CriticSociety- film reviews

Review

Glen or Glenda

Director

Edward D. Wood Jr.

Year

1953

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, July 28, 2005

Infamous filmmaker Edward D. Wood Jr. debuted in 1953 with a surefire flop that exposed his talent and foreshadowed his success: both inexistent until the end of his life. His choice for a film debut is very peculiar: he set to film the story of the first known case of a sex change in history, but instead, he ended up making a documentary on transvestism, since he himself was a transvestite.

The result is intriguing to say the least: Mr. Wood starred himself (under the pseudonym of Daniel Davis) as Glen, who loves his fiancée (Dolores Fuller) very much but can’t help wanting to get in her clothes… literally! He has no idea how to tell her, or if he should tell her at all, and he feels half ashamed and half lonesome because of his secret.

The message is sincere if anything, and Wood is appealing in the role, so one could say the documentary is going in the right track by listening to the premise. However, it goes all the wrong ways. To begin with, the whole thing is narrated from a haunted house (!) by an eerie Bela Lugosi, whose role or presence in the film is never explained or justified; stock footage is used throughout, much of which is incoherent and repetitious; original scenes are replayed several times to the point of exhaustion, namely one where the main character stands outside a boutique; details are unexplainably paid little to no attention, like a newspaper with news of a transvestite being killed, which actually is a real newspaper with an obviously fake headline pasted on top; settings are cheap-looking; editing is dreadful; dialogue is wooden or absurd, and the fact that the performances are sometimes not that bad makes it sound even worse.

Soon into the film however, something peculiar happens: it all gets too funny. This film defines the term “so bad it’s funny” actually, and it becomes a riotous piece if there ever was one. Then it starts getting bizarre and it “improves”! And then it’s all nuts, goes berserk, loses all logic, and then switches back to a “regular” documentary. What’s this? I just don’t know, but it’s unique; awful, but unique.

The “storyline” follows the suicide of a transvestite, and the unexplainable resulting anxiety of a police inspector (Lyle Talbot) to understand these people. He goes to Dr. Alton (Timothy Farrell), a psychiatrist, who then tells the story of Glen the transvestite. So it’s a story inside a story inside a story, which has stock footage constantly interwoven, related or not. Then in the middle, a dream sequence. Whose or why? Not too clear. Bela Lugosi steps into the nightmare, or is it really happening? And towards the end, finally, the story of a sex change, unrelated and ineffectual, but present and pretty funny.

One’s got to give credit to Wood for his originality and his guts, making a movie about such a controversial subject, even for today’s standards. His sincerity is beyond discussion and the honest performances of the actors show he was convincing with them and offered them some twisted guidance.

But one’s also got to the admit that this is a dreadful movie, some say the worst ever made (a close race with Wood’s own Plan 9 from Outer Space (1959)), certainly the worst I’ve ever seen, and definitely the one that has made me laugh most without it being its intention!

“Bevare! Bevare!”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

North by Northwest

Director

Alfred Hitchcock

Year

1959

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, July 27, 2005

I don’t think I’m being overly bold when I say North by Northwest is one of the best movies from one of the best directors written by one of the best writers starring one of the best actors of all-time, which means it instantly categorizes as being one of the best movies ever made. No, I’m not being bold, I’m just being realistic, and I’m also speaking as a big fan. How can I not be?

Roger Thornhill (Cary Grant) is a cocky, twice-divorced man who is inexplicably kidnapped by Phillip Vandamm (James Mason), a high-powered delinquent who mistakes him for a government spy. As Roger tries to get out of the situation and get to the bottom of it, he emerges himself in a lot more trouble, to the point where now he becomes an outlaw. And that’s when he meets beautiful Eve (Eva Marie Saint), a woman willing to help him uncover the truth.

North by Northwest is classic Hitchcock. It sure isn’t as psychologically profound as his other classics, but it gives us a side of him in which entertainment value comes in first place.

This movie was born from different ideas he had which he asked writer Ernest Lehman to put into a coherent whole. For instance, Hitchcock always wanted to shoot a chase scene on Mt. Rushmore and he always wanted to make a movie which had scenes inside the UN building. Unfortunately, he wasn’t granted permission to shoot neither at Mt. Rushmore nor at the UN building, so he had to resort to old cinema tricks. Mt. Rushmore was recreated as a big painting in a movie stage so the actors had that as a background. As for the UN, he famously shot a scene in which Grant entered the building while hiding in a truck across the street so the cops wouldn’t see the cameras. And the interiors had to be re-created, especially since a pretty big scene in which all hell breaks loose for Roger takes place inside.

North by Northwest is a pretty straight-forward movie, consisting mainly of Roger running from the police and trying to figure out what’s going on. But it’s all Hitchcock, so you can expect a lot of delicious twists and exquisite double-crosses. The movie is exciting at every point and is also intelligently written. It never really matters that the plot is quite implausible, because the whys take second fiddle to the hows in this movie. Witty dialogue that gets the most out of every character interaction and clever set pieces that keep the audience enthralled are just some of the wonders of such a carefully crafted script. And Bernard Herrmann's playful score gives every scene a delicious flavor.

And I am, of course, referring to such classic set-pieces as the crop-dusting scene or the Mt. Rushmore climax. Both are handled with expertise and as such became some of the most memorable bits of cinema in history. That said, I also got a kick out of the playful dinner scene between Roger and Eve, or the smart escape from the auction gallery, to name a couple.

Being a Hitchcock movie you can also expect a lot of sexual innuendo from beginning to end. And the very final shot is a classy example of that.

Cary Grant and Hitchcock had worked together before and it shows. Grant is easy-going, displaying a lot of humor and totally getting into the part. Mason is a great, intelligent villain. And Eva Marie Saint is just glorious, absolutely ravishing and perfectly fit for the part. Martin Landau also appears as Mason’s right-hand man, and even more. Landau has famously retold a story about how Hitchcock would only give directions to actors if they did something wrong, making him feel excluded.

But that was him all the way…

“I never discuss love on an empty stomach.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Hotel Rwanda

Director

Terry George

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, July 26, 2005

Hotel Rwanda is a stunning motion picture. It’s the kind of effort that shows it wasn’t easy to make, release or distribute, simply because the story it tells is not the usual mainstream fare. That’s what’s most moving about a movie like this, and it’s also something that gives it an extra punch to accomplish its goals. If this film wanted to bring awareness, it did so twice as much on account of its containing so much of a struggle in its own realization.

The story, as I said, is little known and as horrendous as it’s been ignored. It tells of a 1994 Rwandan massacre between Hutus and Tutsis. The distinction is absolutely incoherent and imaginary, created by colonizers years ago to bring order and submission in the country, which only resulted in rage and resentment between the same kind of people. Tutsis were the privileged, now they’re the ones to be annihilated. War starts overnight, to the incredulity of some, and it’s very real: half the people will be killed and there’s nothing anyone can do about it, not even the United Nations, who is present in Rwanda, bragging about the way peace has been maintained of late in the region, in a convention at the Milles Collines Hotel.

The U.N. representative, Colonel Oliver (Nick Nolte), is a good friend to hotel manager Paul Rusesabagina (Don Cheadle). Paul is good friends with everybody. He’s one hell of a businessman and knows his way with just any kind of customer or authority. He’s in control and always keeps his cool. However, the new circumstances shake his world like nothing ever had. He’s Hutu, but his wife is Tutsi, and so are many friends and family… and other human beings. There’s not much he can do, or is it? Soon Paul embarks in a quest to save as many people as possible, first by paying off the Hutu militia, then by allowing them as refugees in the hotel he takes care of. Still, they’re hunted people who will eventually get killed. That is, if Paul’s negotiation skills can’t stop it from happening.

Aside from everything else, Hotel Rwanda is highly entertaining. It never stops for a moment, and its lightning pace is filled with moments of tragedy, action, and laughs. The leading man couldn’t be a better person to focus in, as he’s so smart, fast-thinking, and humane. This film inevitably brings to mind Schindler's List (1993), but it’s less ceremonious, more straightforward, and much faster.

The story is of course a shocker, and one big example of absurdity and incomprehensible violence between human beings. Written by Keir Pearson and director Terry George, it’s based on the real story of Paul Rusesabagina, a hero if there ever was one, and a perfect businessman.

I was surprised by the entire cast. There are no words to describe Cheadle’s performance, as it goes beyond a performance, containing the very soul of an actor who believes in himself and the role he’s playing like nothing else matters. Outstanding. Beside him are Sophie Okonedo as his Tutsi wife, Nick Nolte as the U.N. representative, Cara Seymour as a Red Cross volunteer, Fana Mokoena as General Bizimungu, Joaquin Phoenix as an American cameraman covering the news, and a distinguished actor in a cameo as Paul’s Belgian boss. Everyone is right-on-target, and each has powerful moments. Surprisingly, Phoenix delivers the most potent line of the film, as he asks a Rwandan valet not to cover him from the rain after he’s leaving him and everyone else to their deaths.

If there’s any flaw in the film, it has to do with a few clichés and some one-note characters, like a rebellious employee for instance. However, all this is made-up by the constant evasion of other clichés in a story that could’ve fallen into one too many.

Nice music, editing, photography and overall atmosphere complete the piece in a wonderful way. I just loved this moving picture. It sure is an eye-opener.

“There’s always room.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The First Wives Club

Director

Hugh Wilson

Year

1996

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, July 25, 2005

When The First Wives Club came out I was too young to be interested in a movie about divorcees forming a club of some sort and going all angry about men. Matter of fact, I’m not that young anymore and I still wouldn’t be that interested in such movie. But never say never, for one quiet night while I was channel-surfing I happened to stumble upon the movie and I just fell prey to it. It hooked me and I have to say I liked it, even if it enters the realm of guilty pleasures.

Annie (Diane Keaton), a shy common housewife, Elise (Goldie Hawn), an Oscar-winning actress, and Brenda (Bette Midler), a hysterical mother, reunite in the funeral of an old friend, where they find that they have a lot in common: they have all been dumped by their husbands for younger, beautiful women. They then plan to take revenge and make their men’s life impossible.

The reason I actually got a kick out of this movie is that it is a comedy that actually made me laugh. Perhaps the subject matter could be intended to attract adult women as its primary target, but the movie has such a high level of energy that it can be enjoyed by almost anyone. Sure, some people won’t like it, but I happened to have a good time.

It also helps that the movie puts three of the most charismatic actresses of the 20th century sharing the screen amidst a lot of chaos and peculiar situations. These women shout a lot, rant even more, and become annoying at certain points… but you’ve gotta love them! They are not precisely nice people. The movie doesn’t pull any punches in criticizing both men and women, and it plays a lot with stereotypes, but what the hell, its spirit and meanness took me by surprise and I liked my share of black comedy with witty lines and some slapstick bits thrown in there for good measure.

And don’t be mistaken: this is an archetypical Hollywood product down to its core. I seem to be pouring a lot of fake praise into the movie, but sometimes even when the macaroni are not that good, you might still enjoy them. I guess that’s what I’m saying.

The cast is certainly a standout. I loved Goldie Hawn as a bitter aging actress, but Keaton and Midler are also hilarious in very different roles. Sarah Jessica Parker, Victor Garber, Stockard Channing, Dan Hedaya, Elizabeth Berkley, Marcia Gay Harden and even Maggie Smith also join in the fun.

“You think that because I'm a movie star I don't have feelings. Well you're wrong. I do have feelings. I'm an actress. I've got all of them!”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Batman Begins

Director

Christopher Nolan

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

Jorge Castillo a.k.a. Mithrandir

Review date

Sunday, July 24, 2005

Batman Begins tells the story of how Bruce Wayne, your regular Gotham billionaire, became Batman, fought the evil creeping everywhere and saved the city. When dwindled to such a simplistic approach, one may say that this movie has nothing special to offer, or that it’s just another comic book turned into movie. Even worse, one may assume that it has something to do with the Batman movies that were sadly made before this one (Tim Burton’s series notwithstanding). In reality, this film has been classified as quite possibly the best of the saga, with an incredible cast and a story that goes along quite closely to the original comic book. It has received wide critical acclaim, and has managed to achieve amazing commercial success at the same time. That is no easy accomplishment.

There are several factors that make this movie excellent, one of them, and quite possibly the greatest, being the new man in the director’s chair: Christopher Nolan. Though I quite do not share the same love for such movies as Memento (2000) and Insomnia with other critics, I can still acknowledge their greatness and part of the reason they are great, and there is simply no denying that, is Mr. Nolan. The first glimpse that I had from this movie was the Batmobile. It wasn’t the final version of it, and the “does it come in black?” question had not yet been answered, as it was still in camouflage. Needless to say, my first line of thoughts wasn’t very encouraging. Then I saw the trailer, and things changed… they really changed.

The movie acts as neither a sequel nor a prequel: it is merely a new movie based on a very old character, and therefore, it assumes that the viewer does not know much about the background of Bruce Wayne, or the reasons why he became the Batman. Thus it is very appropriate that the film begins with Bruce Wayne as a child (Gus Lewis).

The first glimpses we have of the character are of him playing around in the garden with Rachael Dawes (Emma Lockhart). When throwing around stones, one of them goes too far, and when Bruce goes to capture it, he falls down a hole in the ground. Upon reaching the floor, bats begin storming out of the cave and Bruce is instantly terrified by them; the character is then born right there and at that moment: the boy who is terrified of bats will eventually become that which he is most scared of, hence, the Batman. As we continue with the film, we witness the slaying of Bruce’s parents after coming out of an opera, his subsequent trauma as he blames himself for what happened (they had left early because he had had a panic attack when watching bat-like men on stage), and his need for revenge, a revenge that is taken away from him by fate. Now a full grown man, Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) disappears out of Gotham, and finds a man (Liam Neeson) who promises to free him of his fear. He goes with him, and eventually comes to Ra's Al Ghul (Ken Watanabe) who, along with Ducard (Neeson), helps him train and become who he was destined to be. Sadly, part of his destiny includes destroying Gotham City, something to which Bruce has big objections.

As the story progresses, Bruce returns to Gotham, mainly to see it overrun with organized crime everywhere, people playing dirty politics, and very dangerous men calling the shots on who gets to live and who doesn’t. Meanwhile, he is slowly being cheated out of Wayne Industries, the company he inherited from his father. After discovering a cave below his mansion, he slowly builds himself up with weapons, suits, a very special car and a brand new persona to go along with his newly found identity. He becomes Batman. When asked by his butler, Alfred (Michael Caine), why the figure of a bat, he replies that “bats frighten me. It's time my enemies share my dread”. With this new secret life, and with the help of Jim Gordon (Gary Oldman), a police officer who helped him when he was a child, he sets out to bring to justice a mafia leader, Don Falcone, as well as a doctor, Jonathan 'The Scarecrow' Crane (Cillian Murphy), who had fun experimenting on his patients. Towards the end, we learn of a third party Bruce needs to overcome, and this one won’t be very easy.

One of the many reasons this film has received such a wide critical acclaim is the fact that it manages to stay true to the original story, at the same time that it doesn’t hold back on how dark or dangerous the story could possibly get. It’s truly impossible to compare this film with the original Tim Burton’s because they are so different, from storytelling to basic plot devices. I’ve heard several people ask each other if they now dislike the original Batman (1989) after watching this new version of the movie. I was surprised when some of them answered that they did. I wasn’t surprised that this was happening, just that other people were feeling the same way I was. I’ve liked several movies from Burton, but he’s definitely not on my list of favorite directors, and some of his more acclaimed films (Big Fish (2003), for example) aren’t necessarily cut out for my taste for some reason (if it matters at all, I am very much looking forward to Corpse Bride); when you compare the two films, though, the original leaves a lot to be desired. There are many things that don’t work in the original that are too abundant in the new one. Add to that the fact that I severely dislike Michael Keaton, and you’ve got yourself a million and one reason as to why I consider this film a lot better.

There are so many things done right in this movie, it’s hard to begin to enumerate them. The special effects are very well done. Moreover, the many things that Batman does that could be considered somewhat supernatural or non human are explained in detail throughout the movie. His ability to fly, for example, has to do with the texture of his cape, as well as its aerodynamic shape. It’s explained, it’s not just thrown upon the viewer that he has a cape and ergo he must be able to fly. For that matter, the things that are achieved via special effects don’t seem as such. They are just seen as things that he can do because of the material available to him. The movie attempts to create a sensation of real life, real people, and real events, and although the story as a whole is fiction, the viewer can believe that this is all happening, mainly because there is no reason why it wouldn’t.

The cast is stellar. Christian Bale has impressed me ever since he was child. Empire of the Sun ranks as one of my favorite films of all time, and his performance in that movie carries it from beginning to end. This film isn’t any different. He is, so far, the best Batman ever cast for the role. Michael Caine shines as the butler, with his quirky remarks and British ways. Gary Oldman is great as usual, though for future reference, more lines to his character, as well as more screen time, would be superb. Liam Neeson has been surprising me for quite some time now, especially since Kinsey (2004). This much darker role truly shines because of his performance. Morgan Freeman as the technology supplier is also great. And then there’s Katie Holmes, who I am happy to inform has already been dropped from the sequel.

The film is already in my “Best Movies of the Year” list, and I plan for it to stay that way.

“If someone stands in the way of true justice, you simply walk up behind them and stab them in the heart.”

It’s good to be back…

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Wonderland

Director

James Cox

Year

2003

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, July 20, 2005

Boogie Nights (1997), the excellent Paul Thomas Anderson flick about the rise and fall of a porn star during the 70’s and 80’s, was loosely based on John Holmes, the infamous porn star who had his pinnacle during the former decade, but who ultimately ended getting into the drugs underworld. And that’s were Wonderland takes off. I find the subject matter fascinating, even more so when you include murder into the mix…

On July 1st, 1981, four members of a gang involving drugs were brutally murdered in a house in Wonderland Ave. The only unscathed survivor, David Lind (Dylan McDermott), was taken in for questioning, and told a story in which he blamed John Holmes (Val Kilmer) for what happened. As it happens, Holmes dealt with this gang in order to get drugs, and got them involved in a big robbery in which crime lord Eddie Nash (Eric Bogosian) was the victim. But when Holmes himself was taken in and told his own story, it wildly differed from Lind’s, leaving the police with barely any clues and a lot of contradictions.

This movie is tough. Director James Cox pulls no punches and bluntly tells his story in a way that makes us feel like we’re there. The atmosphere is always gloomy, and the movie expertly makes you understand the decadence of that decade, and especially of these people, by way of grainy photography, dark sets and somber lighting. It also helps that a lot of drugs are present, so smoke gets in the way of almost every scene.

And then there are the characters. John Holmes is no sympathetic human being. He has a girlfriend (Kate Bosworth) and they’re both in love, but they’re also junkies and they have a dangerous way of life. A way of life that John’s wife (Lisa Kudrow) does not approve of, even showing sympathy for the young ingénue John is bringing down with him. I found this three-way relationship the most interesting aspect of the movie. You can see the desperation in John’s eyes, you can see he’s not a bad man, but you can see he can also be foolish, especially being the drug-addict that he has become.

That said, there’s not much time to actually develop any character, which is a pity if you ask me, for there’s a murder story to be told. This aspect of the movie is also very interesting. We are not spared the brutality of what happened that day. And the Rashomon-style storytelling is quite compelling, because by that time we are completely immersed in the story and totally into knowing what might’ve happened. The movie does not claim to have the absolute truth, no, but it does develop a couple of theories; theories which are still up in the air today.

Val Kilmer totally kills as John Holmes. This is one of his best performances and an absolute triumph in every way. Kate Bosworth, Tim Blake Nelson, Janeane Garofalo, Dylan McDermott, Natasha Gregson Warner, and especially Josh Lucas, are all terrific, carefully nailing the attitudes and mannerisms of drug-addicts. I was also shocked to find out, after the movie was over, that Christina Applegate played a certain character... I didn’t even recognize her. That’s a plus in my book. Oh, and Lisa Kudrow is also dead-on.

A crazy ride…

“He’s got a mile of cock but no balls.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Dark Side of the Heart

Director

Eliseo Subiela

Year

1992

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, July 19, 2005

Oliverio (Darío Grandinetti) is a young poet from Buenos Aires, Argentina, who, like most bohemian people, has no money but loads of talent and aspirations. There are two things that Oliverio enjoys most in life: poetry and women. And yet, somehow, he can’t quite connect with any of the many girls he meets and romances. In his mind, Oliverio has a device to open a hole in the other half of his bed into which the girls fall to stop bothering him. Citing a poem from one of his idols, Oliverio Girondo (whose name is the same as his by coincidence), Oliverio states that he can stand absolutely anything from a woman – except her inability to fly. There’s one woman Oliverio seems addicted to however: Death (Nacha Guevara), who is obsessed with him and hates him for his way of life, since he’s so different from the others and so enchanting to her, which keeps her from taking him away. It is Death who constantly tries to convince Oliverio to quit the artistic life. It’s this struggle between art and success, loneliness and establishment, life and death, which keeps Oliverio busy, to the point of driving him insane.

Two movies came to mind while I was watching El Lado Oscuro del Corazón, neither of which were probably actually thought of by writer/director Eliseo Subiela, but both of which are inevitably referenced: The Seventh Seal (1957) and 8 ½. This is an addicting trip inside an artist’s mind, one who is very human and constantly questions his existence and importance. His conversations with Death are absolutely genius as they contain all his internal struggle and questioning. The film is composed of actual occurrences, imaginary events, memories, hallucinations, and poetry. It’s the poetry which actually makes the trip unforgettable, poetry written by the idols of Oliverio, Mario Benedetti, Juan Gelman and Oliverio Girondo. Oliverio constantly recites poems related to his current circumstances, and the poems, spoken by Grandinetti, sound like the most gorgeous music ever written.

The plot also includes Oliverio’s bohemian friends Erik (André Mélançon) and Gustavo (Jean Pierre Reguerraz), whose view of life is very peculiar, and some whores Oliverio enjoys visiting at a cabaret, one of which, Ana (Sandra Ballesteros), changes his life.

How to express the beauty of this film? I’d have to recite a poem to achieve it, and even then, I wouldn’t by far. I hadn’t heard much of it until a friend told me it was his favorite, and I can proudly say it’s worth being someone’s favorite. There’s so much sadness and complexity contained in such an easy-going, musical film, that you won’t believe it. Talking about musical, Osvaldo Montes’ score is something to behold. This film is a rare piece of art if there ever was one, and a very special and unique mixture of artistic expressions.

Darío Grandinetti, most famous nowadays for his role in Talk to Her (2002), is suave and strong, sad and attractive. He’s perfect. The cast surround him is swell also, including poet Benedetti as a German-speaking romancer of whores.

A must for Spanish speakers, very recommendable for everyone else.

“¡pero eso sí! -y en esto soy irreductible- no les perdono,
bajo ningún pretexto, que no sepan volar.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Fantastic Four

Director

Tim Story

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, July 18, 2005

I don’t usually hate movies. Or should I say… I don’t usually see movies that I hate. Since I am not obliged to see every release out there, I can freely choose whatever I want to see and thus, if something sounds crappy or shitty I just skip it. So why on Earth did I go see Fantastic Four? The buzz was terrible and the movie looked awful. Well, there are exceptions, you see, with some movies that I know are bad but which I just can’t ignore because of this or that reason. And in this case I just couldn’t pass by the fact that it is one of the tentpole movies of the summer. I had to see it with my own eyes…

Five scientists go to space to do some sort of experiments with plants that could be really helpful for us mortals. But a strange energy storm hits them and changes their body, giving each a different ability. Reed Richards (Ioan Gruffudd) is the geek leader who becomes completely elastic. Then there’s his ex, Sue Storm (Jessica Alba), who can become invisible. Her rebel brother Johnny (Chris Evans) is able to light up in fire and even propel himself to fly, while his friend Ben Grimm (Michael Chiklis) changes into what he thinks is a monstrous appearance with unbelievable strength. The fifth passenger, millionaire Victor Von Doom (Julian McMahon) starts to develop steel throughout his whole body, meaning he can also alter electricity… or something like that. And the rest of the premise, in a nutshell, has Dr. Doom being all bad and the Fantastic Four being all good and heroic and becoming celebrities and dealing with their newfound state.

Where should I start? Oh God, I’m going to enjoy this…

This movie is terrible. From start to finish, it is a complete mess. It opens with a lot of scenes in space, which are as exciting as watching my dog pee. There is no sense of wonder for being… in space for Christ’s sake! There is no scope; it all feels like cheap sets, which is sad because we know for a fact that the movie was expensive, so those sets were actually not that cheap. Ouch! We find out that the main characters are scientists and pilots and whatever, but we never, for one second, believe any of it. Except for Reed, everyone looks like they wouldn’t know a red button from a blue one. Terrible introduction.

And then we’re back to Earth. How, you wonder? Who cares! Victor is all jealous because his bitchy girl Sue is starting to pay attention to Reed once again. After all, they want to know what happened to their bodies. The only characters who actually give a damn are Johnny, who is understandably fascinated and wants to use his abilities out there, and Ben, who is depressed because he looks ugly and because his marriage just went bananas because his beautiful wife (in negligee) is not even curious to know what happened or if it could be reversed. Ah, love!

So then, our characters find themselves in the middle of chaos in a NY bridge, where they all use their powers for the first time to actually save people. And oh yes, they become instant heroes. The press is all over them and they are all over the press, giving speeches like not even the best politicians can and discussing their existential problems in front of everyone who can listen. So Ben is angry at Johnny so he plays with his car as you would with a can. But wait, we don’t see it!! An opportunity for coolness… gone. And that sums up the entire movie.

I could go on about the ridiculous plot and the things that follow, but it would be pointless. The whole movie is like a bad joke. Sure, there are some redeeming scenes. I actually really loved the final fight where the four of them use their powers together. But it comes with no build-up and goes in a split second. Before you know it, it’s over! There’s also a cool scene in the snow with Johnny. And… I guess that’s about it. Even a subplot that could’ve been touching comes off as insulting… do the creators mean to say that an ugly guy can only get a blind girlfriend? Great message you guys!

Horrible dialogue populates, with the actors actually not helping. I actually enjoyed Michael Chiklis and Chris Evans quite a bit. They do transcend amidst all the stupidity and mediocrity. Jessica Alba is wooden, Ioan Gruffudd is forgettable and Julian McMahon is so busy trying to be all suave that he comes off as scary as Barney in underwear.

Blasphemy! Not even the special effects are that great.

I guess the director, writers, and everyone were going for a more campy tone, but they never hit the right tone and the movie seems to take itself too seriously while desperately trying not to, if you know what I mean. It is a complete waste of time.

“Is that a trick question?”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Goodfellas

Director

Martin Scorsese

Year

1990

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, July 14, 2005

I had seen Goodfellas several years ago and was pleased to revisit it lately. I didn’t remember, for instance, that it was based on a true story, and quite accurately at that. I was surprised and awed by how Scorsese managed to make a real story so much his own in the way he presented it and handled it. This is a modern gangster saga if there ever was one, and the way it manages to pull off being realistic and unglamorous, yet transcendent and attractive, is a magnificent achievement.

The star and main focus of the story is Henry Hill (first Christopher Serrone, then Ray Liotta), a half-Sicilian-half-Jewish young man who’s seduced by his neighborhood gangsters and easily becomes one of them. A born gangster, who states in his voice-over remembrance, “As far back as I can remember, I’ve always wanted to be a gangster,” Henry blends in and gets to know no limits, although he’s usually compelled to stay back during really ugly business, like killing people. He’s into the glamour of “the life,” the easy money, the chicks, and everything good that can come out of his profession. He also brings balance to the mindlessly evil associates that he has, which turns him into probably their most valuable partner. He’s got some of the values of the old-school gangsters, but is into every business of the new-school ones.

His associates are all under the jurisdiction of mobster Paulie (Paul Sorvino), both a father and a boss for him and others. Paulie incarnates the wisdom, honor, and pride of the mafia ways. Irishman Jimmy Conway (Robert De Niro), on the other hand, is more contemporary, eager for easy money but mostly cautious in his ways. Henry fits with Jimmy and together with Tommy (Joe Pesci), a guttural, brutal, murdering guy, they form a trio.

The impressive saga follows Henry throughout three decades, during which he gets married, gets into dirtier business every time, and sees his small-time emporium fall. We see and hear the story from Henry’s point of view as well as that of his wife Karen (Lorraine Bracco). Karen is a Jewish girl who marries for the love and rush she feels for Henry, despite noticing his kind of business and his way of life, even concerning other women. The story of this couple is what moves the story forward and even though Liotta’s performance is a powerhouse, Bracco steals the show from him all along.

Oh but don’t forget Joe Pesci! Despite working next to such brilliant actors, he constantly astounds and easily becomes the most unforgettable character in the film.

There are movies about mafia and wise guys that deal with their glamour and sort of glorify them; there are others that see these people as scum and portray their downfall as a deserved punishment making us feel disgusted about them. Goodfellas is somewhere in-between: it doesn’t quite show admiration for the ways of these people but it does sell the idea that they have reasons to love their lives; it doesn’t justify their actions but it makes us see why they act the way they do and how their lives become whirlpools they can’t hardly get out of even if they want to; it doesn’t soften their decay but it treats it with enough subtlety not to leave an ugly aftertaste; it makes these people real instead of caricatures or clichés.

Scorsese directed with flair and flavor, making of this film an atmospheric piece which gives a sense of the passing of time and makes the trip highly enjoyable. There’s an awesome soundtrack constantly playing which makes the procedures even more hip and satisfying. A couple of sequences become heart-pumping to say the least and the rhythm never stops when it comes to making them work.

Overall, I admire and respect the way this film is crafted, and credit goes to Scorsese, co-screenwriter Nicholas Pileggi (on whose book “Wise Guy” this movie is based) and editor Thelma Schoonmaker, among others.

A fine film, well worth watching and watching again.

“But, I’m funny how? Funny like I’m a clown? I amuse you?”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

War of the Worlds

Director

Steven Spielberg

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, July 13, 2005

I have never been familiar with H.G. Wells’ novel about Martians invading Earth. Sure, I knew the basics, I knew there was a George Pal movie about it and I knew about Orson Welles’ infamous radio play that created havoc. But that was that. And then Steven Spielberg (God) announced a re-telling of the story as his next movie and it all seemed like the stars were aligning for yet another great Spielberg movie. Fortunately, that is just about the case.

Ray Ferrier (Tom Cruise) is a divorcée who is just about to spend some days with his estranged children Rachel (Dakota Fanning) and Robbie (Justin Chatwin), when something rather strange happens before his eyes: a huge killing machine known as a tripod pops up, literally, from underground destroying everything in its way. From then on, the three of them embark on a quest for survival, as they try to get to Boston where, hopefully, they’ll reunite with his ex-wife and the children’s mother (Miranda Otto).

There’s no denying Spielberg is fascinated with aliens. But what I like the most about that is that he keeps making movies about them in which they are completely different beings with completely different motivations. Looking at Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977), E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (1982), A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001) and War of the Worlds, I am fascinated at the various treatments these unknown creatures have received in his hands. And they’re all terrific movies. It just shows how vast the exploration of the uncertain can be, and with a little imagination, it can make up for great stories.

That said, aliens in this movie are anything but friendly. They ride these tripod machines and go on killing people or sucking their blood while also destroying everything in sight. And the movie, at its best, is appallingly terrifying. The sound effects team which created the tripods’ noise merits special credit, since that sound is just enough to give you the chills, now picture actually watching the extermination! And that’s where the visual effects team comes to mind. Those guys also deserve praise to spare, as the movie boasts impressive special effects and is never less than completely credible. If anything, the movie is a great spectacle.

Flaws get in the way though. The main problem for me is the family dynamics, and especially how the son’s role is written. The character is every cliché contained in the “angry rebellious teen” list of clichés and it just doesn’t work. I’m sure he’s angry at his father, but you’d think that in the midst of massive world destruction he’d get into the mood and situation. Not here, he’s all about emotional and idiotic outbursts. And that’s annoying. Cruise actually plays an unlikable character himself. He’s a terrible father and he knows it. And perhaps because of the combination of this and the annoying kid I never felt a true connection with them. Sure, I wanted them to survive (well, at least Tom and his daughter) but I wouldn’t have really cared if they didn’t. Spielberg is usually known as a guy who puts too much heart into his movies and here he tries (the absolutely terrible finale is proof of that) but he forces it beyond tolerance and doesn’t let it simply be.

And don’t get me started with my issues with Tom’s character being such a hero! But that comes with the package I guess. After all, well, it’s a movie about aliens invading the planet. Duh.

If you look closer though, there are rather obvious nods to the Holocaust and even to 9/11. Spielberg sprinkles his movie here and there with almost direct references to such horrific events, especially in the fact that a race is trying to wipe another one, and that gives the movie another dimension. I was especially awe-struck with a scene that takes place in an apparently quiet river. Haunting.

Another interesting aspect to notice is that the movie is not just about world domination, which serves merely as the backdrop of a smaller story. We see everything from the point of view of Ray, so don’t expect to watch entire cities being wiped out or important monuments being destroyed. The movie only follows Ray and his family and what they see is what we get. I’ve got to say I was put off by this at first, but once I realized this was going to be a more “intimate” movie I went along for the ride. There’s even a large section of the movie that takes place in a basement with only Ray, Rachel and another survivor, Harlan (Tim Robbins), who is determined to fight back the aliens. I found this whole sequence amusing, suspenseful and poignant. It even ends in a shocking note that says a lot about what we’re capable of doing between human beings (careful: between our own race!) if pushed a little, and how far we’re able to go to defend our loved ones.

So Tom Cruise and Tim Robbins are quite extraordinary, but Dakota Fanning is even more so. She steals the movie (along with the sheer spectacle) from everyone else, proving how good and capable an actress she is. The movie starts and ends with a Morgan Freeman narration that is right on.

“They've been planning this for a million years. And these are only the first. They'll keep coming.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of War of the Worlds (2005): Groucho

Review

The War of the Worlds

Director

Byron Haskin

Year

1953

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, July 12, 2005

It all starts with some sort of meteorite landing near a small town, U.S.A. People wonder what it is, are awed by it, think about ways to do business with it, and just don’t worry about it at all. People from around the country come to see it, including Dr. Clayton Forrester (Gene Barry), an eminence in the subject, who’s soon taken in by his admirer Sylvia Van Buren (Ann Robinson) and her uncle, Pastor Matthew Collins (Lewis Martin). Even Forrester is more curious than concerned about the meteorite, even though he has detected eerie things like it’s magnetic and it might contain a dangerous radiation.

Soon, the meteorite opens. From inside it comes an awesome, mighty-looking machine, that proves to be quite something. The only three people who witness this revelation stare in wonder and quickly make up their minds to welcome what they suppose are “aliens.” Little do they know that these aliens are hostile Martians who don’t hesitate to fry them, and go ahead doing the same to about everybody who gets in the way.

From here on, it’s war! More of these machines land all around the world, and there’s nothing anyone can do to stop them. They’re death machines, walking on invisible legs and frying everything in their way with unexplainable contempt for humanity. Our focus however stays on Forrester and Van Buren, who witness the army’s attempt to stop the machines, which is hopeless on account of their invisible shields. Science, as seen by us through the eyes of Dr. Duprey (Ann Codee), could be of help, especially after a blood sample of the aliens is obtained during a terrifying scene inside a basement involving Forrester, Van Buren, an alien periscope… and an alien in person. When it all looks bleak, faith could be the only hope… and the surprising finale is a reminder that it always should be an option.

The most famous cinematic adaptation of H.G. Wells’ turn-of-the-century novel is indeed a marvel, featuring revolutionary visual effects, action to spare, and a good amount of human emotions. Nowadays, it feels dated in almost every aspect however, but its status of sci-fi classic doesn’t diminish, and there’s no reason why it should.

The performers are nothing to write home about at first, but later become absolutely credible and it’s surprising how we get to care so much about them. Especially Barry who, as Forrester, proves to be in real anguish after being so cocky and self-assured. As in every adaptation of the classic novel, the human element proves to be the most important of the story, and there are performances here to match. If these characters are a bit clichéd and stereotyped, that doesn’t stop their personalities from becoming more than one-note.

If not exactly scary anymore, The War of the Worlds remains quite good, and is perfect for an hour and a half of pure nostalgia!

“You can’t buy a ride for love or money!”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Woodsman

Director

Nicole Kassell

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, July 11, 2005

The Woodsman is a movie I really needed to see even though I did not understand that before. Why is that? It’s simple: sometimes I, as I think many of you, get my view of life and my view of history from movies. It’s one thing to know about gladiators because you’ve heard of them than to actually see a movie about them. And when you do, most of the times that’s the image that gets stuck in your brain about gladiators, right? So when some years ago I saw a little movie called Happiness I ended up being pretty disturbed by a character that is a pedophile. I was mortified and completely distressed. So much that to this day I cannot see the actor who plays that role, Dylan Baker, without picturing him as that character. And he’s actually pretty good in everything, but I get perturbed every time I see him, I just can’t avoid it. So, when presented with the opportunity to see this brand new movie about, well, a pedophile, I kind of thought a lot about it. I didn’t want to hate Kevin Bacon forever as well! But ultimately I went for it and I’m damn glad I did.

Walter (Kevin Bacon), a forty-ish common guy, has just come out of jail after having spent 12 years in it for molesting little girls. He quickly finds a job through a personal favor and rents an apartment across the street from a school. His brother-in-law Carlos (Benjamin Bratt) still visits him at times, but his sister does not talk to him, and neither does the rest of the family or past friends. It doesn’t help that a policeman (Mos Def) keeps breaking into his apartment because he’s suspicious of Walter. But then Vicki (Kyra Sedgwick), a girl at work, shows interest in him, and his life does not look as grim as it did before, or perhaps it isn’t going to be that easy…

I liked The Woodsman for many reasons, but the main one is the way that such a difficult subject is treated. There is no denying pedophiles are dangerous and can be very very harmful people. The movie does not shy away from that. But for the first time in my life, seriously, I actually made an effort to understand them. It got to me that pedophiles are not actually responsible for being pedophiles, it’s not like they had a choice. And I just pictured how horrible it would be for me or you to not be able to have any kind of physical relationship, or even a purely affectionate one, because it’s not well seen and it can hurt other people. I mean, human beings are sexual by nature, and just imagine being limited, not being able to watch a girl or a boy with a desirable look, or even go further and have sex or have them as a partner. That’s what we ask of pedophiles, exactly that. I’m not saying they’re martyrs, but they certainly suffer a great deal, especially when they’re trying to reform but their simple nature keeps fighting them back at all times. Would you be able to hold back?

And that’s exactly what this movie is about. Walter is trying desperately to be “normal”, but how can he be? How can he be normal if every pore of his body is urging him to hurt young innocent human beings? There’s a scene near the end involving a girl who likes to watch birds that is just about the most heartbreaking, poignant one I’ve seen in a long while. And both actors and director live up to the challenge.

Now, fortunately, I wasn’t precisely disgusted by Kevin Bacon. It was a whole different experience this time around, and Bacon is absolutely impressive in the role. He goes low-key for it, but it pays off marvelously. Kyra Sedgwyck, his real-life wife, is also extraordinary... what a great actress she is. I wish we saw her more often. And nice support is given by Mos Def and Eve in small appearances.

A crude, gritty portrayal of innocence gone ugly...

“When will I be normal?”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Ringu

Director

Hideo Nakata

Year

1998

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, July 07, 2005

The original Ringu, the Japanese horror film that started it all (several sequels, a Chinese version, an American version and its sequel, a TV series, etc.), is indeed a very horrific picture. It tells the story of how some people die suddenly and unexplainably, remaining with dreadful looks on their faces exactly, as rumor has it, one week after viewing a mysterious spooky video. This theme knocks at the door of reporter Reiko Asakawa (Nanako Matsushima) when a relative of hers dies on account of this (during the American-style prologue of the movie), and she sets to investigate. Her research takes her to the spot where the video was watched by a few young people, and she watches it herself. The clock starts ticking, and there are many symptoms that show, more clearly every time, that death is near. When she shows the video to her friend and ex-husband Ryuji (Hiroyuki Sanada), and when her little son finds the tape and watches it himself, things get as tense as can be.

All this takes Reiko Asakawa into one of the scariest investigations seen in recent cinema. There’s death, psychics, ghosts, and a curse, all mixed into one deadly video. Why does it exist? Where does it come from? Who’s involved? Whatever happened to the people who died? Too many questions and too few answers. The clock ticks and desperation starts to conquer. It’s a nail-biting scenario if there ever was one.

Based on Kôji Suzuki’s novel, this film, which I hear is the most profitable horror film in Japanese history, sure has what it takes to give the thrills. It’s not very coherent, sometimes not quite comprehensible, and the direction of Hideo Nakata is nothing remarkable by horror film standards, but somehow it comes to life and grabs you, nails you, and has you watching your back at all times to see if someone’s coming from the other world to get you.

Nakata’s work is not all that bad however. He’s sure got an eye for performances, and he goes much more for personal drama than cheap horror, which is good. He relies on the characters, and the casting which is magnificent. Matsushima is not only incredibly gorgeous but also completely credible as a first cocky then desperate professional and mother. Sanada is also quite something as her ex, who turns to have a good deal of depth in supernatural levels; by the way, he slightly reminded me of Toshiro Mifune. Daisuke Ban is very effective in a few scenes as a man with a few deadly secrets. And Rikiya Otaka is absolutely remarkable as Asakawa’s little son, himself a spooky presence throughout.

Even though I had seen the American remake before, I was still surprised and shock by this film’s twists and turns. It’s so unique in its depiction that it has you in stitches even if you know the story. And despite its tendency towards the stupid, it never becomes ridiculous, which is admirable.

All in all, a fine Japanese horror film, well worth a look.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Director

Garth Jennings

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, July 06, 2005

I really wanted to like this movie. For some reason, people running Internet sites (sometimes known as “geeks”) were eagerly anticipating it, so it was contagious and soon I was excited as well. The trailers looked funny, the premise was hilarious, and it was based on a popular book by Douglas Adams. Then it was released and met with good but not great reviews, and box office was also not great. My interest diminished, and then, after several weeks after it hit theaters I opted to give it a look. Bad choice.

Arthur Dent (Martin Freeman) is worried that his house is about to be demolished because of a highway they’re building over it. But soon his good friend Ford (Mos Def) shows up and tells him that a different problem is about to take place. As it happens, an intergalactic highway is about to be built over the Earth, so the planet is about to be demolished. Worried about a little house? Think bigger. So Ford confesses to be an extraterrestrial, the Earth is indeed vanished and soon Arthur and Ford are hitchhiking throughout the galaxy, where they are aided by the resourceful Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, a little book Ford wrote which contains everything they need to know. Soon they find themselves in the stolen ship of the Galaxy’s ruler (Sam Rockwell), along with his human girlfriend (Zooey Deschanel) and a rather bitter Marvin (voice of Alan Rickman). They’ll then help him find a way to search for the meaning of life.

The movie starts with a hilarious montage of dolphins singing to us and saying goodbye as they leave the planet. Now, this took me off-guard and put me just in the right mood for an enjoyable and fun ride. I was wrong.

Thing is, I don’t know if I’m just bitter or something, because a lot of people seemed to find this movie amusing. I thought it was perfunctory. And it had nothing to do with it mostly containing “British humor”, because I’ve enjoyed it many times in much better movies. Here, we get a lot of cheap sets, several different creatures which I didn’t find humorous at all, a premise which goes on and on and on with nowhere to go, and a cast of good performers wasted in scenes that are not funny, which is not good when the movie is supposed to be a comedy.

True, there are inspiring moments here and there, how can there not be? Marvin, especially, delivers the wittiest and funniest lines, and the choice of Rickman to voice it was dead on! I’m sure the rest of the cast is equally well-cast. Fans of the book are pleased with the movie and how it plays, so I guess I’m missing something. That said, I’m definitely not going to find that out anytime soon. The simple notion of having to sit through it again is hell.

“I think you ought to know I'm feeling very depressed.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

War of the Worlds

Director

Steven Spielberg

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, July 05, 2005

Steven Spielberg’s decision to adapt H.G. Wells’ legendary sci-fi novel “The War of the Worlds” is one drastic and surprising turn in his career. Why? Simply because he previously filmed two of the most beautiful cinematic takes on alien life: Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977) and E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (1982). After impregnating two of his masterpieces with peaceful themes concerning extraterrestrials, it seems and is controversial that he now goes the other way around. But hey, it’s his career, and as long as he does it right…

Wells’ novel has been updated to the present day, and focuses on an everyman, Ray Ferrier (Tom Cruise), whose ex-wife (Miranda Otto) drops their kids with him for a day or two: Teenage Robbie (Justin Chatwin) and ten-year-old Rachel (Dakota Fanning), who aren’t too close to their father… because he isn’t a very good one.

However, something will force the trio to spend a lot of time together: After some weird meteorological events, a series of gigantic machines that stand and walk on tripods start wiping out every human being that stands in their way, and they walk all around. Running away, just making it in time, Ray and the kids get to know what hell is all about—as the world tries to figure out a way to fight these machines, which seems a pretty hopeless attempt.

Despite this being a fine film, it’s pretty obvious that Spielberg didn’t take it all too seriously, and kind of wanted to make it and get it out of his system without spending too much energy on it. I say this because it’s obviously not a very personal film, and even in its poignant aspects it doesn’t go too deep; if it does, it’s on the actors’ account anyway. Nevertheless, I was continuously surprised by the director’s execution. Several scenes took me off-guard and came off amazing in every single aspect, from camera movement to camera angle to continuity to timing. Kudos to everyone involved in making the final result so outstanding.

I guess by now no one gets really scared by the idea of an alien invasion. That went off with Orson Welles’ radio broadcast of this novel in the 1930s, and with the 1950’s sci-fi craze and general paranoia. Plus, just like the film points out, Americans mainly worry about terrorists these days. Josh Friedman and David Koepp took care of making this film look and feel like the real thing probably would these days, obviously removing the reference to “Martians” all around, and giving the characters credible reactions and shocks. However, and even though I did like the main character and his family, I found several things involving them pretty implausible. Like, for instance, how every road is clear for them to drive around, or how they’re always at the front row during every important milestone surrounding them. Maybe Spielberg now shares Tom Cruise’s anxiety to be such a showoff, but placing him on center stage all the time is ridiculous, even for the hero of the film. This and several clichés really marred the script and the final result.

As for the characters, Ray and Rachel are pretty good ones, and their performers are excellent. Fanning is especially effective as the little girl who has to face so much. The son is mostly one-note, but I didn’t mind. That masterful narrator, Morgan Freeman, provides the bookends. The character of Ogilvy however, who has a cameo in the film (expertly played by Tim Robbins), is completely out of place and his subplot doesn’t work. This is all too easy to ignore though, as the section involving him contains a Jurassic Park (1993) reference (one of a couple inside the film) which is a nail-biter to say the least. Matter of fact, the whole film has you in stitches. I had rarely felt so intense emotions at the movies during the last few months.

By the way, it’s funny how the most grabbing scene doesn’t involve the aliens at all: the life or death struggle to get a working car, taking it away from whoever has it if necessary; can’t get it out of my head. Plus, the director made sure to include lots of symbolism of the holocaust. This is one race wiping out another, and there’s a lot to play with. And it works and is quite touchy.

Spielberg regular John Williams wrote an unmemorable score this time, which also shows how the director’s heart wasn’t necessarily in this project. Another regular however, photographer Janusz Kaminski, added his unique touch and made every scene a treat to the eye; awesome work there. The breathtaking visual effects complete the circle to perfection.

Overall a fun piece, if unessential, but sure worth a look.

“This isn’t any more a war than there’s a war between man and maggots. This is an extermination.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of War of the Worlds (2005): Morris

Review

Mr. & Mrs. Smith

Director

Doug Liman

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, July 04, 2005

Brad Pitt: one of the coolest, and best, actors out there.
Angelina Jolie: one of the sexiest, and best, actresses out there.
Me: one the biggest fans of both out there.

Any question?

John Smith (Pitt) and Jane (Jolie) have been married for 6 to 7 years and the sparks are nowhere to be found anymore. It doesn’t help that they don’t talk much, and that they don’t know each other’s real jobs as well. As it happens, both are assassins-for-hire working for rival organizations, but when they’re given exactly the same target (Adam Brody), chaos ensues. And even more so when they’re hired… to kill each other!

Now, the first thing that comes to my mind, and for that matter… to anyone’s mind, when the movie starts is that it should be a sin to be that good-looking. God, both Pitt and Jolie would just burn in hell! They’re just too beautiful, and the movie would be watchable even without sound, believe me. That said, the movie opens with a credits sequence alternating scenes of both visiting a therapist. Very funny. We can see right there that the chemistry is present, which is ironic since they are supposed to be playing people with no attraction to each other whatsoever. Yeah right.

The next 40 minutes or so are spent with them as we witness their everyday life: how they wake up in the morning, go to work, kill some people, return for supper and go to bed. We also witness how they’re able to fool each other and get familiar with their interaction. This part of the movie is absolutely great. I had such a good time. It is playful and sexy and dangerous and intriguing. Angelina jumping from a high building after one of her many jobs is truly a magnificent sight.

But then they discover each other’s identities and the movie heads into a different direction which is also a lot of fun. Because, you see, there’s something quite morbid about watching a couple trying to kill each other and having fun doing it! The movie is filled with that kind of black humor which I loved. But way underneath, it’s a dissection of marriage in our times and the difficulties of keeping it alive. You could see the whole movie as a metaphor of how marriage consists of love and passion, but also of hatred and monotony. And I love the small detail of naming the main characters John and Jane. That says a lot about the universal themes the movie is touching.

There are several action sequences in the movie which are exciting, but not as much as when the characters are simply interacting. And I liked that after an obligatory third-act plot point; the movie didn’t fall into cliché, but kept portraying its characters in all their essence without betraying them.

Pitt and Jolie are a great match and do precisely what they’re required to, getting into the necessary tone of the movie and making it all seem easy. Vince Vaughn also appears briefly in what is a welcomed extended cameo.

“We have an unusual problem here, Jane. You obviously want me dead, and I'm becoming less and less concerned for your well-being.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter