CriticSociety- film reviews

Review

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest

Director

Gore Verbinski

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, July 31, 2006

As a huge fan of Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003) I am one of millions who were eagerly anticipation its sequel. By now we all know it’s broken almost every box office record in the book and continues to do insane amounts of money. Well, that’s exactly what happens when you have a solid franchise with beloved characters that is aimed at every quadrant: children, youngsters, adults, families, grandpas, everyone! Better yet, the level of quality continues to surpass expectations, and Disney actually came up with a fantastic flick that just keeps the excitement going.

Elizabeth (Keira Knightley) and Will (Orlando Bloom) are about to get married when they’re arrested for having helped Capt. Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp) escape. Will makes a deal with his captor, Cutler Beckett (Tom Hollander), to get Sparrow’s compass in exchange of his liberty. He agrees and leaves Elizabeth in prison, although she’s able to escape and immediately goes in his search. Meanwhile, Sparrow is trying to avoid the legendary Davy Jones (Bill Nighy) for he owes him his soul. But he knows a way to stop being chased, and it has something to do with finding the dead man’s chest and its key.

Before I get into the good, of which there is plenty, I’m going to bring up a couple of slight criticisms. First, it takes a while to get going, which may have something to do with the script. Even though Ted Elliot and Terry Rossio came up with a fantastic, original and highly imaginative screenplay, I get the feeling it could’ve been fine-tuned a bit to help with said problem. The movie also doesn’t boast as elegant a structure as its precursor, but maybe that has something to do with the fact that this is a middle chapter, and doesn’t really have an arc with a proper beginning and an end. There’s still very much in jeopardy that will continue in the next sequel which, by the way, I can’t wait to see!

Just about everyone involved in the first movie is back for the second ride. That includes director Gore Verbinsky, who continues to prove he’s one of the most consistent directors working today, delivering assured and precise work in movie after movie. Producer Jerry Bruckheimer once again makes sure that everything in the movie is spectacular. Dariusz Wolski’s cinematography is beautiful and the work behind the production design and costumes is impeccable. Curiously enough, there was a change in music composers, with renowned Hans Zimmer taking the helm this time around. He uses bits and pieces from Klaus Badelt’s rousing score, but I didn’t really get enough, I wanted to hear that central theme a lot more! That said, his own music is appropriate.

The special effects and make-up deserve a paragraph of their own, since it’s way superior work to anything put on screen this year. Believe me when I say these guys should start preparing their Oscar acceptance speeches already. The villains here are not skeleton-pirates, but rather sea-creature-pirates. They’ve lived under the sea for years, so it’s only logical that they’ve become a part of it in every way. Davy Jones in particular is one of the most astonishing CGI creations in the history of film. Bill Nighy’s voice and movements are there, but his octopus face is entirely digital, and it is breath-taking. Another creation, the Kraken, is believable and scary, mostly due to the excellent work done in its conception. Other impressive achievements include the fight atop the big wheel and the submerging of the Flying Dutchman.

And whoever came up with the multiple-eye make-up for Capt. Sparrow hit the jackpot.

After all is said and done, Dead Man’s Chest embodies the spirit of the franchise with gusto. It is a fun, adventurous and highly entertaining romp that defines what a summer blockbuster must be. This time around, the characters go through different adventures that take them in separate ways, crossing paths with each other every now and then, most notably in the screwball-y island sequence where no less than five parties are going for the same thing. The movie is also consistently hilarious, thanks in part to Johnny Depp’s character who is as offbeat, bizarre and unpredictable as ever. I loved that his essence is kept untouched. We might love him, but he’s still a pirate; and pirates are not always good people. I will say no more. Elizabeth is more fun this time around, mainly because she’s loosened up a bit and her darker side starts to surface. She’s involved in a particularly shocking action at the end that no one will see coming. It adds a very interesting turn for the next movie to explore. And yes, the movie ends with a couple of cliffhangers that leave us hungry for more.

Performances are solid all the way, with Depp once again the standout. Watching him play this specific character never ceases to be a pleasure. The movie would be somewhat pedestrian if it weren’t for him. Keira Knightley fully immerses into the Elizabeth’s skin, having a lot more fun with her character. Orlando Bloom is the straight man of the saga, and does exactly what is asked of him. Bill Nighy is excellent as the villain, a role he relishes to the bone. Stellan Skarsgård joins the cast as Will’s father, adding soul to the proceedings. Naomie Harris makes the most out of her brief appearances as Tia Dalma, while Jonathan Pryce and Jack Davenport briefly return for the ride.

“I love those moments. I like to wave at them as they pass by.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Superman

Director

Richard Donner

Year

1978

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, July 27, 2006

I wonder what it was back in 1978 to see Superman released. This was the first major motion picture featuring that good ol’ and beloved superhero, that All-American comic book personage that so many generations had followed ever so faithfully through TV shows, a couple of B-movies, and of course, the printed media. By the time this film was released, some Superman fans who started out as kids were now adults. This was a major event, and hell am I glad that it turned out a great film, not only good in making a dream come true, but also grand in being a fine motion picture, with every element in place to accomplish that hard-earned title.

The story follows Superman from his very beginning; earlier than that in fact, with his biologic parents Jor-El (Marlon Brando) and Lara (Susannah York) putting him on a rocket to flee Planet Krypton right before it explodes. They can’t go with him—it’s been forbidden by the law—so Jor-El sends him off to Earth, a distant planet whose civilization is eons behind Krypton’s, but which will give Superman an edge on account of the superior abilities he’ll have over human beings. Off little Kal-El goes to Earth, landing in the rural town of Smallville, where he’s picked up by Jonathan and Martha Kent (Glenn Ford and Phyllis Thaxter). Growing up in Smallville, young Clark Kent (Jeff East) learns to hide his powers for his own protection and that of those he loves, but then nature calls him to duty and he gets in touch with the heritage of Jor-El, and learns to become a hero. Now in Metropolis, he hides behind the masquerade of mild-mannered Clark Kent (Christopher Reeve), becomes a reporter at the Daily Planet, and falls in love with his fellow reporter, Lois Lane (Margot Kidder).

In the meantime, Superman makes his grand public appearance, and becomes a sensation overnight. But that’s not an easy matter. Our hero has to face the fact that he’s quite powerful but not omnipotent, and most importantly, that he can’t have his cake and eat it too, meaning that he can’t get anything as simple as the woman he loves, without being dishonest. Lois is in love with Superman but not with Clark, and God knows who the man born as Kal-El identifies most with. Perhaps both, perhaps neither, but he does love Lois. Furthermore, his heroic prowess is put to the test by evil Lex Luthor (Gene Hackman), whose plan for filthy richness includes the annihilation of millions of people, and now his plot includes the elimination of Superman, the only being with the potential of stopping him.

The film’s arc is so amazingly structured and so entertainingly presented that the film could very well be considered the finest comic book to film adaptation ever. By now it’s been put under the test by several fine comic book films, but it remains, at the very least, an example to follow. Nearly everything is right in this film, including the outstanding casting of an unknown Christopher Reeve, and everyone else around, from Marlon Brando to Gene Hackman to Jackie Cooper as Perry White and Marc McClure as Jimmy Olsen. The legend is updated to perfection, placing the fictional superhero in a very real world where very few things seem a caricature. Metropolis is New York City and Planet Earth is Planet Earth, and Superman fits and seems real. Within all its implausibility, the universe of this beloved superhero could be our own if handled right, as this movie manages.

The story is by none other than Mario Puzo, who also co-wrote the script with David Newman, Leslie Newman and Robert Benton. Puzo, Newman, Benton… Are you kidding me? Talk about some talent! They spared no expenses for this film, it seems, but they took care to include some talented people in their creative team, and I’m talking not only about writers but also every other artist involved. Another example? John Williams’ score has some of the most recognizable Superman tunes. Fantastic.

There’s sense of humor to spare, lots of romance, and a full-fledged set of characters, most notably Superman/Clark Kent. The running time is very well used for the development of such a larger-than-life story, and I’m just damn glad to see that. Most of all, it seems to me that Superman is a love story, and I appreciate the approach.

The only big quibble that I have is Lex Luthor in general. I love some of his lines and I enjoy Hackman’s performance thoroughly, but it’s just hard to believe that he’d be such a careless fool in so many ways, including surrounding himself with nincompoops (as he calls them!) including Otis (Ned Beatty) and Miss Teschmacher (Valerie Perrine). Beatty and Perrine… two fine actors in such shameful roles. They get in the way of course, and some of Luthor’s methods are foolish, which is a bad cliché of comic books. I’m sorry it turned out this way, though very glad that Puzo gave Superman some pretty awful, heartbreaking dilemmas towards the end anyhow. In fact, the final resolution, which somehow challenges logic, is also one hell of a way to show that invulnerability is worthless against some primary human feelings… Love it!

Visual effects and every other technical aspect are up to the task and fully mesmerizing. I really believed a man could fly; and I still do every time I watch this, without a doubt the very best Superman film ever made.

“All those things I can do. All those powers. And I couldn't even save him.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Superman II

Director

Richard Lester

Year

1980

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, July 26, 2006

You already know about my feelings for Superman (1978), the first movie of the superhero’s saga, and Superman Returns (2006), the fifth and arguably the best, but I also wanted to write about the first sequel because it is just as good as its predecessor and it surprised everyone after a very difficult production that had cynics expecting the worst. I love that kind of underdog stories, and Superman II proved to be a worthy successor and a really good time at the movies.

Superman (Christopher Reeve) accidentally releases three outlaws from Krypton, General Zod (Terence Stamp), Ursa (Sarah Douglas) and Non (Jack O’Halloran), who arrive at “planet Houston” and start to create havoc, as they want to rule the place. Meanwhile Clark continues to love Lois Lane (Margot Kidder) and has to face her suspicions when they travel on an assignment together just before he faces his homeland enemies. Lex Luthor (Gene Hackman), on the other hand, is trying to find a way to get out of prison with his henchman Otis (Ned Beatty).

Superman II was announced at the end credits of the first movie so people could start expecting it already. But the promised release date had to be postponed as the movie simply wasn’t ready. To make things stranger, when it finally was, it opened in Europe first and only seven months later did Americans get a chance to see it. Much was made about director Richard Donner’s abrupt departure while the movie was being filmed. Richard Lester ultimately got the gig and used what Donner had already shot, which is said to be more than half of what ended up onscreen. To Lester’s credit, he was able to keep with the tone and quality already in place and the difference went unnoticed.

This sophomore saga is full of merits and weaknesses. To start with, the tone is still consistently cheesy and over-the-top, but somehow you get used to it after a while and enjoy the thing for what it is. This time around the main villains are the Kryptonians, relegating Luthor (despite having the best lines) to the background. He even disappears for about an entire hour, only to make a comeback at the end. This may have served the movie well, for this Luthor is not that menacing, while General Zod and his team are. Their fish-out-of water adventures with rural people are a lot of fun to watch and constitute some of the most entertaining scenes.

The real meat of the story though, is the interaction between Clark and Lois. The portion in Niagara Falls is easily the best thing in the show. There is sexual tension, suspicions, playfulness, desire and ultimately, truth. I loved the scene where Lois tries to outguess Clark by jumping into the river so “Superman” could save her, but it backfires and I won’t tell you what happens next. That kind of back-and-forth between the two is delightful and exactly where the heart of the movie lies.

Something I have to admit I hated was the sudden appearance of a love-birds’ room in the Fortress of Solitude. I’m sorry, that was beyond corny: it was ridiculous. I couldn’t stop laughing out loud at the sheer audacity of the filmmakers in actually going forward with this. Not only is the situation outrageous (“You just keep thinking about that while I slip into something more comfortable.”) but the set is horrible. I also didn’t like how Clark makes a shocking decision there that seems final, but later on he miraculously finds a way to reverse it, breaking the movie’s own rules. It reminded me of the comic books and how they continually cheat on readers, especially with the whole “Death of Superman” saga.

As you can imagine, there’s a huge, explosive climax that takes place in New York. Back in the 80’s that sequence must have seemed impressive. It certainly is well-done and takes advantage of the best special effects of the era. But by today’s standards it’s not that striking, and thus the implausibility of the situation hits with a stronger thud. Superman and General Zod endlessly fight, but we know they share the same powers and thus nothing can happen to them. Talk about tension-killer! I was in awe just waiting for the nonsense to end, and it takes a while.

So there’s a lot of bad, sure, but the movie’s innocence, old-fashioned values and tongue-in-cheek attitude make up for everything else. It really is a very entertaining romp which never ceases to be fun and exciting.

Almost all of the original cast is back for this sequel, with Reeve an excellent and charismatic Clark/Superman, and Margot Kidder a terrific Lois. Gene Hackman is not as annoying this time around, but that may have to do with his limited screen time. Ned Beatty appears briefly during a preposterous prison escape sequence at the beginning. The villains are spot-on in their characterizations, with Terence Stamp the stand-out.

“You see, I’ve discovered his weakness. He cares. He actually cares for these Earth people.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Open Your Eyes

Director

Alejandro Amenábar

Year

1997

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, July 25, 2006

Alejandro Amenábar’s second feature film starts as an entertaining story featuring a handsome, single, rich young man called César (Eduardo Noriega) and his antics as a womanizer and presumptuous best friend of simpler and less successful Pelayo (Fele Martínez). Only a couple of weird scenes featuring a masked César narrating to therapist Antonio (Chete Lera) what we’re seeing from a sort of bleak future hint that the film won’t be as upbeat as it would seem.

On César’s 25th birthday, Pelayo introduces him to Sofía (Penélope Cruz), his date for the night. César immediately likes Sofía and sees in her not only a potential catch but also a way out from obsessed ex-girlfriend Nuria (Najwa Nimri). As the birthday boy takes the girl away, Pelayo is heartbroken, but that’s not really the sort of thing César thinks about. Sofía, however, isn’t an easy catch, but indeed a fairly decent girl who seems to be looking for something meaningful. César falls for that and experiences love for the first time. Temptation and cockiness, however, take him back to Nuria immediately after he leaves Sofía’s place. And then Nuria, and destiny, take a hand.

The story turns from a mildly romantic drama into a psychological thriller of sorts, an excruciating misadventure that explores the mind of a very disturbed man trying to recover his life after losing what he valued most about himself. It’s not as drastic a transition though. César figures his life is worthless and sees everything around him falling apart, including his friendship with Pelayo and, most significantly, his romance with Sofía. But then, right when everything seems completely hopeless, things start getting better, life smiles once again to the now-unfortunate young man. How and why this happens, neither he nor we understand at first. His narration from the future keeps foreshadowing even stranger things to come. It all gets better but it also gets weirder and then out of control and totally unsustainable. Is César losing his mind or is life like a dream, where nightmares sometimes take over without a warning, spoiling sweet dreams that also come and go as they please? That’s the kind of question this movie compels.

I consider Abre los Ojos a modern masterpiece and one of the most entertaining films from the end of the 20th century. Amenábar’s pen is so powerful and affecting, it could be described as devastating. His script, co-written by Mateo Gil, is the closest approach to the world of dreams that I have ever seen on film, and the result is exactly the same. You can go from totally joyful to utterly unhappy, complete with R.E.M. and tachycardia, from one minute to the next, without a way out or the least comprehension of why things are changing so drastically. Dreams always appear as reality, and even a bored realist believes in them while he’s there.

Some people have a problem with the film giving them a hard time. Indeed, César’s quest is no picnic. Amenábar really believes in giving his characters a hard time for them to evolve. This hero, masterfully played by Noriega, goes from arrogant to victimized and his attitude changes so much, he’s another character altogether, but his evolution is credible and quite palpable. I didn’t have a problem with suffering along with him because I always cared and wanted him to keep fighting and looking for the truth, and really enjoyed it when it looked like he was going the right way. I especially enjoy the sequence where he and Antonio (Lera) play sleuths in a quest for truth. The climax, featuring an enigmatic character that shows up sporadically throughout the movie (Gérard Barray) is mesmerizing, quite unpredictable, outright poignant, and full of hope. I loved it, in spite of its underlying sadness.

Alejandro Amenábar is one of today’s finest directors and he has a lot more to offer. He’s an artist in all the extent of the word, as proven by his craft in this film, not only co-writing and directing but also composing the beautiful score. His direction is fully imaginative, pushing all the buttons to take the audience to all the right places. Be it a Hitchcock homage or a quiet scene under the rain, the proper reaction emerges in the form of overwhelming sentiment.

Few films have managed to play around with my perceptions and expectations like this Spanish gem; it’s one of my favorite films.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Superman Returns

Director

Bryan Singer

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, July 24, 2006

The first two Superman movies were released before I was even born and somehow I didn’t manage to see them until just recently. I liked both, but I honestly don’t think they have aged especially well; too campy for my taste. There were other two sequels made in the 80’s which I haven’t seen, but according to what I’ve heard, I’m not really missing anything. Superman made sort of a modern comeback in the form of the TV series Smallville, which I watch religiously in spite of its complete lack of logic and common sense. So I’m familiar with the character, if not the comic book, and was eagerly anticipating his return to the big screen in the hands of one of the best directors out there. The result? In the eyes of this viewer it’s the best installment of the series and a triumph in every way.

Clark Kent/Superman (Brandon Routh) returns to Earth after having gone away for 5 years in a sort of soul-searching trip. Clark soon gets his job back at the Daily Planet where fearless reporter Lois Lane (Kate Bosworth) still works. But he soon learns that she has moved on and now has a son, Jason (Tristan Lake Leabu), and a steady boyfriend, Richard (James Marsden). Not only that, but she’s just won a Pulitzer price for an article about how the world doesn’t need Superman. That fact is put to the test when the superhero goes back to his old ways of fighting for justice. That’ll put him face-to-face with his old nemesis, Lex Luthor (Kevin Spacey), who is looking for revenge, and world domination, after having spent some time in jail.

After countless years of development hell, Warner Bros. finally green-lighted Bryan Singer to helm what he likes to describe as his dream project. He developed Superman Returns based on a script by Michael Dougherty and Dan Harris, shot it for many grueling months Down Under and ended up delivering what many claim is the most expensive movie ever made. That’s not entirely his fault, as many millions were spent before he was even attached to it. But every second and ever penny were worth it, for he came up with a timeless adventure full of action, fantasy, comedy and romance that seamlessly blend together into an exciting experience for all ages.

The movie starts with an opening credits sequence that is almost identical to those of the first Superman flicks, down to the untouched classic score. It is a weird feeling watching all those new names coming up instead of the old ones, but it proves to be a nice homage; just the first of many more to come. In spite of how it looks at first, this isn’t a direct sequel to Superman II. It’s sort of a mish-mash, for there are elements that put it directly after it chronologically, but there are others that take it a step back. Superman and Lois did have something in the past, but Lois doesn’t know the true identity of the hero. After a while I just gave up trying to put the dots together and opted to follow the story in the realm of its own world.

Bryan Singer was very brave in the decisions he made. Instead of making some sort of non-stop action romp, he opted to give the characters some space to breathe. This is a romance as much as it is a good-vs-evil tale. Many people might be put off by this, but I enjoyed every minute of it. The love story between Lois, Superman, Clark Kent and Richard White never becomes hokey, but instead seems as real as it can likely get given the larger-than-life circumstances. I liked that Richard really is a good guy, not the usual jerk we want to see disappear. And that is just an added element to an already tragic story about a girl who loves a superhero who can’t make up his mind about telling her the truth because really... what good would it make?

If you look closely, Superman represents sort of a Christ figure. It’s there, but it’s not over-played. The movie truly is about the meaning of family, of the legacy you leave to your children, the love inherent for your son, from your father, from your mother. It is a tale about the spiritual search to be accepted and to do the right thing, to protect your loved ones, to be there. It is about how heroism lies even in the smaller details. It shows how even the strongest person can have a vulnerable side in more ways than one. It is a good-natured movie with a huge heart; a universal tale.

And yes, there is plenty of mayhem as well. Lex Luthor is back and he’s pissed. Revenge is sweet and he knows it. He’s got the perfect plan to create a new continent, and it is an evil enough plan to cause much distress and destruction. There’s a jaw-dropping sequence involving a plane and a shuttle at the beginning that you have to see to believe. A boat incident later on is also amazing, and the climactic battle is exhilarating. The action might not come that often, but when it does it’s spectacular. The advances in special effects certainly show, especially in the scenes where Superman flies (of which there are plenty). This time you’re not analyzing every detail, you’re just experiencing it as it is. And believe me, it’s awe-inspiring.

I have the pleasure of having seen the movie both in its normal and IMAX 3-D versions. The latter has about 20 minutes of footage that was adapted for the format after it was shot. The experience is certainly exciting even though the technology isn’t perfect yet, so if you have the opportunity to watch it that way, do so. If you haven’t, don’t worry, it doesn’t demerit the already exceptional action sequences.

A minor quibble I can come up with is the length. I think it should have been shorter, if anything to accelerate the pace a bit. Quick cuts here and there might’ve helped, although it’s nothing serious. The robbery stop, for instance, takes too long. But really, the current 154 minutes fly by. An interesting detail is that the music composer, John Ottman, is also the co-editor. Kudos for letting go of his ego and respecting John Williams’s memorable score, even enhancing it. I also didn’t love the way Superman hears voices from a long distance. The sound is robotic and I hated it. There are also quite many scenes in which characters get the feeling that an earthquake is coming, something that gets tiring after a while. Only the first one (in Smallville) seemed especially creative (loved the Scrabble sight!).

Brandon Routh gladly surprised me. I didn’t think I would like him that much, looking as though he was chosen for his resemblance to Christopher Reeve more than anything else. But he grows on you instantly. The part suits him and he suits the part. It is excellent casting. I was also dubious of Kate Bosworth at first. She’s a good actress, but her face screams sweetness and that’s not who Lois is. Ultimately I bought her in the role because she is very good, but I still don’t like her looks juxtaposed to the character. Kevin Spacey takes over for Gene Hackman and I have to say I like his Lex a lot better. He is still goofy, but he’s also menacing and this time you really believe he can make a lot of damage.

The supporting cast is excellent as well. My favorite supporting character is, hands-down, Kitty Kowalski, Lex’s bimbo mistress played with expert panache by Parker Posey. The movie soars when she’s on-screen. James Marsden is perfect as Lois’s boyfriend, and so is Frank Langella as Perry White. Sam Huntington’s Jimmy Olsen is spot-on. Eva Marie Saint appears briefly, but gives a lot of weight to the role of Martha Kent. Marlon Brando also appears taking advantage of today’s technology. The Lois Lane and Jimmy Olsen of the original Superman TV series, Noel Neill and Jack Larson, also show up. Neill’s role is especially chewy. And how Kal Penn was able to get a top credit is beyond me. His agent must be good, because he barely speaks a line in the entire movie as one of Lex’s sidekicks.

Technical aspects are impeccable all the way, from the cinematography to the costumes to the production design, giving the movie an old-fashioned feeling despite it being set in today’s world. That’s not an easy thing to accomplish, but it’s there.

And finally, I loved the involvement of a couple of dogs in the story. Yes, you’re right; it’s a love fest around here!

“Wow, that’s really something Lex. It’s freaking Gone With The Wind.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of Superman Returns (2006): Groucho

Review

Superman Returns

Director

Bryan Singer

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, July 20, 2006

If you have seen Superman Returns, you surely remember a scene where editor Perry White (Frank Langella) tells his crew of journalists that the news isn’t a mysterious blackout that just threatened the security of thousands of people, but rather the return of Superman. Director Bryan Singer is trying to tell us the same thing. Just because this is a Superman movie, the first after several years, we should love it, overlooking the fact that the story isn’t absorbing, the characters aren’t meaty, the sentiment is nonexistent, and I could go on and on. “This is Superman! So love this film.” Well, I’m one of the biggest Superman fans I know, and I just hated it.

The story of Superman (Brandon Routh) coming back after a five-year absence sounded extremely meaty. After getting the world used to his unconditional protection, it must’ve been hard to adapt, to say the least. Then he finds out, as Clark Kent, that the love of his life per excellence, Lois Lane (Kate Bosworth), has moved on, is in a steady relationship with White’s nephew Richard (James Marsden), and even has a son (Tristan Lake Leabu)! Furthermore, Superman’s arch-nemesis Lex Luthor (Kevin Spacey) has walked out of jail, is infuriated and thirsty of revenge, and has a plan for world domination.

Everything sounds so promising, and turns out such a letdown! There are many problems with the film. The first, I think, is the apparent obsession of Singer’s to pay tribute to Richard Donner’s Superman (1978). That film was awesome, I personally loved it, but there were also several aspects I didn’t like, and most are repeated here. For instance, why should Lex Luthor be so goofy instead of brilliant? Why should he make so dreadfully insane plans instead of well-thought, coherent machinations? And why does he get along with stupid people that get in the way all the time instead of lending a hand? (Parker Posey in this case.) There’s more: quotes, looks, sequences, music, just too many reminders that there was a better film decades ago which this film aspires to be like and misses horribly. I so wish they’d taken a refreshing turn and start anew… Would’ve worked better not to make it live under the shadow of a great film.

But that’s not the real problem. I can live with a near-remake, as unnecessary as it feels. The problem is the story doesn’t work because it doesn’t pay attention to the details that it should. As I said, it kind of assumes we’ll be interested and love it just because it’s about Superman. But what if that’s not the case, what if we have forgotten about the guy and want to get to know him all over again and even probably love him? I know for a fact that kids aren’t half-liking this movie because they don’t feel identified with Supes anymore… They needed an introduction! Not a cocky superhero who expects them to love him just because a bullet hits his open eye and doesn’t make it bat. I think nostalgia is taking over many adults who walk out acknowledging the flaws of Superman Returns but easily forgiving them because they’re so excited to see the Man of Steel up and running again. I prefer to keep the image of him that I have developed in my mind through years of movies, comic books, and TV series. I was rather hurt that an opportunity had been missed here, and how!

So Superman returns, he shakes Lois’ world, he fights Lex Luthor, and so on. There are a couple of breath-taking action sequences but very little between them to actually make them interesting. Superman and Clark Kent barely speak, in fact Marsden’s character turns out ten times more charming though Routh’s performance isn’t half bad. Superman is made look too perfect and sort of unnatural, like an action figure. Clark and Lois barely interact, Supes and Lois don’t say anything moving to each other. There’s a forced flying sequence starring the two which turns out a sorry homage (again). Spacey’s Luthor is either foolish or brutal when he should be cold-bloodedly cynical. Plus, he attempts the typical “die slowly” gimmick on our hero which he obviously gets out of soon enough.

The truly brave turn comes as a subplot involving Superman’s bloodline. There’s a pretty big shocker and a lot of fine reflections coming from it. But the main character involving that subplot never quite emerges and there’s no real connection that we can feel. It’s all in our minds but not because the filmmakers set the pieces right, but because we have no other choice. Being the result so disappointing, I ended up feeling this subplot was a blasphemy. Or rather, it finally made me realize that Superman isn’t all that amazing after all. He’s not the untouchable, all-American hero I thought him to be, but a disposable fictional character that can be played with for money. That’s how bad this movie made me feel. I better go back to some of the old comic books before I start believing the words you just read.

A nice touch: the late Marlon Brando “returns” as Jor-El, Superman’s father, and his co-star in On the Waterfront (1954), Eva Marie Saint, plays Clark’s adoptive mother in an all-too-short sequence. Did I mention the film is overlong? Now, I had to go ruin the one paragraph with an upbeat tone, didn’t I? I might as well add to the positive side that the production design is outstanding, giving the film a general retro look without making it feel old-fashioned. Visually and audibly and in every other way related to the senses, the film is pretty great.

But it completely lacks a heart… “Smallville”, that mindless TV series starring a young Clark Kent, is much much better at speaking to a 21st century audience. And it’s a pretty terrible show, so there you go.

“You wanted to see me?”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of Superman Returns (2006): Morris

Review

Heights

Director

Chris Terrio

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, July 19, 2006

There are movies you eagerly expect since before they have even been shot; there are those that convince you through their marketing; there are also the ones you dread to see but have to because it’s the only option out there or because someone close really wants to see it; there are those that take so long to arrive to your local theatre that you had completely forgotten about them; and then there are those that appear out of nowhere and suddenly you find yourself watching. Such is the case of Heights, a movie I had barely heard about before last week, but which suddenly appeared before me and I couldn’t resist watching.

Isabel (Elizabeth Banks) is just about to get married to Jonathan (James Mardsen) when she loses her job and stumbles upon an old flame, Mark (Matt Davis), who comes up with what may be an interesting job opportunity. Mark, on the other hand, is worried about a guy named Peter (John Light) who is looking to interview him about famous photographer Benjamin Stone, who took pictures of him that may appear in an upcoming exhibition. Meanwhile, Isabel’s mother Diana Lee (Glenn Close) is auditioning actors to appear in the movie she’s about to direct. That’s where she meets aspiring thespian Alec (Jesse Bradford), whom she instantly likes and invites to a party she’s hosting.

Heights is based upon a play by Amy Fox, who also wrote the screenplay. It is directed by Chris Terrio in his sophomore effort behind the camera. The writing and directing are both top-notch, I can’t really complain. But the movie lacks something. I could say it’s too passive and redundant, but that may be unfair because some movies can still be enthralling while sharing those adjectives. Heights somehow leaves you with nothing. And it’s a pity because I was entertained all the way.

The characters are all interesting individuals. I was disappointed when the movie was over because I wanted to spend more time with them. Really. The movie was too short for me. I guess that could be read as a compliment as well. I just wish we could’ve followed their lives a bit longer. I’ve always liked this multi-story kind of movie, where character cross into each other but only we know the stakes. There’s a certain secret that holds the movie together because it affects everyone, yet it is only revealed in all its words at the end. I don’t know if that was the way to go, because we can see it coming almost from the beginning and yet we have to go through the entire movie until it finally comes up. You could say it’s fun because that way we know more than the characters thus tension arises, but the approach doesn’t necessarily work that way in this flick. It only makes it duller for those who do not enjoy character-driven movies, and maybe also for those who do.

I mentioned before that the movie leaves you with nothing, which is what bothered me the most. I don’t necessarily need a message or a lesson, but I like when a movie says something. You could say Heights follows a bunch of characters’ lives for 24 hours and then it suddenly ends, just as if you had a camera and followed some people around. Maybe, just maybe, the movie might be saying that you should look closer into your relationship with someone, or maybe it wants to make a point about the importance of being yourself, but that would be forcing it. It’s all too ho-hum. And some stories don’t even go anywhere, such as the famous photographer’s. That’s frustrating.

A point in favor: the movie nails the New York vibe and paints an interesting portrait of the city as a place to live in.

Another point in favor would be the performances, which are consistently strong. Glenn Close is marvelous. I only wish I could have spent more time with her. Elizabeth Banks is also very good. And James Mardsen and Jesse Bradford play against type and come off really well. I enjoyed every single performance.

“I want us to start over again.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Wedding Crashers

Director

David Dobkin

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, July 18, 2006

John Beckwith (Owen Wilson) and Jeremy Grey (Vince Vaughn) are partners in business and crime. Or is it an exaggeration to call the art of wedding crashing a crime? Many of us have done it, and many of us know what comes with it: free booze, lots of fun, and the very adventure of being welcome in a party where you’re actually uninvited. The premise is excellent: John and Jeremy have perfected the craft of wedding crashing to achieve the ultimate goal: sleep with a girl every time, taking advantage of the great arousal a wedding represents for them. Every single trick used for seduction through the ages has been learned and practiced by these guys, and be it at the dance floor, at the toast, or even at the children’s table, they work wonders. They score every time, understandably. The film’s introduction makes them as attractive to the audience as they seem to the girls, even though we know what kind of swindlers they actually are.

As expected from any young man who devotes himself to such an ultimately heartless hobby, John suddenly reevaluates his life. Why is he doing this? It seems pointless when all is said and done, and even though there’s so much fun to be remembered, nothing really palpable comes of it. Jeremy is way more cynical and immature, and he convinces John to crash a goldmine wedding: that of the daughter of U.S. Treasury Secretary William Cleary (Christopher Walken).

Once there, as if in an amazing coincidence given John’s recent reflections, he’s spellbound at first sight by one of the bride’s sisters, Claire (Rachel McAdams). Jeremy, on the other hand, falls in lust with the youngest, a fiery redhead called Gloria (Isla Fisher). They are the usual selves during the party, with John catching the attention of the girls’ adulterous mother (Jane Seymour) and gaining the respect of their father (Walken); Claire is harder to get because she has a boyfriend (Bradley Cooper). In the meantime, Jeremy scores with Gloria, but is immediately freaked out by her sudden obsession. It all gets worse when she invites them to spend the weekend with the family, which John propitiates to get closer to Claire.

I don’t think the filmmakers’ intention was ever to create anything more than an average comedy, but somehow they struck gold with a story that touches many heartfelt subjects and does so credibly. It’s easy to love these characters and root for them, and somehow, despite the constantly superficial treatment, we keep caring and rooting. Because, let’s face it, the story isn’t all that well developed. Lots of important things happen off-screen, lots of juicy characters are wasted, and lots of interesting subplots are treated like comedy relieves. In other words, this is no The Family Stone (2005).

But somehow, just somehow, something magical happens here. You get to care so much you never want the movie to end. As many laughs work as those that don’t, but you still want to stick. Some humor is crude or embarrassing, some scenes are too violent, some characters are over-the-top, but you still want to believe it could happen. It’s really worth a look.

Take the dinner scene, for instance. Some of the funniest situations happen there, with Gloria going nuts with her hand under the table, or the mean grandmother (Ellen Albertini Dow) speaking her mouth at every turn. However, Walken and Seymour are wasted in the scene (and throughout), and nothing truly changes there. It’s just for the laughs and takes a long while. But still it’s pleasant. I don’t know… It’s just hard to describe what exactly works about it and what exactly does not.

The performances are excellent, which helps a lot. Wilson doesn’t innovate that much but he’s credible. Vaughn surprises with his sincerity and evolution. McAdams is as sweet as an angel, Fisher irresistible, and Keir O’Donnell bizarre but affecting in the small role of the weird brother.

While I got to care about John and Claire, I ended up much more interested in Jeremy and Gloria, by the way. That’s not a bad thing. I loved how wacky they both are and how she gets him into trouble and what the final result is. The confrontation scene with the whole family is priceless. I also loved that crazy character towards the end, Chazz Reinhold the wedding crasher mentor (played by a famous comedian as a cameo), and how his subplot served both for the laughs and for an eye-opening effect. I had a hell of a time with this movie.

“I'm not perfect, but who are we kidding, neither are you.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Over the Hedge

Director

Tim Johnson

Karey Kirkpatrick

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, July 17, 2006

I remember when Shrek (2001) came out not too long ago how excited I was because Dreamworks had dared to do the unthinkable: break the Disney mold and come up with something completely original, modern and hip. Watching how animation has evolved since that breakthrough, I sometimes wonder if a return to the classic mode would be the best way to go to serve us all better. A lot of studios have come up with many animated movies since then, and most (with the exception of Pixar) have delivered mostly forgettable fare. Here’s yet another example of what I’m talking about, ironically coming from the same studio that started it all.

RJ (voice of Bruce Willis) is a raccoon who is starving, and thus tries to steal the food of Vincent the bear (voice of Nick Nolte). He doesn’t succeed, instead disposing of all the food with an accidental move. The bear commands him to come back in a week with more food. So RJ ventures into the forest and stumbles upon a small community of hibernating animals who just happen to be looking for something to eat, except that their territory has been trespassed and is now a suburbia. RJ has a hard time convincing their leader, Verne the turtle (voice of Garry Shandling), that there’s a lot of food they can steal in the dangerous zone where humans live. But everyone else, including Hammy the squirrel (voice of Steve Carell), Stella the skunk (voice of Wanda Sykes), Ozzie and Heather the possums (voices of William Shatner and Avril Lavigne), and Lou and Penny the porcupines (Eugene Levy and Catherine O'Hara) go along with the ride unsuspecting that he has an ulterior motive.

Over the Hedge is an adaptation of the popular comic strip of the same name. Perhaps that is why its plot is so paper-thin. There really isn’t an arc to the story, which is essentially about finding food and come out unhurt. There are villains who appear now and then (a dog, an exterminator, the bear, some gadgets), but the movie really is extremely simple. I don’t want to say it’s wrongly conceived, because the movie is entertaining all the way, but it’s definitely not on par with more complex and richer animated films that have showed us what can be accomplished in this medium.

This is ultimately a series of sporadic scenes that are meant to awe or make you laugh. Thankfully the movie is not aimed specifically at kids, which makes it more enjoyable for adults… up to a point. Certain characters are hilarious, others not so. There’s also a hint of satire aimed at suburban life, but that’s not really the target so it’s barely there. A couple of action scenes are winners, such as a car chase where the young porcupines have control of the wheel, or the last trespassing of property headed by Hammy. There’s also the quintessential message at the end which is not done in any kind of subtle manner, but which ultimately works. I guess I can say I had a good time, but it’s not one of those movies you want to see again anytime soon.

Animation-wise, the look is not photo-realistic, but I don’t think that was the intention. The animators opt to come as close as possible to the real people or animals they are creating, but always leaving a cartoon-y trace that gives the movie more accessibility. It’s good work.

Voice work is also impeccable. Sometimes it’s odd to recognize a certain famous actor behind someone’s voice, but if the actor is doing a good job it shouldn’t be a distraction. I had trouble figuring out whose voice was that of RJ, but then I recognized Bruce Willis and I’ve got to say he’s ok. I got a kick out of Stella (yes, the obligatory movie homage that comes with that name is present), but I like Wanda Sykes and there’s no hiding the fact that she’s voicing the character. It’s totally her. I also liked Steve Carrell’s Hammy. He’s unrecognizable and makes of the squirrel a memorable and hilarious scene-stealer. Everyone else is good, and some other names in the movie include Allison Janney and Thomas Hayden Church.

“I thought we’d be dead by step two, so this is going great.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Fargo

Director

Joel Coen

Year

1996

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, July 13, 2006

Fargo is one of the most remarkable modern American classics and according to most, the best Coen brothers’ film. I wouldn’t half disagree with any of those titles. Ever since I watched it in a movie theater back in ’96 I fell madly in love. I remember I was hungry for more of the Coens, and it took me a while to get used to their love for the farfetched and the weird. Fargo is their coolest, so cool it’s almost risky for their standards. But they saw the potentially powerful effect of a great story set in Minnesota, the land of nice, and they hit it off real well. The result is an outstanding thriller that’s also, involuntarily, a disarming comedy.

The premise is real simple. Jerry Lundegaard (William H. Macy), a loser car salesman, finds himself in awful financial trouble and gets tired of not getting any help from his wealthy father-in-law (Harve Presnell). So he hires a couple of lowlifes (Steve Buscemi, Peter Stormare) to kidnap his own wife (Kristin Rudrüd) in order to get a large ransom from her father, from which he’ll keep a rather large percentage. You can see, hear, feel and smell Jerry’s anxiety; he’s knee-deep in trouble, everything goes wrong in his life, and every little easy-money scheme he’s pulled lately has failed and is about to get him into trouble. You even root for him.

But then it happens, it’s awful, and trouble comes. Everything goes wrong, the kidnappers recur to murder, one thing leads to another, and all of a sudden there’s a domino effect in terms of crime. Everything still goes wrong for Jerry, but he tries to keep his cool, especially when dealing with his stubborn father-in-law and the ransom he’s supposed to pay. Somehow it doesn’t look like it’s gonna be that simple.

Enter Marge Gunderson (Frances McDormand), a brilliant police woman who happens to be pregnant, and who takes charge of the investigation of the murders. She’s as nice as it gets, a true Minnesotan, and really calmly takes over and starts finding out piece by piece what’s going on. She’s a quiet menace to Jerry.

The plot is intriguing and completely absorbing. A claim at the beginning says it’s based on a true story, but then again, a disclaimer in the end says it’s not. So are the Coens fooling with us? To me, that’s part of the puzzle, and part of the punch. However, this is not the kind of film that entertains because it has you in stitches. Yes, you’re constantly clutching to the edge of your seat, but that’s not all that keeps you going. It’s the involuntary comedy caused by a scrupulous observation and satirizing of Minnesotans. These are, hands off, the funniest people I have ever seen… without them wanting to be. The secret of their comedy is how nice they are and how easy they take it all, to the point of seeming slow. They say “Yah” every two seconds, and nod non-stop. Life is slow over there, and even a multi-murder case is such. A murder is a murder, and an investigation is an investigation, but everything can change if every detail changes according to the place where it happens.

Marge takes over the film and McDormand is excellent in that lead role; she inspires security and intelligence without going too far from the Minnesotan way. Her scenes during the investigation are as priceless as those where she interacts with her loving husband (John Carroll Lynch). Macy is no less outstanding, heaven-sent for the part, especially remarkable as pressure starts choking him. Every other performer is superb as well.

Cinematographer Roger Deakins gives a white look to the film that’s unforgettable, glorifying Rick Heinrichs’ production design. The music by Carter Burwell rhymes so perfectly you won’t believe it. Most everything in Fargo works so well it seems exhaustingly calculated, but like all things well done, the effort never shows, as everything just flows beautifully.

Minor quibble: that subplot about Marge’s lunch with an old acquaintance. Here the Coens’ weirdness took over, or maybe they wanted to make a point that a book certainly can’t be judged by its cover, or that we shouldn’t be fooled by nice. Either way, it slows down everything and just doesn’t work. It’s probably a Coen game too; they always like to pull the rug, even slightly, in every one of their flicks.

A magnificent film from the 1990s, and one that shouldn’t be missed.

“Total silence.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Cars

Director

John Lasseter

Joe Ranft

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, July 12, 2006

I have something to admit. Even though I have blind faith in anything that comes out of Pixar, I was dubious about Cars from the get-go. A movie about cars? What if I don’t care about cars? To make matters worse, promotional material started to appear in the form of photos and trailers and nothing looked even remotely exciting to me. But I had to see it. It’s Pixar after all.

Lightning McQueen (voice of Owen Wilson) is a rookie race car who has everything going for him, that is, until his arrogance makes him tie in the race for the Piston Cup. That sets up another race in California to decide the winner, but in the way Lightning gets lost and ends up in Route 66, where he stumbles upon a forgotten town, Radiator Springs, where he is detained and forced by Doc Hudson (voice of Paul Newman) to stay and fix the railroad he destroyed upon his arrival. He soon makes a friend out of Mater (voice of Larry the Cable Guy) and is instantly smitten by Sally (voice of Bonnie Hunt), a beautiful Porsche, but has to work hard to gain the confidence of the local cars.

Let me start with the “bad”. Cars is arguably the weakest of all Pixar movies. If you look back at the work they’ve done, perhaps it is A Bug's Life (1998) which hasn’t transcended as much as their other efforts, most of which are already classics. I think Cars just gave competition to that movie. Time will only tell, but I would still prefer to spend some time with those bugs than with these cars, and that tells you something. But don’t get me wrong, because the movie is very good, it’s just not Pixar at its best, but that’s an insane standard so it’s understandable that it can’t be reached every time.

As it is, Cars is somehow a unique movie in its intentions: it is aimed at children yet it might be adults who appreciate it best. I don’t say this as a fact, but I got that feeling. To start off, the movie is too long for this type of animation. It is also too slow and not for impatient viewers. And it has a nostalgic vibe that will go over most children’s head. That said, there’s a lot of silly (not cheap) humor, most of which comes from the character of Mater. And you can smell right from the very first sequence that the movie will end with a couple of nice messages that everybody can appreciate.

Truth is, I liked the characters. I liked the arc of Lightning’s story. I liked his interaction with both Sally and Doc Hudson. They manage to form real bonds, and some of the best scenes involve a combination of these three on-screen. These pairings are also an excuse for some of the most breathtaking sequences in animation history, such as the ride that Lightning and Sally take through the mountains, the retrospective to good-old times or when Lightning witnesses Doc racing.

That takes me to one very crucial aspect of the movie: the quality of the animation. If you thought Pixar couldn’t raise the bar any higher you were wrong. Cars is visually stunning, the best work they’ve done in this regard; truly a work of art. The production design and creativity that went into creating this world of cars is also hugely imaginative. There are no humans in this world, only cars. Even animals are represented this way, such as flies and cows (loved them!). The movie is filled with clever visual gimmicks and it’s a lot of fun to keep discovering them.

The ending is predictable, but directors John Lasseter and Joe Ranft manage to imprint some restraint to it and make it work so well that you may be fighting back tears when you get to it. Cars definitely ends on a very high note.

Voice work is good overall. I almost always hate Owen Wilson’s trademark way of talking, but his voice somehow suits Lightning, and he makes him come to life. Bonnie Hunt leaves behind her sarcastic self and delivers an unrecognizable and very effective performance. Larry the Cable Guy is not always understandable, but he’s a riot! Yet the real pleasure comes in hearing Paul Newman’s voice as the town’s solitary chief. A true legend... Fantastic work. Michael Keaton, Cheech Marin, Tony Shalhoub, George Carlin, Jeremy Piven and many real-life racers also lend their voices.

“Tractors are so dumb.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Poseidon

Director

Wolfgang Petersen

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, July 11, 2006

The 2006 remake of 1972’s The Poseidon Adventure is not a much smarter flick and follows the current disaster film boom the same way the former did back then, though back then it was a much greater boom. These days however, visual effects know no limits, and the disaster really seems real. Would a little depth hurt? Maybe not, but films that are born to entertain mindlessly and do so proudly, can be considered good films. Good, but very rarely great. This ain’t great, but I had one hell of a good time.

The Poseidon is a very luxurious cruiser that faces the very bad luck of a rogue tidal wave that essentially turns it upside down. Many die awful deaths, but most survivors stay in the ballroom, where the New Year party was taking place. Emergency signals have been sent for rescue but chances are the ship will sink before anyone comes with help.

Dylan (Josh Lucas), a very charming member of the crew, is not willing to take his chances, and decides to try and make it to the bottom, which is now the top. A small party forms right after him, including a former New York mayor (Kurt Russell), his lovely daughter (Emmy Rossum), her boyfriend (Mike Vogel), a mother (Jacinda Barrett) and her son (Jimmy Bennett), a stowaway (Mía Maestro), a waiter (Freddy Rodríguez), a suicidal architect (Richard Dreyfuss) and a drunken asshole (Kevin Dillon).

Great cast, wasted from start to finish of course. I mean, what’s Dreyfuss thinking? He disappears from the screen a couple of years and then he comes back for this? The rest are no relief. Lucas? Miscast. Russell? Shameful. Barrett? Invisible. Dillon? Hands up the worst character most horribly performed. Only Rossum and probably Maestro can get a kind word. Oh, and the kid too. I’m angry, I hate this kind of waste.

But, truth be said, so much attention is put to the action that you forget about the people easily. This isn’t people, they’re videogame characters. The whole film plays like a videogame. You’re running out of air, water is filling up the room, you got to figure out how to open the hatch to access the next room but you have to work as a team… And if you pull it off, you’re in the next room, you have a few seconds to think, and then it’s a life-or-death situation all over again. A simple, dumb videogame. And it’s as much fun as the next!

The heart pumps rapidly, you’re anxious to see these characters saved though you don’t remember their names or want to, and then you breathe again. Good! Special effects are there to make you live the experience even more excitingly. All those upside-down sets sure help a lot too.

In the end, it’s unmemorable, but a good time. Of course Wolfgang Petersen and Richard Dreyfuss should be ashamed of themselves but heck, money oughta be good.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Lake House

Director

Alejandro Agresti

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, July 10, 2006

Being the Speed (1994) fan that I am, I was excited when Keanu Reeves and Sandra Bullock announced they were going to do another movie together (thankfully not another sequel to that hit they both starred in). This time they would tackle another genre, a romantic drama, something that I thought would perfectly suit them because of their easy-going vibes. Thankfully the pairing works like wonders, although they’re stuck in a movie that doesn’t fulfill its potential.

In 2004 a discouraged architect, Alex (Keanu Reeves), buys and moves into a lake house in the shores of Chicago. One day he checks his mailbox and finds a letter from the supposed previous owner, a disillusioned doctor, Kate (Sandra Bullock), with whom he starts exchanging notes until they realize she’s actually living in 2006, exactly two years in his future. The tragedy unravels as they start falling in love.

The Lake House is a remake of a Korean movie by the name of Il Mare and was adapted for the Hollywood version by David Auburn. Argentinean director Alejandro Agresti took the helm this second time around, coming up with a movie both fascinating in its use of such an original premise, but frustrating because of its many shortcomings.

First things first. I do have to warn you that this is not a simple movie. If you just want to go to the movies to have fun and not use you brain, this might prove to be a bit too much for you. I was surprised by how complicated, and intelligent, the movie actually is; the guy next to me gave up on the movie before we were halfway through it! The tricky part is: you have to use your brain to understand the machinations of the plot and its use of two different time frames, but you also have to surrender to it and not try to over-analyze it. You have to believe that such thing can actually happen and you’ll be able to enjoy the movie much more.

The main problem is that it can get exceedingly boring. There are a lot of supporting characters that include Alex’s potential love interest (Lyn Collins), his father (Christopher Plummer) and his brother (Ebon Moss-Bachrach); and then there are Kate’s potential love interest (Dylan Wash), her mother (Willeke van Ammelrooy) and a co-worker (Shohreh Aghdashloo). Scenes with any of these characters are sleep-inducing, I’m not exaggerating. The movie soars only when we’re with Alex and Kate and no one else, whether they’re writing to each other, “talking” to each other or doing something to play with the notion of time and its possibilities. And about those talking scenes, they’re kind of impracticable (there’s one time when she interrupts one of his sentences!) because they actually happen in letters, but that’s one of the many concessions you have to give the movie. It’s not that difficult, believe me.

Even if the movie works best when it focuses on the relationship between Alex and Kate, I’ve got to admit that I was disappointed with one of the most crucial scenes, although I won’t spoil it for you. It happens barely at the second half and involves a party. That scene should’ve been livelier and memorable. It isn’t. Also, the ending is disappointing. The movie does a spectacular job in sticking to its own rules, but the ending is a cheat. I won’t say if it’s happy, sad or bittersweet, I’ll just go on record to say that the movie was able to surprise me (in a good way) during its last minutes. That is, until the last scene.

Only plot hole I can think of (really!): how did that book appear there? I still have no clue how that was supposed to work out.

The locations are beautiful, which is only accentuated by Alar Kivilo’s superb cinematography. Rachel Portman scored the movie, but sadly I didn’t really notice her music. Hair and make-up also did a good job.

Keanu Reeves and Sandra Bullock can do this type of roles in their sleep, but that doesn’t demerit the fact that they’re excellent. They both get immersed in their sad realities with aplomb and are able to reflect the transformation in their lives when they start to feel something for a change. It also helps that they share palpable chemistry. The supporting cast is also good in what they’re required to do.

“Can this be happening?”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Pulp Fiction

Director

Quentin Tarantino

Year

1994

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, July 06, 2006

Quentin Tarantino took Cannes and then the whole world by storm with his surprisingly innovative 1994 film Pulp Fiction which, quite ironically, is almost completely based on or inspired by vintage films and filled with pop culture references. What makes Tarantino’s film such an original piece is its shameless black humor, its “neat” portrayal of brutal violence and its unending dynamism in the concoction of hallucinatory stories featuring murderers, bums, perverts and several sorts of lowlifes.

The film’s colorful presentation is not the only thing that dazzles the viewer and leaves him or her so awed; it’s the fact that the stories (written by Tarantino from stories by himself and Roger Avary) are indeed positive and good-intended, have a message and paint an optimistic panorama. Hard to believe, even to most who have seen the movie, but that’s how it is…

Most of the plot surrounds hit men Vincent Vega (John Travolta) and Jules Winnfield (Samuel L. Jackson), who are unforgiving at their job but enjoy having philosophical conversations about the most trivial subjects. They possess a great sense of humor and mostly behave as any guy who goes to work and chats with his buddies. Their boss, Marsellus Wallace (Ving Rhames), has asked Vincent to show his wife a good time while he’s gone; Mia Wallace (Uma Thurman) is eccentric and irresistible, and enjoys a good time at any cost. Vincent thinks he’s in trouble when he feels attracted to her, but he’s in for way more excitement, albeit not for the faint of heart.

Another story stars boxer Butch Coolidge (Bruce Willis) who has agreed to go down during a fight for the benefit of Marsellus, but has other plans and runs away with the money after defeating his adversary. Everything goes great until he finds out that his girlfriend (Maria de Medeiros) forgot the most important token of his life back in their apartment: a gold watch inherited with great trouble by his father and his father before him. He goes back to find it and lives the single weirdest day of his life.

Finally back to Vincent and Jules, we witness them get into the most senseless trouble when a man is accidentally shot in their car by one of them. They go for help to the house of Jimmy of Toluca Lake (Quentin Tarantino) who’s not the least bit happy to help them. Marsellus then sends a very peculiar “cleaner” called The Wolf (Harvey Keitel) to solve their problem while teaching them some very useful lessons.

Wow, while writing the synopses of the three main stories, I got the feeling that they’re shallow and irrelevant, and it just might be true to the superficial eye. That is not the case. Every story is a life-changing experience for the protagonists and signifies a change of pace in their lifestyles that brings balance to their existences. Much like Akira Kurosawa, Tarantino cared to fill his tales with honor and justice, making sure that every felon got a punishment and every repenting soul a price. There’s not one exception to this rule, even if it means punishing one of everyone’s favorite characters and awarding one of the nastiest.

The immensely daring stories are presented in a non-linear way that makes everything way more irresistible. As usual in this kind of mosaics, the storylines cross paths, but since they’re asynchronous they usually do so in a way that makes the procedures intriguing and surprising. There’s a shocker in the middle of the film, for instance, that’s hard to get over, with a climatic event from one storyline taking place in another, hence much sooner and way more unexpectedly than if it had happened as one could have supposed.

It’s hard not to love a film where every single character is charismatic and every actor performs to perfection. Tarantino made the risky decision to make his film dialogue-driven and there’s hardly any scene where words doesn’t take center stage—the dancing sequence between Vincent and Mia comes to mind as an exception, though it’s only a sequence and doesn’t even last that long. The reason why dialogue isn’t a bad choice in Pulp Fiction is because it’s so incredibly witty though down-to-earth and sometimes even vulgar, but full of powerful insights and intense exchanges.

As something extra and, by the way, spectacular, Tarantino’s masterpiece is not a certain kind of film. It’s indefinable and doesn’t stick to any genre. It’s a comedy at times, a thriller at others, a crime saga, a musical, you name it. But it’s so well put together that it’s flawless, and with such a glamorous look and feel—through Andrzej Sekula’s photography (inspired by cult films at times), Sally Menke’s editing and a collection of vintage songs, some of them long forgotten before this—that it simply works. It works and how.

As I said, the performances are top-notch. The film marked the return of John Travolta and certainly meant stardom to Samuel L. Jackson and Uma Thurman. Willis is also remarkable and if I had to pinpoint anyone else, I probably would Eric Stoltz, who’s hilarious as a small-time drug-dealer who operates at home. Other members of this amazing cast include Tim Roth, Amanda Plummer and Rosanna Arquette.

For years I claimed Pulp Fiction was my favorite film. Now I just don’t know, because there are so many wonderful pieces in the world to love and live by. But it could as well be. I just love this awesome film.

“Mmm-hm! This is a tasty burger!”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Squid and the Whale

Director

Noah Baumbach

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, July 05, 2006

Closing the trilogy of movies I’ve seen about break-ups in the last couple of weeks (the other two being The Break-Up (2006) and 5x2 (2004)) here’s the one I consider the best among them: The Squid and the Whale, Noah Baumbach’s independent and critically-acclaimed flick about how a family copes with the imminent separation of the parents. It’s really been a coincidence that I’ve seen these movies back-to-back, but it’s also been profoundly interesting. Let’s get to it...

In 80’s Brooklyn, Bernard Berkman (Jeff Daniels), a writer who hasn’t had anything published in a while, and his wife Joan (Laura Linney), a rookie writer who is enjoying the first flourishes of success, decide to get a divorce after they can’t do anything else to save their marriage. The complicated part is how to deal with their children Walt (Jesse Eisenberg) and Frank (Owen Kline). They set up a system in which each parent will have the kids half the time, although it doesn’t necessarily work out for them.

The Squid and the Whale (the title comes from an exhibit at the American Museum of Natural History in Manhattan) was written by the director as a semi-fictionalized account of his own experiences when his parents divorced. Watching the movie you can clearly notice that it comes from somewhere deep inside. It is just too painful and real and filled with specific details that someone who hasn’t been through such a phase would not have been able to imprint in the story. Even more so, the movie is cruelly realistic in its depiction of how such an event can affect the couple’s children.

Walt is the older one, a guy who idolizes his father and comes close to almost mimicking his words and actions despite maybe having other feelings about them. Just as his father does, Walt rejects his mother, blames her for the separation and plain insults her. Frank, the young one, is more impressionable and the opposite of his brother. He sides with his mother, feels closer to her, but somehow blocks what’s happening to him and creates a world of his own as a safety net. Baumbach focuses on these two with precision, watching them almost in a clinical manner, focusing on how true their actions are and what they have to go through because of their parents’ fault. Will they heal? Do their attitudes have a remedy? Will they find a way to find the right balance? There are no easy answers, and the movie doesn’t even try to provide them. Life is life, and each individual is different. But the circumstances that surround them do affect them and as such, they are not to blame entirely for how they come up.

The separation between Bernard and Joan is painful, but necessary. We never get to see them when they were a happy family. They are already alienated from the get-go. The relationship they have after the break-up is also closely examined during the movie, as they try to cope with their anger and resentment while dealing with the fact that they have two children and that this joins them forever. Bernard and Joan also happen to be self-absorbed and selfish people. Bernard, specially, is almost insufferable. He views the world as if he was at the center and everything he says or does is the right thing. They can’t even come to terms as to how to educate their sons. But they’ve been through a lot. They’re grown-ups; they aren’t really going to change. And that’s what makes it more difficult for Walt and Frank to come out of it unscathed. Will they come to terms with both of them? Will they want to have a relationship with them as they grow up? No clear answers here either. Only they can choose the path their lives are going to take. But they will have to grow up in more ways than one first, and their father is not going to make that especially easy.

So many thoughts, so many things to analyze, to chew, to think about… It’s as if Baumbach ripped off the scar and came out with a sad tale to share with everyone, almost as therapy. His movie can be difficult, but no one can blame him of selling out. Divorce can sometimes be a remedy, sometimes it can complicate matters, truth is it’s always going to be difficult, and that’s what the movie tries to say.

The performances are heaven-sent. Jeff Daniels is at his very best and Laura Linney is down-right perfect. Her role is tricky. She isn’t perfect and she knows it and we know it, but even so she has to come off as somewhat sympathetic. It’s a fine line because in a way she represents every mother: someone who has many flaws but can also show signs of compassion and down-to-earthiness because of her motherly instincts. Men are more savage, more taken away by anger and pride. Daniels nails it, and they both make a believable couple. The kids are superb as well. I was adamant of Eisenberg’s performance at first. He caught me off-guard and I felt he was “acting” too much. But then I got to know the character a bit more and realized that’s the way he was, and that this actor was doing exactly what was required of him. The true revelation of the movie though, is Owen Kline, the son of Kevin Kline and Phoebe Cates, who comes off with a shockingly unaffected performance. He’s marvelous at every turn, in every scene. He’s a truly talented kid. I hope he takes advantage of it because he sure may have an interesting career ahead of him. Anna Paquin, William Baldwin and Halley Feiffer also do a good job in pivotal roles.

“How do you know they were both Frank’s?”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Sunset Blvd.

Director

Billy Wilder

Year

1950

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, July 04, 2006

It’s not a very wise thing to pinpoint a Billy Wilder film as his best, and I don’t think anyone has the capacity or authority to do so. However, I dare say Sunset Blvd. is that famous writer-director’s most enigmatic film. The genius black comedy / film-noir is so inspired that it’s the kind of film one can hardly believe even exists. Its refreshing point-of-view of old Hollywood crushed by the standards of modern studios is both mordent and poignant. A satire, the film also serves as a tale of decadence and narcissism, as well as the corruption caused by the forces that turn some human beings into demigods and then dump them when they become useless—a notion that can’t even considered when they’re at their peak.

This is Wilder at his brightest; he explores and invades every last corner of Hollywood of old and Hollywood of today (“today” being 1950 of course) and doesn’t make it easy for any department, except perhaps, screenwriting. Not surprisingly, writers are portrayed as good and honest, almost humble in their effort to maintain the quality in their work while staying behind the cameras and being ignored by virtually everyone. They’re not like those greedy producers, much less those fame-hungry actors. Wilder, a writer in essence, wouldn’t portray writers as anything but the one and only instance of coherence in the Hollywood system. He’s probably right, too.

The story concerns a B-movie writer, no less, whose name is unknown to almost everybody but himself: Joe Gillis (William Holden). Mr. Gillis is running away from his debts, sought after by those he owes money to—who want his car as security, when he runs into a big old mansion that seems abandoned, and hides there. The place is not as empty as it seems though, but rather full, quite full of the star of old who has lived there for decades and has frozen time for herself in an eternal remembrance of her golden days: Norma Desmond (Gloria Swanson), that famous silent-film star who’s all but forgotten now.

Living alone with her loyal butler Max (Erich von Stroheim), Miss Swanson takes Joe under her wing if he’ll help her finish a script she’s been writing for years, Salome, a project to be directed by none other than Cecil B. DeMille, starring Norma in her glorious… I don’t want to say comeback… In the glorious fulfillment of a promise she made to her audience not to ever abandon them.

If there’s anyone in the world who has his feet on the ground, it’s a young, hungry writer. There’s a lot of cynicism and not the least bit of daydream in Joe Gillis. He knows Norma Desmond can’t be resuscitated, not the way she wants to be anyway, and he knows he can’t help it, but he needs the money desperately and he has nothing to lose, so he goes for it. What he never expected was the way Norma would turn him into a prisoner of sorts, living in that alternate universe that is her house, and absorbing him to the point of madness. He never loses his mind however… But by playing her game, he turns her arctic desolation into an unreality from which the only way out is some sort of tragedy.

Never does the film stretch believability. Wilder and co-writers Charles Brackett and D.M. Marshman Jr. keep a constant contact with reality without making Norma’s universe seem farfetched or utterly ridiculous; even the unpleasantness of her house plays a crucial role in making it all seem curiously irresistible. No one would like to be in Gillis’ shoes, but while we’re there with him, it’s all so fascinating we don’t actually want it to end. The story takes several paths and becomes increasingly intriguing. As Joe relates to a young female writer (Nancy Olson) and sees in her an outlet f his bizarre situation, secrets emerge concerning Norma’s past and present. Little by little, Max opens up to Joe and admits to some shocking truths, including one concerning himself which is the most shattering moment in the whole movie.

Wilder really didn’t conform with having a good story and shooting it well. He wanted to make it real. So he went as far as actually filming inside and around the Paramount Pictures lot, and featuring astonishing cameos including Buster Keaton, Hedda Hopper, and no less than Cecil B. DeMille himself, in a most poignant cameo. But most impressive of all, Swanson and von Stroheim play roles that echo their own realities, albeit metaphorically. They’re both completely memorable. Next to them, Holden and Olson, both top-notch, have little to do; they’re not the stars of this show.

Also born to leave a mark are John F. Seitz’s cinematography and Franz Waxman’s music score. The latter is as enigmatic and unforgettable as that forgotten star of the silent era as she makes her glorious reappearance in front of the cameras, walking down the stairs of a palace, at the bottom of which many people await for a Princess.

“All right, Mr. DeMille, I'm ready for my close-up.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Ask the Dust

Director

Robert Towne

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, July 03, 2006

I’d been salivating for almost two years prior to watching Ask the Dust, a movie I was expecting so passionately it wasn’t even funny. My love for Salma Hayek is well known around here, but I also happen to really like Colin Farrell, and the combination of both with Robert Towne writing and directing from one of the best American novels of the past century was too good to be true. The wait is over now, culminating with a movie full of small pleasures and unfulfilled promises, but with passion emanating out of every word and every moment.

In Depression Era Los Angeles, Arturo Bandini (Colin Farrell) is a struggling writer who dreamt of writing a famous novel and marrying a glamorous girl. Instead, he is broke and unmotivated. One night, willing to spend his last nickel, he meets Camilla López (Salma Hayek), a Mexican waitress whom he insults at first, but with whom he ultimately becomes infatuated.

Ask the Dust is based on John Fante’s novel of the same name. Robert Towne, no stranger to this place and time, adapted the book to the big screen, albeit with mixed success. The words are there… intelligent, sharp and dense. But Towne opted to make some changes to Fante’s story. I have not read the novel myself, but it’s of common knowledge that the ending, and the scenes leading to it, are entirely Towne’s. Since the movie is at its weakest during this portion, my personal conclusion is that Towne took a big risk and lost. Which is a pity, for the first hour of the movie is a pleasure to behold.

Fante wrote his novel as a semi-autobiographical account of his own struggles as a young writer. It’s not easy making a movie about a man with such a profession. Sitting around in a desk while in a hot, gloomy room is not necessarily the stuff of great stories. But as the God of American letters wisely advises him: “Either you're in front of the typewriter writing or you're out in the world having experiences. Therefore since you need to write and you need to have experiences to write about - you have to learn to do more with less. And doing more with less is, in a word, Mr. Bandini, what writing is all about."

Arturo does just that, but things don’t go as planned. He meets and likes Camilla, but feels repulsed by her because of his own insecurities about the treatment he received as a child for being of Italian heritage. And Camilla, deep inside, feels just the same about him. They both want to transcend in a country that hasn’t treated them well, that has not held to its promise of achieving the American dream. And there they are, falling in love with the very person they should be staying away from. The attraction and disgust they feel for each other lead to a series of upsetting encounters in which they just as well insult each other or have the tenderest words. What do you do when you fall in love with the wrong person? The only way to move forward it is to come to terms with who you are, and that’s part of what the movie is ultimately about.

Towne paints a portrait of 30’s Los Angeles as only he knows how. His movie has a noir-ish feel that gives it an unpredictable air, but it also exudes a claustrophobic and dreary sensation as we come to meet the people who inhabit the city. People who go there to die, people who go there to fulfill their unreachable dreams, people who are suffocated by the dust, both physically and figuratively. It is a city as beautiful as it is damning, and the atmosphere comes off the screen with force. The city becomes a character in itself. And it helps that the technical team behind the recreation is top-notch, with Caleb Deschanel’s photography the stuff that dreams are made of, Dennis Gassner’s production design observant to the last detail and the score by Ramin Djawadi and Heitor Pereira a pleasurable indulgence.

The movie, as I mentioned before, loses steam as it reaches its conclusion, although I found the very last scene to be heartbreaking and with more staying power than it seems at first. The last third of the movie becomes boring and predictable, giving the feeling that it could’ve been trimmed down. Towne shoots his movie in an old-fashioned way, something that might put the patience of uneducated audiences to the test. I respect this and admire it, but I guess what I’m saying is that it’s not a movie for everyone. It’s difficult and slow and intense, but you can’t say it isn’t true to its essence.

I also feel the need to mention four scenes that stood out and indisputably elevated the movie. A movie with four such scenes is due respect, and Ask the Dust deserves so. The best scene of the movie happens at the halfway mark, when Camilla finally decides to confront Arturo and shake his world by putting in doubt his goals and aspirations, finally coming up with the possibility that not everything in life might turn out as one expected. Then there’s the skinny-dipping sequence in the ocean, which might read as superficial but which plays in a surprisingly different way. And the two scenes with Vera (Idina Menzel), a scarred woman who sees good in Arturo and helps him to be open to possibilities, are heart-breaking.

Then there are the performances, and here comes a tricky part that I don’t really know how to describe. Colin Farrell is really good, his performance is excellent. Yet there’s something missing and I don’t know where to put my finger. Arturo is not really a sympathetic character, but the movie is built around the notion that we feel something for him, though the truth is that I remained cold. It’s as if there is a wall between the character/actor and the audience that never comes down, so it’s difficult to spend an entire movie with him. I don’t know if the problem lies in Colin, Towne or Fante, but it is there. Salma Hayek, on the other hand, delivers what is arguably the best performance of her career. Her Camilla is the exact opposite, a fiery yet innocent woman who has a big heart and has suffered through life wanting to be accepted for who she is, but never ceasing to strive for more. You miss Camilla when she’s not on-screen; she brings heart and passion and temperament to the movie. From the supporting players Idina Menzel stands out, she’s flawless. Donald Sutherland, Eileen Atkins and Justin Kirk also show up, although their characters have nowhere to go.

Ask the Dust proves to be an intimate love story amidst a time and era that wasn’t forgiving. It is a journey worth taking, for what it does right, it does really well.

“What if you don’t?”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter