay movies is yet to be broken.

Angelo (Luke Kirby) is the son of Italian immigrants living in Canada and his bringing-up has always been reduced to ethnic values and traditions. That’s why, when grown up, he has difficulty telling his conservative father (Paul Sorvino) and mother (Ginette Reno) that he’s gay. But then he falls in love with his childhood best friend Nino (Peter Miller) and must face the consequences of telling the truth and leaving his home with only his troubled sister Anna’s (Claudia Ferri) support.

Mambo Italiano reminded me of two movies that touch similar subjects: My Big Fat Greek Wedding and Fools Rush In (1997). The first one was an extended sitcom that had something going for it but that ultimately wasn’t that good a movie. The second one was actually better, successfully blending comedy, drama and romance into a cohesive whole. Mambo Italiano is the Italian version of those movies with a twist… it’s gay.

The success of the movie lies especially in two key aspects: its script, which has an amazingly balanced perspective of comedy and drama, and its actors, all of who do a terrific job. I was impressed by the consistent tone of the movie. It is, for the most part, a comedy, and the movie never takes itself too seriously. That’s why we get over-the-top characters, situations and humor. Almost every single scene ends with a punch line, even at its most dramatic. And a comedy that never ceases to make you laugh has to be considered successful in one way or another.

The Italian aspect of the movie is also dealt with, but it never takes center stage as it did in that Greek movie. This one isn’t about ethnicity, but rather incorporates that aspect into a story about a boy who’s just trying to find his place in the world by being honest with himself and others. Life ain’t easy, especially in those circumstances, so conflict soon takes center stage. But the movie shows that if you’re a person that stays true to yourself without harming others then you’ll most likely find happiness, or at least a joyous state of being.

Most important of all, the movie works because it is honest and because it never loses sight of its characters. Yes, it’s a comedy, but for a comedy to really work you have to identify with the characters in some level. This movie is sincere and rings true.

Luke Kirby, in the leading role, is exceptionally charismatic and talented. Give this fellow more work!! He’s a real find, and the movie rests on his shoulders, so it’s good he comes off so well. Sorvino and Reno, as his parents, are responsible for most of the comedic aspects, and they do it really well. And then there’s Clauda Ferri, who creates a memorable three-dimensional character out of what could’ve been a caricature.

Enjoyable to say the least!

“I will be once the Valium kicks in.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Garfield

Director

Peter Hewitt

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Monday, July 19, 2004

“Garfield,” the well-loved comic strip by Jim Davis, is meaningful to me; though I was never a diehard fan, I always loved it, and even followed the somewhat cheesy cartoon adaptation. The thing I loved about Garfield the cat was his sarcasm, and that’s the one thing that both the strip and the cartoon had.

The film adaptation, widely unaccepted by the critics, has Garfield’s witty, sarcastic humor, and no one can deny it. Yes, there are many differences, notably that he’s quite more active than anyone remembers him to be, but he’s just a damn sarcastic pet who thinks he’s smarter than his owner, with reason. The movie has a million flaws perhaps, but for those looking for some good old Garfield sarcasm, it’s pretty good. Or rather, not as bad as it could be. That’s what I think… so let’s move on.

The story has Jon (Breckin Meyer) acquiring a new pet, in addition to his cat Garfield (voiced by Bill Murray): Odie, a dumb dog with a talent. Garfield is jealous, especially since Odie means to Jon not only a new pet, but also a connection with the girl of his dreams, Liz (Jennifer Love Hewitt), the veterinarian. Garfield’s jealousy takes him to the lengths of ruining a dog show, destroying Jon’s living room, and finally causing the loss of Odie. In the meantime, an evil dog trainer by the name of Happy Chapman (Stephen Tobolowsky) claims Odie, on account of the dog’s talent, and it’s up to Garfield to get the dog back, since his human best friend has no clue where to find it.

There are many problems with this movie. First and foremost, the plot is simply too silly, so silly it’s a shame even for the Garfield cartoon standards. Tobolowsky’s role is cliché to say the least, and his caricature subplot makes things a tad too predictable. After a beginning of quick scenes with punchy one-liners that remind us of the comic strip, the movie goes toward the adventure and Garfield loses little by little his irresistible nature. Seeing Garfield turn into a caring creature is not by far believable for anyone who knows what the character is about. Plus, Happy Chapman is not the only one-dimensional character, since Jon and Liz are even more so; their romance notably doesn’t work, or does but no one gives a damn, as it’s aloof to say the least.

That the human characters are so plain could have been done on purpose to accentuate Garfield’s wit, but I doubt it. However, the cat, voiced by Bill Murray, always seems to have the right thing to say to make us laugh. Garfield’s one-liners rarely miss their target, and it’s a pleasant ride. This is as much to the script’s credit as it is to Murray who, if I understand correctly, hated the film and with reason, but did it so good he embodied Garfield like few others could. Without Murray it would be a much worse mess than it already is.

As a final note, though I don’t think anything could come close to Davis’ drawing of Garfield, the CGI works well and we get to like Garfield physically as much as otherwise. It’s finely realized and I liked it. Meyer is also very well cast as Jon.

Garfield… a bad movie with good things to offer; not a complete waste of time.

“I hate Mondays.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Breakfast with Hunter

Director

Wayne Ewing

Year

2003

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, July 15, 2004

Wayne Ewing has achieved what even he probably didn’t intend: To create the definitive audiovisual interpretation of Hunter S. Thompson’s work. The attempt famously failed (to some) in 1998’s Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, inspired by the author’s most famous book, a notorious re-imagining of a road trip to Las Vegas, which became not only a page-turner but also a metaphor of the decay of the American dream.

To the uninitiated, this review, like the documentary itself, should give some background. Hunter S. Thompson is the notorious “Dr. Gonzo”, creator of the “Gonzo Journalism”, most famous for his work in the Rolling Stone magazine, which benefited from his abuse of certain substances. Forever judged and hunted by conservatives, Thompson always seemed to defy any and all conventionalisms and gained importance for being different. As a middle-aged man with just the same kind of attitude he might seem out of place or immature or plain stupid, but he’s still got what it takes to change anyone’s mind.

Breakfast with Hunter soon establishes itself as a pleasant journey throughout Thompson’s career, from his failed attempt to become the Pitkin County sheriff to his struggle to adapt Vegas to the screen and do it right. Despite any opinion about Hunter, there’s no denying that he’s different, and enjoys it, and that’s probably what makes his misadventures fun to watch. On the other hand, Ewing handles the trip as a voyeuristic look at Hunter rather than a documentary per se, so instead of giving us boring interviews, he shows us what it’s like to be with Hunter, and we really get to feel that, and eventually, we just can’t get enough.

And though some might get the impression, as I said, that Hunter’s attitude is out of place by now, the film clearly shows the opposite:

First and slowly it digs into the author’s influence in further generations, both in fragments of his work read with admiration by John Cusack, Johnny Depp, and Roxanne Pulitzer (whose notorious divorce trial was discussed at the time by Hunter), and in a celebration of the 25th Anniversary of the publication of Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. It almost seems ironic (and Hunter does comment on it, verbally and physically, with a fire extinguisher) that the Rolling Stone Magazine’s office is now modern and luxurious, much against its own original idiosyncrasy. Hunter S. Thompson has always attacked hypocrisy, and has always done so in extravagant ways.

And second, it simply shows that Hunter is far from stupid. Yes, he’s always carrying a bottle of Chivas Regal (and drinking it even while driving), and he does seem absent-minded and childish, but he’s always at the top of his game, always conscious of the situation, and always certain of what he wants and what he’ll get no matter what. Though the film is in ways intense from the get-go, it truly comes to life and becomes a unique piece thanks to a priceless scene where Hunter is visited in his reclusive Owl Farm ranch by director Alex Cox and his co-screenwriter Todd Davies to discuss the script of Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.

Though Cox was at the helm of the project back then, Thompson quickly disagrees with his idea to mix animation with live action on the film, in an attempt to metaphorically interpret one of the author’s statements; Cox and Davies assume that Hunter can be talked into the idea, and give him little credit since he hasn’t even read the script. Wrong. Hunter gives them hell and tirelessly tries to make his point, and soon the team runs away from Owl Farm and the project. The filmmakers’ argument was that Thompson’s work was so appropriately illustrated by Ralph Steadman (whose presence in the film and earnest friendship with Thompson are the most refreshing elements of it, by the way), so why not do that onscreen with animation; Thompson argues that it’s not the same thing and he’s right: Illustrations and moving pictures are just not the same thing, especially when the use of words was so important and now can’t be used the same way; instead, living caricatures like those Cox and Davies make of themselves are exactly what should be done. And in that way, Ewing scores big time.

So in the end, Breakfast with Hunter is exactly the kind of trip that Dr. Gonzo so masterfully portrays in his writing: A complex observation of life that’s still lighthearted, an immature attack to conservatism and hypocrisy that’s as serious as can be, and a collection of anecdotes that seem pointless but add up to something vibrant and unforgettable. I was fascinated by the film and strongly recommend it, though “recommend” is too weak a word for anyone with at least a little admiration for Dr. Hunter S. Thompson; for those it’s a must-see.

Click here to go to the official site.

Click here to order the DVD.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Igby Goes Down

Director

Burr Steers

Year

2002

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, July 14, 2004

Even though Igby Goes Down was released two years ago, I never actually got the chance to see it. Not that I was dying to, but somehow the movie stuck with me. Its great cast and genre (black comedy) appealed to me in more ways than one, so deep in my heart I always knew I would end up watching the movie someday. I finally did, sooner than I expected, and it was… nice.

Igby (Kieran Culkin) has a tough life. His father (Bill Pullman) is in a mental institution, his mother (Susan Sarandon) is a bitchy high-society pill addict, and his brother (Ryan Phillipe) is a Republican with no signs of liking him at all. After Igby is expelled from every school imaginable, he is sent to a military one. But he gets out and hides from his mother by living in his godfather’s (Jeff Goldblum) apartment, which he shares with the lover of the aforementioned (Amanda Peet). Igby also meets Sookie (Claire Danes) and falls for her.

So yeah, if you’re bitching about that being a premise at all I don’t blame you. It is more a description of characters, but that’s only because Igby Goes Down doesn’t really have a plot. It is, at its core, an irreverent coming-of-age tale that comes together because of some moments, but that doesn’t really feel like a full-rounded movie at all.

The movie starts with a shockingly offbeat scene that might or might not be what we’re thinking. Then again, it is treated with such cynicism that we instantly know what we’re into for the next couple of hours.

And that’s what I like about this movie. It left me with nothing really, for every character is so surreal that you just can’t relate anything in the movie with real life. But the humor is so black and so surprising and so cynical that I had a great time watching it. There are some hysterical scenes and one-liners thrown in there for good measure. And it more than makes up for the muddled nonexistent plot. Most of the movie seems to be going nowhere, but it is well written, so I went along with it just fine.

Kieran Culkin, in the lead role, is simply terrific. He knows perfectly well how to deliver the dialogue he’s given and makes the most out of it. The very final scene, with so much going on, has him in the background but it is he that we notice. And it’s a scene that had me in stitches. That’s the kind of performance he gives. Never over-the-top, but always attracting. Meanwhile, Claire Danes is amazing, and their relationship is the best thing about the movie. Amanda Peet also impressed me. But it is Susan Sarandon who steals the show whenever she’s onscreen. Think about it, everyone in the movie is perfect!

Bunny: “Igby, I could just eat you with a spoon.”
Igby: “Don’t.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Children of Heaven

Director

Majid Majidi

Year

1997

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, July 13, 2004

Many filmmakers and film critics keep reminding us that there isn’t one original idea to be explored on film, that everything has been invented and, if anything, there are original ways of recycling the material. Some of them think that to make it work it must be more complex, more intricate, and sometimes more ostentatious. I disagree, and happily enough, an occasional small film like Children of Heaven proves me right.

Whoever in Hollywood came up with the idea of a story about a boy losing his sister’s shoes representing the main storyline of a film, would certainly be thought mad. However, Iranian filmmaker Majid Majidi came up with that idea and created one of the most touching, unforgettable films of recent years, a triumphant piece that earned international awards and with reason.

Darn it, I already told you what the film was about, so what else is there to say? Yes, it’s that simple: An Iranian young boy by the name of Ali (Amir Farrokh Hashemian) loses his younger sister Zahra’s (Bahare Seddiqi) pink shoes on the way back from having them fixed by a shoemaker, and the event becomes a tragic occurrence for the children: Their parents have no money for new shoes, and they can’t even tell them, afraid they’ll get mad at them. Losing them was a result of Ali’s distraction, but not really his fault, but he deeply regrets what happened and is willing to do anything to make it up to the little girl. So they work out an alliance where they’ll switch shoes for school, which brings dreadful consequences, as they can’t both be in time (though Ali’s school day starts after hers is over).

In the meantime, Ali is determined to either recover his sister’s shoes, or get her some new ones. He goes to the lengths of entering a race where new shoes are awarded to the third place—determined to get in third.

The poignant story has a social observation as backdrop; it shows us how these children’s society works, how poverty abounds, and how what seems irrelevant to some is crucial to others. But overall, it emphasizes on the values that some families have, and the importance of counting on someone in desperate moments. The union between Ali and Zahra is poignant to say the least, and heartbreaking more often than not. It’s just too hard to stop the tears from flowing, not to mention to get the film out of your head afterwards.

The little film benefits from frank performances all around, especially that of the boy, and a strong focus in little details. Majidi’s job is amazing, both as a director and as a screenwriter.

Well worth giving a look.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Spider-Man 2

Director

Sam Raimi

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, July 12, 2004

I don’t think there was anyone happier than me when Spider-Man 2 reviews started leaking out with most of them saying it was better than the original. Well, ok, perhaps some people were actually happier, but you get my point. Being a huge fan of the first installment I just couldn’t wait for the sequel, and the fact that it delivered made me all giddy. I’ve seen the movie twice now, and I can’t wait to tell you what I though of it.

Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) has been struggling to keep a balanced life with all his Spider-Man duties. He’s doing terrible at college, he lives in a sad little apartment, he barely has any money and, most important of all, he struggles every single day for not being able to tell Mary Jane (Kirsten Dunst) that he loves her. Peter must then make a hard decision, but his plans change once he realizes that the city needs him, especially when Doc Ock (Alfred Molina), a brilliant scientist gone berserk, obsesses with building a machine that could kill thousands of people.

Where should I start? I guess by stating quite point-heartedly that I do not think Spider-Man 2 is better than its predecessor. Oops, I think I just alienated more than half the people out there, but let me give you my reasons. I looove both movies, I really do. I could watch them over and over and over. But while they both share the same strengths, they also share the same weaknesses. Part one dragged somehow with Green Goblin scenes. Part two drags somehow with dramatic scenes involving Peter’s confusion.

And yes, I know that’s the core of the story, but my second viewing just proved that it was a bit too much. I even spotted entire scenes that could’ve been cut to make the movie better paced, such as Peter’s visit to the doctor or the subsequent scene which has him dreaming about a very old-looking Uncle Ben (terrible scene, I hate when they do this in movies with death people and this was no exception) or the thin girl’s visit to Peter. But hey, you’ll get the impression that I’m being too negative about the movie, while as a matter of fact I loved it. So let’s just finish with all the bad and move on: I also felt there was a bit too much Aunt May for my taste (she did start to get annoying at one point) and the scene at the hospital when Doc Ock attacks many doctors is totally, absolutely inconsistent with the tone of the movie. Sure, it’s cool, but it doesn’t belong here.

Now, the good. The movie is very successful in developing its characters a lot more and in quite unexpected directions. Every single character gets more exposition, whether it’s Harry (James Franco) or J. Jonah Jameson (J.K. Simmons). But the love story between Peter and Mary Jane takes center stage and really gets to us. We hate the idea of not having them together, but we also understand Peter’s conflict and know he has the responsibility to stop crime in the city. It’s torturing for both Peter and Mary Jane, and I loved how the movie was essentially about them.

That also means much less action, but there’s still plenty of goodies for those who enjoy the hell out of those scenes. The tower/train fight sequence between Doc Ock and Spider-Man is one of the best-made, exhilarating, suspenseful action scenes in cinematic history. I can’t begin to imagine how it must’ve been to shoot it, but the result is breathtaking. And the denouement… perfect, just perfect. My favorite scene in the movie. It is touching, gives a sense of relief and totally gets to you.

The movie is also very funny. There’s a new screenwriter behind the movie, Alvin Sargent, and it shows. The comedy in this installment is more refined, classier, and full of quiet moments that ultimately pay off. How can we not identify with this superhero with a scene such as the one in the elevator? That’s the entire success of the series, the human aspect of a guy with superpowers, and the creators never forget that.

There’s another sequence that works brilliantly that has “Raindrops keep fallin’ on my head” as background music. Not only is the song a great choice, but the moment simply works. Oh, and the final half hour is nerve-wrecking, full of revelations, surprises, suspense and a perfect final note.

The actors are all, without exception, extraordinary. Tobey Maguire brings Peter with such everyday-ness that it’s hard not to fall for the guy. We suffer along with him, but we also smile when he does. Meanwhile Kirsten Dunst’s Mary Jane evolves quite a lot in this movie and the actress is terrific, also showing a great deal of emotions. I also enjoyed Alfred Molina’s work as the villain. Since his arms are the enemy per se, he is able to not overact and do a great job. James Franco, J.K. Simmons and the whole cast are terrific!

Let the next installment come!

“You are different.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of Spider-Man 2 (2004): Groucho

Review

The Last Seduction

Director

John Dahl

Year

1994

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Thursday, July 08, 2004

1994 is well-known in CriticSociety to be my favorite modern movie year. Not only did it boast my favorite movie of all-time, but the quality of movies that year was unprecedented. Then again, that’s just me. Here’s yet another example of a movie that belongs right there with the best of the genre.

Bridget Gregory (Linda Fiorentino) runs away with a bag full of money that her husband Clay (Bill Pullman) just got from a drug deal. In order to go unnoticed for a while, she settles in a small town near Buffalo under a different name. It is there that she meets Mike (Peter Berg), a sentimental fellow who rapidly falls for her, something that instantly makes him her next prey.

The Last Seduction is well-known to be one of the most shocking femme fatale movies ever made. It is simple to understand why: Fiorentino’s character is evil (emphasis on the word). She uses her sexuality to get what she wants (money) and almost always gets away with it. She’s got the brains, the looks, and the balls. And she certainly knows how to handle men.

The movie has two main storylines which keep converging with each other: whether it’s Clay looking for her runaway wife with the help of a private investigator, or Mike trying to understand her lover while slowly succumbing to her plans. Of course, Bridget/Wendy is no fool, so she manages to be one step ahead of both of them even while trying to deal with both of their situations at the same time.

And that leads us to the ending, which is absolutely powerful, suspenseful and witty. Watch how Bridget never shows a trace of being scared or fooled. There’s no stopping that woman!!!

A particular scene in a car with a certain black man is especially well-handled. The perfect example of a scene that describes the entire movie.

Ultimately, the movie works because it maintains our interest and has compelling characters. The noir aspect of it is well-handled, although there are a couple of plot devices that serve merely as plot devices and are way too obvious and non-credible. Well, as long as they move the plot forward…

Linda Fiorentino delivers a knock-out performance. I don’t think I’ll ever see her again without thinking of this specific role. She stays with you, and her work is exceptional. Such a bitch! Meanwhile, Berg and Pullman are very good in the victims’ roles.

Sexy and relentless…

“I believe what we’re looking for is a certain horse-like quality?”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Bound

Director

Andy Wachowski

Larry Wachowski

Year

1996

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Tuesday, July 06, 2004

When Bound was released I was 15 years old, so I obviously didn’t see it at the time. Then again, I wasn’t that interested. As a matter of fact, the first time I heard about the movie was when I saw that year’s MTV Movie awards. The movie had a Best Kiss nomination which appeared to be quite hot (lesbians!) but that was it. Many years later the Wachowski brothers became huge with the release of The Matrix movies. And since by now I’d heard Bound was a good movie I didn’t think twice before giving it a try when I caught it on TV. Boy was I lucky!

Corky (Gina Gershon), a tough lesbian ex con, finds something quite intriguing in Violet (Jennifer Tilly), a sexy mob escort. Soon they’re having an affair. Meanwhile, Caesar (Joe Pantoliano), Violet’s boss and lover, gets involved in a money trade with one dangerous mob leader and his son. But things get complicated once Corky and Violet scheme to steal the 2 million in question from him.

Now that premise sounds like one pretty common film noir, with the twist being that this one has lesbians. I thought so too before I saw the movie, but let me tell you: it is a lot more.

Bound is an exploitation flick if there ever was one. It has gangsters, lesbians, violence, a femme fatale, blood and style to spare. But that is precisely the point of the movie. It knows it is playing with a lot of conventions, so the directors twist everything around and create one nail-biting, absolutely riveting motion picture.

The success of the movie lies in so many crucial points that I’m amazed the movie never got out of control or lost its momentum. First and foremost there’s the script (by the directors), a wonderful piece of work that plays with a common genre and makes the most out of it. I was amazed by how tight and intelligent the script is. Movies like this always have plot holes or leave some loose ends unresolved. Not here though. Everything makes sense at every turn.

Bound is a suspenseful film noir with a bit of black humor thrown in there for good measure. It is impressive how it’s impossible to guess what’ll be happening in the next frame. Everything is so unexpected that decisions have to be taken all the time which only adds to the fun and overall excitement.

I was also amazed by the chemistry that Gershon and Tilly were able to exude. Boy, they’re hot. And so is their romance! We really want them to be together.

The movie is also quite stylish. It all takes place in two adjacent apartments, yet the directors and cinematographer Bill Pope make the most out of their sets and create some visual imagery that is both beautiful and disturbing.

As for the performances, it is Tilly and Pantoliano who shine the most. Tilly appears to be a common ditzy chick at the beginning, but we gradually realize she has more brains than it seemed. And Tilly, with her voluptuous body and raspy voice is perfect for the part. Pantoliano, on the other hand, steals the movie as the desperate mobster who keeps making decisions that are not expected, thus putting everyone around him in trouble. Gershon is also perfect in her part.

A brilliant movie!

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Spider-Man 2

Director

Sam Raimi

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Monday, July 05, 2004

What a pleasure it must be for Stan Lee, co-creator (with Steve Ditko) of the Spider-Man comic book, whose nightmare through the years was the lack of quality in screen adaptations of his hero’s saga, to watch the Sam Raimi films about Peter Parker and his arachnid alter-ego turn out to be such grand pieces of entertainment. The first installment exceeded expectations, and became one of the most successful films that year, critically and especially commercially. Some critics were reluctant to praise it though (definitely not I), but there were always at least mild accolades toward it coming from the most cynic among them.

Spider-Man 2 is even better, and is bound to become one of the year’s most commercially successful and most highly praised movies. First and foremost, it corrects the most serious flaw of its predecessor, which is the look of the visual effects of the web-slinger. This time, such scenes look absolutely real, and credible, and are exciting as can be. And though the first film was astounding in making our hero real, and as geeky as was intended in the original comic book, and showed the process of his becoming a super hero in amazing fashion, this time the conflict becomes more real, more palpable, and much more extensive, as it affects multiple characters and never seems aloof or unrealistic, but on the contrary, is easy to identify with.

I don’t know about you, but sometimes in life I have gone through crises for having to attend to so many diverse activities, and sometimes, yes, I have had to quit to some things I love in order to be responsible and do things right, at least those I think are most important, not only for me but for whoever I’m serving. Spider-Man 2 is not as much Spider-Man’s story as it is his alter-ego’s, Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire), who goes through that exact same crisis, and suddenly finds himself unable to keep up with his heroic antics, as his personal life is a complete mess: He fails at school, he can’t keep a job, he doesn’t sleep enough, and he’s so poor he can’t even pay the rent of a crappy little room. Not to mention his relationship with M.J. Watson (Kirsten Dunst), whose affection towards Peter is dissipating as a consequence of his lack of attention.

This film borrows its main storyline from one of the most unforgettable numbers of the comic book, titled “Spider-Man: No More.” What sets Spider-Man’s comic book apart from others is that, as I said about the film, it’s more about Peter Parker than about the web-slinger, and that episode in particular was unforgettable in showing the conflict of a person living two lives. The film captures the struggle to perfection and it’s beautiful in showing the relief of Peter when he quits the “job”, to the tune of Burt Bacharach’s “Raindrops Keep Fallin’ on My Head” from Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969). But it’s also priceless in showing the conflict of having quit, and feeling great remorse about it.

Veteran screenwriter Alvin Sargent (of Julia (1977) and Ordinary People (1980) fame) put together a story by Alfred Gough, Miles Millar, and Michael Chabon, and managed to create a multi-layered script where multiple storylines collide and have big relevance for the whole. Besides Peter’s conflict, there’s M.J.’s own, plus her relationship with John Jameson (Daniel Gillies), the son of Peter’s boss at the Daily Bugle (J.K. Simmons); also Harry Osborn’s (James Franco) resentment toward Spider-Man for killing his father, who was also the Green Goblin (Willem Dafoe), and toward Peter for befriending Spider-Man (as it’s believed) and not giving away his identity; also Aunt May’s (Rosemary Harris) increasing poverty and loneliness; and also the main story: That of a brilliant scientist, Dr. Otto Octavius (Alfred Molina), whose miscalculations lead to disaster and his own madness, as he becomes a symbiotic creature, with four metallic arms attached to his body, and is known better as Doctor Octopus, “Doc Ock” for short; Octavius’ transformation from a loving husband (his lovely wife being played by Donna Murphy) to a monster is particularly compelling. Each and every one of these subplots is developed to its tiniest possibility, and they all have something to do with each other, and in the end, we care about every single character, and there isn’t one storyline that’s not satisfactory though, ironically, they all leave us hungry for more.

Despite the many action sequences that keep up the thrills, this is a character-oriented film, and as one, it excels both in dialogue and performances. Maguire keeps up the good work, convincing both as a loser and as a hero; Dunst is also quite credible as a conflicted young lady; Franco surprises in dramatic scenes, Simmons tops himself in comedic ones, and Harris outshines the rest as the wise aunt. But I think Alfred Molina is the official scene-stealer, who never really goes over-the-top, but is effective both as a genius and a villain.

Oh, but the film doesn’t forget its kind of source! There are enough comic book references and in-jokes to keep us fans exhilarated, including many familiar names that make us wonder which character is next to appear in the series.

Also worth mentioning: Danny Elfman’s music score, Bob Murawski’s editing, and Bill Pope’s cinematography; not to mention the amazing job in technical departments.

For a commercial film, you simply can’t ask for more. For a comic book film, I wish you could. This is the best comic book film as far as I’m concerned, and an example to follow. It’s the right way to spend so many millions. As I said in the beginning, it’s grand entertainment.

“I’m Spider-Man... no more.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of Spider-Man 2 (2004): Morris