CriticSociety- film reviews

Review

Whisper

Director

Stewart Hendler

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, July 31, 2007

I’m a big fan of TV’s “LOST” and I must admit I’m one of those who simply can’t believe the awesomeness of Sawyer, the character played by Josh Holloway, whose fan following has in fact become one of the series’ greatest successes. Holloway was unknown before the series and now his film career is uncertain because if there’s anyone suffering from typecasting nowadays, it must be him.

So it’s not exactly a brilliant decision to cast him as an outlaw not unlike Sawyer, who looks and dresses exactly like Sawyer but acts differently: duller, less funny, not quite sarcastic, and awful worried. It’s like a bad “LOST” Sawyer flashback episode. You keep sorely missing the real deal. I might not be the one to say this, but if Holloway is to appear on the big screen and expect us to forget where we’ve seen him, he needs to shave, cut his hair, dress formally and stick to metropolitan settings. But that’s just me.

Let’s face it though: the film isn’t good either. It’s dispensable fun that sometimes has you on the edge of your seat and others has you laughing at it. I’ve seen much worse, and watching Holloway is a treat anyhow, but it’s not any good either. The plot has Max (Holloway), his girl Roxanne (Sarah Wayne Callies), and other two cohorts kidnapping a young rich boy, David (Blake Woodruff), to get a ransom from his uptight mother (Teryl Rothery). Hired by the mysterious “Jones”, they take this job in the hope that it won’t take long. Max and Roxanne rather regret having to do this gig, but hope for a better life after it; they treat the boy OK.

The kid, however, turns out more than they bargained for: first he plays with them taking advantage of what he hears, and later he employs more, let’s say, supernatural methods. Whether he’s Damien or Rosemary’s Baby is unclear, but there’s certainly something wicked in him and the bad guys won’t have it easy for messing around.

This is a thriller and, for what it is, it works. I think if it didn’t have that demonic scope however, it could be far superior. If you believe that a kid is smart enough to play with his kidnappers’ psyches, this could be lots of fun and a sort of darker Home Alone (1990). Instead, they went for the supernatural and, while it’s scary as hell, it’s also ridiculous at times and unbelievable all along.

I liked some of the character dynamics, particularly those involving Roxanne. Be it with Max or Vince (Joel Edgerton) or the kid, her character is intriguing. I haven’t seen Sarah Wayne Callies in her own TV ventures, but I can say that she’s fantastic here, and that if there’s anyone to be noticed, it’s her; she’s also quite hot, by the way. Young Woodruff, on the other hand, is wooden and dreadful, but it’s the script’s fault in great part.

The plot twist in the end is probably the worst part, but by then you either went for a large suspension of disbelief or left the theater. I went for the first one and enjoyed the ride all along. But when all was said and done, I went back to the wait for “LOST”’s fourth season.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Transformers

Director

Michael Bay

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, July 30, 2007

My parents tell me I used to have several Transformers toys when little, although I barely remember them and don’t have any recollection of watching the TV series that ensued. To tell you the truth, when this project was announced I gave a big snore, but I didn’t know that there was such a strong cult following behind this mythology. So with no previous baggage is that I came to see this live-action movie based on the beloved characters and I was pleasantly surprised.

An evil robotic clan, the Decepticons, come to Earth in search of a lost source of power that their leader Megatron (voice of Hugo Weaving) failed to secure, leaving mayhem wherever they appear and turning the Pentagon, led by Defense Secretary John Keller (Jon Voight) into a frenzy. Meanwhile a young lad, Sam Witwicky (Shia LaBeouf), gets a new car courtesy of his father Ron (Kevin Dunn) and ends up realizing it’s alive, going by the name of Bumblebee (voice of Mark Ryan) and part of the Autobots who are here to protect the human race, eventually joined by their leader Optimus Prime (voice of Peter Cullen).

Michael Bay directed from a script by Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman, based on a story by themselves and John Rogers. The movie has Steven Spielberg as an executive producer, something that was predominately, and understandably, present in the effective marketing push that it was given. Bay is not a surprising choice for the material, he is used to blow things up and go over-the-top when it comes to action and special effects. The blend of material and director seemed inspired, and I’ve got to admit that he almost made a great summer movie.

When I use the word almost I am referring to some of the stuff that didn’t come off as good as it could. We knew right away that Bay was going to make a splashy movie, but I’ve never felt so numb after watching a movie before; this is arguably one the noisiest movies ever made. This becomes pretty clear during the long climax fight which is a bit too much for its own good. It could’ve been shorter and more effective, but spectacle got in the way. And yes, the way the movie’s structured is a mess and some plot points are idiotic, but I didn’t care at all about that; I was constantly entertained and happy to be going around the world to see what was happening with each main character.

The most effective storyline, by far, is that of Sam. How he gets the car, how he tries to impress a girl, Mikaela (Megan Fox), with it, how he discovers the truth, the way he handles his parents, and his eventual role as a hero of sorts. Every other storyline involves people preoccupied about what’s going on and trying to find a solution, but still, Bay knows how to bring excitement to every scene, whether by employing dramatic camera movements or by making the most out of a pounding soundtrack.

One thing I never expected the movie to be is funny. And it is. Very. There are continuous gags and humorous moments throughout the entire thing, something that mixes quite well with all the over-the-top action going on. It keeps the experience pleasant.

When it comes to special effects the work is simply jaw-dropping. Lots of work must have gone in bringing these creatures to life and it is an amazing sight from start to finish. On the other hand, I hated Mitchell Amundsen’s photography; not as much the camera movements as the lightning and color palette. It looks cheap. The editing, especially at the end, doesn’t help; way too frantic. Steve Jablonsky’s score certainly does as is required.

Acting-wise the only two characters with prominent screen time are Shia LaBeouf and Megan Fox. They are both perfectly cast; he a dorky yet accessible kind of guy, she an unbelievably sexy popular girl. Their scenes are amongst the best the movie has to offer. Josh Duhamel and Tyrese Gibson also appear to much hoopla, but they leave no mark. Anthony Anderson, John Turturro, Bernie Mac, Kevin Dunn and especially Julie White (as Sam’s mother) are all a hoot. Jon Voight fills his role as necessary. And the voice work is quite good, with Peter Cullen reprising the work he did in the TV series.

“We are here. We are waiting.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

A Place in the Sun

Director

George Stevens

Year

1951

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, July 26, 2007

I knew A Place in the Sun was considered a must by most, and that it was pivotal to the careers of Elizabeth Taylor and Montgomery Clift, but I hadn’t found a real motivation to watch what I thought was probably a romantic drama or something. I knew it was there and I knew I would see it some day, but the time hadn’t come.

Then I heard that Woody Allen’s Match Point (2005) had similar themes and could even be considered a modern version of it. “What?” Not only was I surprised that the film I so dearly loved two years ago could be considered a remake, but I instantly felt that I’d rather die than not see this film before dying… or something. So I ran to see it.

Whoa! What an experience! I rushed to tell my pal Morris about it, because I was sure he hadn’t seen it before, probably because he expected it to be a yawn, as I did. Nothing farther from the truth. Despite its romantic looks, name, and actors, the film is a suspense thriller. Not that there’s anything wrong with a sweeping romance, but God knows there’s nothing as exciting as a thriller. It truly paid off. I completely loved the film.

The story is based on the famous Theodore Dreiser novel “An American Tragedy”, later turned into a play by Patrick Kearney. If anything, that’s what Match Point was inspired by, but it could be said that Woody Allen watched A Place in the Sun and borrowed some things from it too. Not to blame him, because he made a strikingly original film. But the point is this classic story is intriguing for its universal themes and the ease with which we can identify with the main character.

The plot has George Eastman (Montgomery Clift), an uneducated young man, dropping by in his Uncle Charles Eastman’s (Herbert Heyes) town to ask for work. Uncle Charles is a wealthy industrialist, and gladly gives George a job, albeit the lowest rank. As a work man in a production line, George meets Alice Tripp (Shelley Winters), a sweet ordinary girl that soon makes him break the rule that employees can’t go out together.

George’s heart, however, belongs to society girl Angela Vickers (Elizabeth Taylor), whom he saw at his uncle’s where she, not surprisingly, didn’t notice him. Aiming to get Vickers seems as impossible as hoping for a better position in his uncle’s company, but Alice begs to differ in the latter assumption: she knows uncle will eventually promote George, that he’s only putting him to the test of knowing the company from below, of starting as an everyman. If she’s right, then George might eventually get Angela, which would be perfectly congruous to his new social status. And if all that happens, a deadly love triangle might ensue.

I shouldn’t reveal much more, but the result is, as I said, a gripping thriller. Screenwriters Michael Wilson and Harry Brown and director Stevens carefully weaved a story that focuses as much on the romance as it does on the dark side of human nature. It goes from light to dark and the transition is surprisingly well done. The fine results are owed in great part to editor William Hornbeck, cinematographer William C. Mellor, and musician Franz Waxman.

Much of the film’s weight lies on Montgomery Clift’s shoulders. The young man was already a star, but this film consolidated his status and no wonder: he’s totally charismatic as George Eastman, but he also goes through dark and dramatic paths and comes off admirably. On the other hand, 17-year-old Elizabeth Taylor found her first serious role here and thanks to it became what we now know her to be. It was crucial to make Angela Vickers irresistible, classy, delicate, and smart, and she’s all that and more. Every second with her onscreen is a sheer pleasure. Last but not least, Shelly Winters does some of her best work here, and that’s saying a lot because her career is outstanding. Venturing into a rather unattractive role, despite her poster girl image, she turned unforgettable, and her performance is deemed one of the film’s greatest assets.

“Seems like we always spend the best part of our time just saying goodbye.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Marie Antoinette

Director

Sofia Coppola

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, July 25, 2007

As talented as director Sofia Coppola is regarded, she was better known for her extraordinary work behind small, intimate dramas. When word came out that she would direct a movie about the controversial Marie Antoinette a lot of whispering ensued. Would she be able to handle such an epic-scale movie? It then opened at the Cannes Film Festival and the reaction was strongly divided, some loved it but many loathed it. Movies that generate such response are almost always worth a look, as if I needed any convincing…

Marie Antoinette (Kirsten Dunst), from Austria, became the Queen of France at the age of 19, as she had been married to Louis XVI (Jason Schwartzman) for five years. Controversy was always present as they didn’t procreate in a long time, and also because of her extravagant way of life. She went from curious girl to unhappy wife to rebellious queen while her country’s people were starving.

The movie was written and directed by Coppola, who many think might’ve identified with the story of a girl who had everything since an early age, including fame and fortune. Whatever the fascination with her subject matter, the movie proves to be only a glimpse of Marie Antoinette’s life, tracing her move to France until the Revolution finally got to her home in Versailles. Criticism has come in the filmmaker’s way for not getting into the real meat of her tragic story and only showing the glamorous and superficial part of it. My opinion is that even though I would’ve liked a bit more history thrown in there, that wasn’t the movie that Coppola intended to make. The ending is abrupt no matter how you see it, but as it is, the whole thing is far from a despicable feast.

I find life in France’s royalty quite fascinating, and it is through Marie Antoinette’s eyes, an outsider, that we get to see how everything worked inside their confines. We identify with her at first because everything’s as new to her as it is to us. She gradually realizes that her life is quite monotonous, and with the help of some choice friends decides that it hasn’t got to be that way. Who can blame her? The sexual chemistry with her husband was non-existent and she could have anything she wanted. With time she calmed down a bit, which makes room for the more introspective, and boring, second half of the movie. It is only at the end that things start to get interesting again, but that’s a whole other story.

If anything, the movie is a pleasure to watch as a visual work of art. Everything from costumes to art direction to makeup is absolutely impeccable, a delicious treat for anyone who likes to place themselves entirely into another era (which in this case happens to be quite a glamorous one). And the use of real locations adds an extra level of grandeur. Coppola, by the way, uses a curious selection of contemporary music to present the story; sometimes the approach works and sometimes it doesn’t.

Kirsten Dunst, an all-American girl, is a curious choice for the role of Marie Antoinette, and even though she acquits herself well enough I just never bought her in the role. It’s not a tragedy, she’s good, but I never forgot about the actress. Jason Schwartzman is also ok as her husband. It is actually the supporting cast that threatens to steal the movie from the leads, one actually wishes we could follow them around and witness their stories. Judy Davis, Asia Argento, Rip Torn, Rose Byrne, Molly Shannon (!), Danny Huston, Steve Coogan and Shirley Henderson are all very good.

“This, Madame, is Versailles.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Live Free or Die Hard

Director

Len Wiseman

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, July 24, 2007

I haven’t seen the Die Hard films in a while, and hardly with any knowledge of cinema, but I remember liking them exceedingly and plan on taking a look soon enough. What I do remember is the spirit, and I must say that’s still alive. The fourth installment updates and blows up the John McClane saga and makes it accessible to today’s young audiences. Seen carefully though, it’s nothing but a big pretext to make an action film… But when John McClane is involved, that can’t be too bad.

The story is all about computers. The world is now mostly run by software that can be hacked. When the US division to prevent such hacks is hacked, they get the idea that the whole country might be in danger. So they send for famous hackers for interrogation, but as it turns out, some of them are being blown up at their homes, presumably by the people who are trying to break into the US cyber-infrastructure.

John McClane (Bruce Willis) happens to be in the town of one of these young hackers, Matt Farrell (Justin Long), who’s about to meet his death when McClane picks him up and unknowingly prevents it. Since the bad guys won’t just let Matt live, knowing what he does, they try to murder him with all they’ve got, which is a lot. With Matt alive, McClane might be the only chance the country has, as chaos slowly takes over every system in the country.

This is a fun film from the get-go. Action takes over pretty soon and the proceedings are quite interesting, while McClane’s sharp sense of humor is constant. Meanwhile, Farrell is not that much of a nerd, but he’s not cool either; he’s peculiar, and I must say a well-though character that’s neither annoying nor too heroic so the balance is perfect and he comes off credible. In fact, he’s a good counterpart to McClane that helps gives our hero an edge. This is because McClane is brutal and straightforward, and Matt makes observations on this and constitutes a completely different kind of person. It’s a good team that I had loads of fun with.

The villain is Thomas Gabriel (Timothy Olyphant), who’s trying to make a point by creating national mayhem. His most important assistant is Mai Lihn (Maggie Q), who’s excellent at computers and also martial arts, oh and she’s hot and Gabriel’s girl. And she kicks the hell out of McClane, in what becomes the best sequence of the film, and also the most implausible.

On the geeky part, there’s great pleasure in a character called Warlock, played by none other than Kevin Smith to great fun and important plot points. On the dramatic part, McClane’s daughter Lucy (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) takes charge both in her conflict with her father and her undeniable resemblance in attitude and spirit. I loved her character and the way she reacted to what it had to go through.

Scripted by Mark Bomback from his and David Marconi’s story, and based on a thrilling article by John Carlin called “A Farewell to Arms”, for Wired magazine, this film is good, clean, big, harmless fun. My only complaint is sometimes the story is slowed down by comedy and there’s too much time spent unnecessarily with an agent Bowman (Cliff Curtis). I guess it gives us some perspective, but that’s not what we went in for. Good job by every performer though, and naturally the technical departments all did admirably.

“Enough of this Kung-Fu shit.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Ratatouille

Director

Brad Bird

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, July 23, 2007

We can all breathe a sigh of relief. Pixar, once again, has delivered. After an unheard-of string of excellent movies, we all know one day they might trip. Last year’s Cars wasn’t the homerun that many people expected, but it still was a solid movie. With Ratatouille most everybody agrees that they’ve upped the ante once again, and even though I prefer some of their previous work, I can’t argue with that.

Remy (voice of Patton Oswalt) is a rat who has exquisite senses of smell and taste, so his dream has always been to become a chef and discover the wonders that food hides. For unforeseen circumstances he ends up in Paris, where he gets to find the late Auguste Gusteau’s (voice of Brad Garrett) restaurant, one of the finest in the city. While in the kitchen and after another series of misfortunes, he teams up with Linguini (voice of Lou Romano), an inexperienced cleaning boy who disguises as a cook with the help of Remy and instantly becomes a sensation. But the current chef, Skinner (voice of Ian Holm), smells something fishy and sets out to find out what’s going on.

Brad Bird, the man behind Pixar’s The Incredibles (2004), wrote and directed Ratatouille based on a story by Jim Capobianco, Jan Pinkava and himself. As with every movie from the company, they put emphasis on story and character first, everything else second. The result is a film that mixes humor and drama in a way that can appeal to children and adults alike, the former of which ranges from the sophisticated kind to pure slapstick.

The movie wasn’t a complete success for me mainly because of the subplot involving the main villain. It is played a bit too broad and a bit too clichéd for its own good. When the movie focuses on the kitchen or the relationship between Remy and Linguini it is bliss, and other threads such as that of Remy’s family, the other cooks or one involving critic Anton Ego (Peter O’Toole) are delightful. There are also individual scenes that stand-out, mainly those that involve cooking (especially during the amazing climax) and that of a chase through the streets of Paris that is simply breath-taking.

It should be noted that Bird took a chance by making a more mature and sophisticated animated movie than we’re used to. A monologue from Ego near the end will go over the head of kids, but for adults it will be one of the highlights.

As is usually the case with Pixar, the visuals are absolutely impressive. This is arguably the most impressive computer-animated film so far regarding the work that went into the animation. Whether it’s the humans, animals, food, the kitchen or the city itself, everything is gorgeous and detailed and just flawless. A visual feast.

Voice work is uniformly good, with unknown names (Patton Oswalt and Lou Romano) voicing the two main characters and better-known ones serving as support (Ian Holm, Brian Dennehy, Brad Garrett, Janeane Garofalo, Will Arnett and Peter O’Toole). O’Toole is especially delightful.

“Anyone can cook.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix

Director

David Yates

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, July 19, 2007

This is the first time I have seen a Harry Potter film after reading the book by J.K. Rowling, and I cannot explain what a mystical experience it was. I read the six published books between the fourth and the fifth film and I’m all into the Harry Potter universe right now and didn’t know what to expect from the fifth entry in the film series. Luckily, I was vastly pleased. I just loved the show and though I felt that many important things from the book were missing, I appreciated the effort put into making the movie fun and swift; in fact, the book is rather lengthy and sometimes slow-moving, so in ways the film even improves the storytelling.

This is the work of screenwriter Michael Goldenberg, the first one to take that chair from Steve Kloves, whose work in the previous films went from uneven to excellent to good… Goldenberg is as good as the best Kloves, summing up the procedures without being unfaithful to the source. Director David Yates is also a first for the series, and his work is admirable, making the film gloomy but fun at the same time. The music by Nicholas Hooper is a very welcome asset. He’s the first composer since John Williams to really impress in the series. I loved every note.

The story is the darkest yet told in the saga: After his fourth year at Hogwarts, Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) has informed the world about Voldemort’s (Ralph Fiennes) return, but since there were no witnesses there Cedric Diggory (Robert Pattinson), dead on the spot, and Voldemort’s followers, the Death Eaters, who aren’t about to confirm this to the world, nobody believes Harry or Dumbledore (Michael Gambon), who supports him. Harry feels like an outsider because very few people believe him, and he’s afraid harm will come to the people he loves, like Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint) and Hermione Granger (Emma Watson), so he alienates himself. In this way he feels identified to a new friend, Luna Lovegood (Evanna Lynch), who’s weird and lonely but rather intriguing.

The Order of the Phoenix is the organization formed by wizards and witches who unite against Voldemort. The group, formed years ago, included Harry’s parents, and now has reunited most of its original members including Sirius Black (Gary Oldman), Mad-Eye Moody (Brendan Gleeson), Remus Lupin (David Thewlis) and Molly and Arthur Weasley (Julie Walters and Mark Williams). Harry is frustrated because they won’t let him help, and Dumbledore won’t even look him in the eye. Worse even, the school is taken over by the Ministry of Magic, who consider that the practices of Dumbledore and his staff only further the “lie” that Voldemort has returned and can cause chaos, and appoint Dolores Umbridge (Imelda Staunton) as Professor of Defense Against the Dark Arts. Slowly the permanently-smiling, tyrant Umbridge takes over the school, much to the students’ dismay.

So Hermione comes up with a great idea: why not form a group of young wizards, much like the Order of the Phoenix, who are willing to learn the spells that have been forbidden from school by the Ministry of Magic, in order to defend themselves and the world from the imminent war against Voldemort? Harry is appointed teacher, because of all the experience he’s reluctantly obtained, and all his friends, including the Weasley twins, Fred (James Phelps) and George (Oliver Phelps), little Ginny Weasley (Bonnie Wright), Neville Longbottom (Matthew Lewis) and Harry’s sweetheart Cho Chang (Katie Leung), join. So begins the D.A., or Dumbledore’s Army… and they do learn some useful stuff.

Because the story is so full of characters and subplots and so many things are important, the film is full of cameos of well-loved and much-hated characters, and this device is very effective. Actors like Alan Rickman, David Thewlis, Maggie Smith, Robbie Coltrane, Jason Isaacs and many more appear briefly, but their characters are important enough to leave a mark. Rickman, for instance, is easily the most unforgettable of the bunch, as usual, as the script grants him a complexity much more interesting than that of Harry or Voldemort, and Rickman does it so admirably. Helena Bonham Carter is impressive and totally scary as the Death Eater Bellatrix LeStrange.

The standout however is Imelda Staunton. As that ugly witch Umbridge she’s despicable while acting sweet and gracious all the time. It’s easy to hate her and wonderful to see her onscreen. She chews the scenery, as they say.

Daniel Racliffe is also outstanding, and that’s not usual in Harry Potter films. By understanding his characters’ growing anxiety he gives it a third dimension that had been much needed. He’s Harry Potter in flesh and blood. Grint and Watson suffer from little onscreen time and not much development, but are at the top of their games all the same. Lynch is a standout as Luna, and Matthew Lewis is going to interesting places with his character, Neville Longbottom.

All the way, a magnificent film experience.

“You know Fred, I always believed our future lay outside the realms of academic achievement.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Astronaut Farmer

Director

Michael Polish

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, July 18, 2007

Every year there’s a small-town, inspirational movie that is somehow little-seen, but which contains great pleasures and enchants those who see it. October Sky (1999) and The Rookie (2002) come from the top of my head, for instance, and The Astronaut Farmer really wants to take that spot this year. Unfortunately, and to my utter surprise, I didn’t love it. I can understand why many people might, but even though I thought the story was interesting and really wanted to immerse myself in it, I just couldn’t.

A former NASA astronaut, Charles Farmer (Billy Bob Thornton), had to retire to save his family’s farm, but his dream of going to space never wavered and as such he has been building a rocket in his back yarn. His wife Audrey (Virginia Madsen) and kids Shepard (Max Thieriot), Stanley (Jasper Polish) and Sunshine (Logan Polish) are all supportive of the idea, although the situation changes once the FBI founds out and the FAA becomes involved, making of Charles a media sensation as well.

Michael Polish directed from a script he wrote with his brother Mark. I don’t know why but I felt like the movie desperately needed a “based on a true story” tag. When we see such a line even the most preposterous of plot points feels grounded because we know it happened and we can get more involved without getting distracted. In this case, I never reached the suspension of disbelief necessary to enjoy the story. I’m sure this premise could happen in real life; reality trumps fiction more often than not… but come on! And I’m not only talking about the central building-a-rocket plot, but also about specific characters’ reactions and plot turns.

Making matters worse is a central character that has none of the charm necessary to pull us in. Sure, he’s a good dad and has a cool vibe about him, but he’s so low-key that I felt like falling asleep when watching him in some scenes. More interesting is the dynamics between his wife and kids, even his father-in-law. Those scenes do give you a sense of a family sticking together for one’s dream, and that’s what holds the movie together. The whole circus surrounding the FBI and the FAA’s involvement is so over-the-top that it takes you completely out of the simple message the movie so desperately tries to convey.

Extra points go to cinematographer M. David Mullen, who sure makes the production look very pretty.

Billy Bob Thornton downplays his character to the point of exasperation. I’m sure that was the intention, but I didn’t buy it. Virginia Madsen fares much better in the wife’s role, lightning up the screen whenever she’s on a scene. Max Thieriot and Jasper Polish are good as the kids, but unfortunately young Logan Polish lacks the necessary natural vibe, she feels too actor-ly. Bruce Willis appears unbilled as a former astronaut and leaves no impression whatsoever, while Bruce Dern, Tim Blake Nelson and J.K. Simmons try hard.

“Better know what you’re going to do before someone knows it for you.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

A Man for All Seasons

Director

Fred Zinnemann

Year

1966

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, July 17, 2007

I remember having enjoyed this film as a teenager but never realizing why I did so much. Almost a decade later I saw it again and understood now where its greatness lies…

The script by Robert Bolt comes from his own very successful play of the same name which dealt with the conflict between Sir Thomas More and King Henry VIII in 16th century England.

Previously, King Henry (Robert Shaw) had married his brother’s widow, Catherine of Aragon, for which the church gave a dispensation. Years later, after the now-barren Catherine had failed to give birth to a boy, Henry decided that his marriage was invalid because he lived in incest, and that the church should withdraw the original decision and annul the marriage, so he could go on to marry his mistress, Anne Boleyn. Henry’s conscience worked in surprising ways, as he feared God was punishing him for marrying his brother’s widow but acted ruthlessly in many other ways.

One of his most prominent advisors, Sir Thomas More (Paul Scofield), simply didn’t share his views. He was a strongly religious man, but mostly a thinker who believed that convictions should not be betrayed or chaos would reign. His iron will made history and went on to make him a martyr and a Catholic saint.

With a few modifications for cinematic realism, the script is absolutely outstanding and poignant. It has all of its original wit but, filmed in realistic settings and with every element in place to make it look and feel like the real thing, it truly does. Bolt’s work is admirable. An agnostic and socialist, he didn’t share More’s beliefs, but respected his tenacity and conviction. And director Zinnemann put together a masterpiece of film, with great music by Georges Delerue, cinematography by Ted Moore, costume design by Elizabeth Haffenden and Joan Bridge, etc.

Paul Scofield reprises the role he had played on stage and comes off as one of the most memorable performers to hit the screen. His Thomas More is indelible and insuperable, and he was properly praised and awarded for this part. In a corrupt England, all More wanted was to be faithful to his own convictions, and he famously spoke more powerfully through silence than he could have through words. Whenever he was questioned about his loyalty he always had the perfect way to twist the conversation so that his enemies’ arguments became their own counterarguments and his specific thoughts which could have been interpreted as high treason never had to be laid out. The battle of wits goes on for a long time, because he could be neither charged nor freed.

Naturally, Bolt plays a bit with facts, mostly committing to anachronisms to achieve a most powerful impact, but the overall true story was the same and that’s why More became so historically relevant. As a fan of the history of Henry VIII I am glad that this piece on Thomas More is at hand. It’s certainly one of the most intriguing stories that happened during that difficult time.

Robert Shaw is perfection as King Henry VIII. He has all the sense of humor, callousness and personality that defined the king when he was younger. His scenes with More are some of the best. Also worth praise are Wendy Hiller as More’s wife, Leo McKern as More’s main rival Thomas Cromwell, Nigel Davenport as the Duke of Norfolk, John Hurt as Richard Rich (whose transformation is the most significant subplot), Susannah York as More’s daughter Meg and Orson Welles as Cardinal Wolsey. Watch out for Vanessa Redgrave in a dialogue-less cameo as Anne Boleyn (incidentally, her brother, Corin Redgrave, plays William Roper, More’s son-in-law).

“And when we die, and you are sent to heaven for doing your conscience, and I am sent to hell for not doing mine, will you come with me - for fellowship?”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Ocean's Thirteen

Director

Steven Soderbergh

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, July 16, 2007

Neither Ocean's Eleven (2001) nor Ocean's Twelve (2004) are essential viewing experiences. They’re light, fluffy entertainment, yet there’s nothing wrong with that. I actually like both, even if I’m in the minority regarding the latter, and was expecting nothing more from the third than the usual usual. Fortunately I came out with a big surprise; I liked it even more than its predecessors and I believe it has the strengths of both in one single package. It still isn’t required viewing, but when in the mood it definitely gets the job done.

Willie Bank (Al Pacino) owns half Las Vegas and for his latest project, a luxurious new hotel, he partnered with Reuben (Elliott Gould), only to double-cross him later and leave him in a state of coma. So the gang, Danny (George Clooney), Rusty (Brad Pitt), Linus (Matt Damon), Frank (Bernie Mac), Basher (Don Cheadle), Virgil (Casey Affleck), Livingston (Eddie Jemison), Turk (Scott Caan), Yen (Shaobo Qin) and Saul (Carl Reiner), reunite to avenge their friend and make everything possible to halt Bank’s fancy inauguration.

Director Steven Soderbergh worked from a script by Brian Koppelman and David Levien that is slick and polished, with much room for improvisation as well. The movie gets down right to it; apart from a couple of brief expository scenes at the beginning we’re into the “heist” right away. That means that character development is nonexistent, but really, do we care? The fun lies in watching these guys plan and do. Soderbergh goes back and forth in time to show how each set-piece was put together, but it never gets confusing. By the time the actual event is underway we’re fully invested into what each guy is doing and how.

Part of the charm of the series is that we know these guys are friends in real life, much as the Rat Pack were. The interaction they have onscreen is of a very particular brand of humor, one that I personally found pretty funny. It will go over the head of many people because most conversations are kind of in-jokes, but I think they work just fine. Take, for example, Danny and Rusty’s exchanges about their loved ones (which do not appear in this installment), or take the very last scene of the movie, one that pokes fun at the actors’ lives; I love snippets like these, and the movie’s full of them.

The actual heist is also a lot of fun, with some things going right and others not so much, but the guys always figuring out another way to do it. It also gets more complicated when past enemy Terry Benedict (Andy Garcia) gets involved and raises the stakes. The movie moves at a brisk pace and uses 70’s style cinema as an inspiration. It works and it delivers.

Acting-wise the ensemble is perfectly at ease with each other. The actors all seem to be having a lot of fun and it translates. As always, George Clooney and Brad Pitt get most of the attention, but everyone has their moment(s) to shine. Al Pacino, thankfully, does not go as over-the-top as he could have given his villain role. And appearances from Ellen Barkin, Julian Sands, David Paymer and a surprise return all add to the flavor. Even Oprah Winfrey appears as herself in a hilarious bit.

“I hate that question.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Tarzan's Secret Treasure

Director

Richard Thorpe

Year

1941

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, July 12, 2007

Tarzan (Johnny Weissmuller), Jane (Maureen O’Sullivan) and their son Boy (Johnny Sheffield) take one of their regular swims and find gold at the bottom of their lake, which is a good reason to explain Boy how civilization works and how wonderful it is that they don’t care about things like the value of gold. Naturally enough, Boy is curious about civilization, and sets to go and see it personally.

That sounded quite good if you ask me. Character conflict plus countless possibilities for a different adventure than we’d seen in every previous entry. But no, soon enough, explorers come into the jungle and the same damn formula is repeated: greedy white men trying to take advantage, Tarzan and his family in peril, the white men get violent, savages capture them, Tarzan saves the day, bad guys are punished and good guys rewarded, and it all goes back to where it started.

Each and every one of the previous films up to Tarzan Finds a Son! (1939) had redeeming values or certain innovations that saved them from being just formula. This time, sadly, there’s very little of that, so little, in fact, that the film is usually plain boring.

Worse even, because now there’s just too much attention paid to the antics of chimp Cheetah and Boy’s baby elephant. Not funny. The bad guys, Medford (Tom Conway) and Vandermeer (Philip Dorn) have some substance because one of them is worse than the other, and the fact that gold corrupts both is interesting, but they’re still the usual so it’s not as good as it could be. The leader of the expedition, Professor Elliott (Reginald Owen) is the one good guy who suffers from his men’s corruption; that’s not new either. There’s one character though, O’Doul (Barry Fitzgerald), who plays it both ways and whose allegiance is ambiguous for a while; even though the character is in ways used as a comic relief, I liked its third dimension and enjoyed Fitzgerald’s performance.

Other than that, there’s just nothing new. Tarzan’s home is fancier, the animals louder, the fights same old same old, I don’t know… it’s just not half as good as the others. Could be if it was the first or second in the series, but it’s not.

It is obvious that by now, Maureen O’Sullivan wasn’t too happy to be playing the role of Jane. While she’s as convincing as ever, she seems to be trapped in routine, like an old housewife. Weissmuller is as comfortable in the role as ever, though the years start showing and he’s never as vital as before, while still impressive. I guess Sheffield is the most notable of the three, as he’s so young and excited about the role still, and playing it with gusto. He’s got a new friend, by the way, little orphan Tumbo (Cordell Hickman), from one of the savage tribes. That boy is also a welcome presence.

Overall, rather unmemorable.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Scream

Director

Wes Craven

Year

1996

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, July 11, 2007

In 1996, Scream took everyone by surprise. What looked like an average horror flick instantly became a cult film, one that dared to spoof a tired genre while also bringing new life into it. Countless imitations and two sequels followed, but none were able to bring the same kind of right ingredients to the mix. It didn’t take itself seriously, and perhaps that was its greatest asset.

Sidney Prescott’s (Neve Campbell) mother was killed and she was left traumatized by the event, even though she is trying hard to live a normal life. Her boyfriend Billy (Skeet Ulrich) is a nice lad, and her slutty best friend Tattum (Rose McGowan) is always there for her. But a series of strange killings around people Sidney knows puts her world upside down. Deputy Dewey (David Arquette) is assigned to the case while a fierce, insensitive reporter, Gale Weathers (Courteney Cox), incessantly covers the events.

Director Wes Craven worked from a script by Kevin Williamson that satirized some of the material that even he was previously known for. They came up with a very bloody and violent movie which doesn't settle for the obvious and instead tries its hand at becoming a clever send-up of horror movies while adding an edge. Some of the characters here are movie buffs, they know what happens in scary movies and play with the notion that they are in one. This adds an ironic third dimension to a story that is supposedly playing it straight while delivering offbeat humor and being highly entertaining at the same time.

Take the infamous opening sequence. It borrows a little from Psycho but also adds a touch of modern pop culture and sets-up the audience for what to expect. It is genuinely terrifying but also smart and funny in its conception and execution.

After a series of murders (some of which are presented in true tongue-in-cheek fashion) the movie comes to its climax in a frat-house party (how surprising!) where all of the main characters (at least the ones still alive) meet up. This is where the big, suspenseful denouement takes place and after trying to come up with who the killer might be for the last couple of hours we get to a satisfactory and unexpected finale.

Neve Campbell is perfectly cast in the role of Sydney. She comes off as down-to-earth and rings true every step of the way, not only as a screaming queen but also as a dramatic powerhouse. Rose McGowan is also a hoot as her best friend, and Jamie Kennedy has some hilarious bits as one of their smart-ass friends. I’ve also got to say that David Arquette and Courtney Cox are tailor-made for their parts.

“Hello Sidney!”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Treasure of the Sierra Madre

Director

John Huston

Year

1948

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, July 10, 2007

The fascinating B. Traven novel “The Treasure of the Sierra Madre” caught the attention of filmmaker John Huston in the 1930s, when it was published in the United States, and finally in the 1940s he fulfilled his dream of adapting it into a motion picture. The story of the film’s making and Huston’s possible interaction with the elusive B. Traven, whose identity has always been a mystery, is fascinating on its own… But the film, a true American classic, is in a class by itself.

The story takes place in the 1920s Tampico, Mexico, where several American expatriates are down on their luck and struggle every day to snatch a few pesos. The focus is on Fred C. Dobbs (Humphrey Bogart), who begs luckier Americans to stake him a meal (in fact he asks repeatedly the same man, played by John Huston in a famous cameo). Dobbs meets and befriends Bob Curtin (Tim Holt), who’s as downbeat and unlucky as him, and together they chance to meet an old man named Howard (Walter Huston) who’s as down-on-his-luck as them but not half as downhearted, and who’s raving about gold prospecting.

Dobbs and Curtin realize they’ve got nothing to lose and set to accompany Howard to the top of the Sierra Madre, looking for gold. This is nothing like Alaska: here the weather’s hot and the land dry, and predators are everywhere. But the real danger, Howard warns, is each other: gold can turn the cleanest soul into a dreadfully dark one. Curtin and especially Dobbs are skeptical about this, and on they go to their fascinating journey.

Huston’s masterful script keeps shifting the mood of the story as it flows. It has intriguing vignettes without being episodic, and contains several sequences that could classify the film as an adventure besides being dramatic and sometimes even comedic. The adventures of the trio go from fighting from a train against Mexican bandits, led by the frightful but riotous Gold Hat (Alfonso Bedoya), to dealing with an intrusive American, Cody (Bruce Bennett), who wants a loot of his own but taking advantage from their work, to dealing with their own growing ambition. This is paced surprisingly well, with a perfect music score by Max Steiner accompanying appropriately every step of the way.

Filmed mostly on location, The Treasure of the Sierra Madre grows into a very heavy and dark character study, as greed and mistrust take first chair. Bogart, in what’s often regarded as his greatest performance, is simply unforgettable as his character transforms into a real monster. Walter Huston on the other hand, directed by his son, indeed plays his most memorable part, truly luminous and hilarious, pitch perfect. Holt is the ideal complement and the contrast of his character to Bogart’s is crucial. Last but not least, Bedoya is indelible as the bandit Gold Hat, owning moments of great tension and poignancy, and speaking the film’s most recognizable quote: “Badges!? We ain’t got no badges. We don’t need no badges! I don’t have to show you any stinking badges!”.

A true American classic, The Treasure of the Sierra Madre is one of my favorite films, and a must-see.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer

Director

Tim Story

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, July 09, 2007

Given that I loathed the first installment in the Fantastic Four series I went into its sequel with the lowest of expectations. I hadn’t even planned on seeing it but word-of-mouth was surprisingly decent and I had nothing better to do on a Sunday afternoon. I though maybe I could get a good laugh out of it. But something unexpected happened: I actually enjoyed the movie and had a good time with, and not in spite of, it.

Just as Reed Richards (Ioan Gruffudd) and Sue Storm (Jessica Alba) are about to get married, a strange energy force starts to generate extreme alterations around the globe. As it breaks into New York, Johnny Storm (Chris Evans) has direct contact with it and realizes it’s the Silver Surfer, who plans on preparing the Earth for its destruction a few days later. The Fantastic Four, including Ben Grimm (Michael Chiklis), must then try to stop him even if they have to do so with some help from a newly revived Victor Von Doom (Julian McMahon).

Director Tim Story is back at the helm for the sequel to his much maligned movie. That sounded like a terrible decision when I heard about it, but the guy must’ve taken all the criticism in stride and decided to try hard and do something better. Well, he did. One of two screenwriters is also back, Mark Frost, along with a new one, Don Payne. There’s nothing revolutionary or brilliant about their work, but they get the job done. And even though the flick is clearly targeted at youngsters it could be enjoyed by people of all ages. It is flawed, but also very entertaining.

Perhaps the story flows better because there’s no need for character introduction, which was done horribly before, and this time we get right into the story. The plot is also constructed better, with a more focused storyline and nice interaction between the heroes. Dr. Doom is still totally out of place and badly miscast, but fortunately his involvement is brief. And the plot has plenty of contrivances and unbelievable feats (it’s impressive how easy and fast the most complicated of machines are built!). The Silver Surfer is a nice character; I liked the treatment he’s given and didn’t see his arc coming. And then there’s the dialogue, which is still reduced to the outmost simplicity, but given the movie’s realm it doesn’t seem out of place.

Special effects-wise the results are impressive. My only quibble is the look of fire; I still think it looks kind of fake. But everything else is absolutely impressive, from the Silver Surfer to the action sequences (which are well-shot and actually exciting) to the scenes of massive destruction and those of the characters using their powers.

There’s also a Stan Lee cameo which might arguably be the most amusing he’s done in all of the Marvel movies.

As for the performances, I’ve got to say everyone does what they are required to. Jessica Alba looks amazingly hot, although she’s a bit wooden. Michael Chiklis and Chris Evans have the most fun with their characters and their easy-going vibe comes off incredibly natural. Ioan Gruffudd is stuck with the nerd role, but has some moments to shine and rises to the occasion. Doug Jones, as the man behind the Silver Surfer, does an excellent job as usual; and Laurence Fishburne lends his imposing voice. Julian McMahon is not bad, he’s just not right for such a villainous part; and Andre Braugher, as General Hager, is mostly annoying, although that could be more because of how his character is written. Kerry Washington also provides a welcomed appearance.

Flick ends in a pretty funny note leaving a smile on our face. Who would’ve said?

“Yeah... nice try!”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

North by Northwest

Director

Alfred Hitchcock

Year

1959

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, July 05, 2007

It’s no secret or surprise to any mild Hitchcock fan that one of his favorite themes, perhaps even his favorite, was the “wrong man” idea. Starting with The 39 Steps (1935), he once and again devoted films to this fascinating subject and exploited its many possibilities and ramifications. The last and best of them all is North by Northwest, the 1959 film that followed Vertigo (1958), and one Hitch wanted to make more accessible than the last one, more commercially viable, and in a way, more entertaining.

The result is another masterpiece, indeed completely entertaining and accessible, but a masterpiece nonetheless. Funny, how the story was concocted. It is said that Hitchcock and screenwriter Ernest Lehman discussed several farfetched ideas they had and put them together coherently: a murder at the U.N., a crop-dusting plane attack, a chase across Mount Rushmore… For their mistaken identity plot they created a story of deception: the main character is an advertising man, who deals with disguise of reality, who himself is mistaken for someone else, a secret agent, and later accused of a murder he didn’t commit, for which he’s chased by the law. The bad guys aren’t who they seem to be, they deal in illusions. It’s all an act, as Roger Thornhill (Cary Grant) states at one point. The script’s theme of moral relativism during the Cold War era is central and most important – the film even borrows its title from a line in Shakespeare’s “Hamlet”, a play that itself deals with reality’s fluctuating perceptions.

As most Hitchcock characters in trouble, Thornhill never loses his sense of humor; in fact, that’s his defining characteristic. It’s as if he’s so used to sporting a sympathetic face for his job that he’s prepared to do it even in mortal danger, and he so regularly replies with snappy, witty lines that he does it mechanically now, regardless of the scenario. But he’s believable, and he’s irresistible. He’s the kind of character anyone wants to be, and see come out of his perils, or do so eventually, not immediately since he’s giving us such a good time in the meantime.

Thornhill is mistaken by spies who are looking for a secret agent by the name of Robert Kaplan. How this happens is simple and unfortunate. He’s then taken to Kaplan’s nemesis (James Mason) who’s classy and elegant but still murderous and reckless. He and his aides, particularly Leonard (Martin Landau), give Thornhill a bad time, but he manages to escape. Looking for answers, he ends up not only confirming the spies that he is Kaplan, which he’s not, but wanted for a murder he didn’t commit, which forces him to flee.

On the road he finds only one helper: beautiful Eve Kendall (Eva Marie Saint), who seems to have no other motivation than the fact that his face is pretty. Soon, however, masks will drop… as a crop-dusting plane attempts to murder Thornhill.

As many Hitchcock films, this one takes its time. It’s in no hurry to introduce its characters or their true motives, but it’s not slow at all either. Scene by scene, act by act, it’s entertaining and bombastically so. The action scenes are all top entertainment, among Hollywood’s best and most unforgettable. Bernard Herrmann’s score, as expected, is up to the task of accompanying each of these scenes as it should – or not doing it, following his suggestion to make one of the scenes completely silent for maximum impact, which works like wonders.

With unmatchable performances (including Jessie Royce Landis as Roger’s mother), continuous mystery, endless action and a lighthearted spirit, North by Northwest remains one of Hollywood’s most entertaining films, and a must-see.

“Apparently the only performance that will satisfy you is when I play dead.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

54

Director

Mark Christopher

Year

1998

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, July 04, 2007

When 54 came out it was one of the most anticipated movies of 1998; everyone expected a lot from it. But troubling reports started to spread about it being a problem movie, and how Miramax honcho Harvey Weinstein decided to cut it down so that it could be more commercial. The result was a movie that had the potential to be much more, but that didn’t transcend beyond merely entertaining status.

Studio 54 was the place to be in the 70’s; a nightclub where all your fantasies could come true. It was run by Steve Rubell (Mike Myers), a man who knew all the stars and admitted just the right people to make of the club an exciting place. That’s where Shane O’Shea (Ryan Phillipe), a common Jersey boy, ends up working as a bartender. He soon befriends the check-coat girl, Anita (Salma Hayek), and her husband Greg (Breckin Meyer), while falling for soap-opera actress Julie Black (Neve Campbell).

Mark Christopher directed from his own screenplay, in which he tried to capture a glamorous time which eventually fell down and was never the same, especially with the coming of a new decade. When it came out, 54 was widely compared to Boogie Nights (1997), with which it shares some aspects, but unfortunately it does not achieve the same level of greatness. Think of it as a lighter, less dense version.

The 70’s was a decade of excesses and Studio 54 was the embodiment of that. People went there to forget and feel loved. Nights there were crazy and no one was scared of anything. But there was another side to the club: the people who worked there. They all dreamed of something better, but at the end couldn’t escape from the liberties of the era and succumbed to it. We identify with the characters here on a human way, because we understand what they’re going through, but there honestly isn’t much insightful character development. Everything stays on the surface in this representation. What made the place so fun? A much rougher, explicit portrait would’ve made a better movie.

There’s also a little bit of real-life history during the second half that is rather interesting. Steve Rubell got involved in fraudulent businesses and ended up in jail, something that marked the fall-out of the club as well. It proves a melancholic juxtaposition to the actual decay of a whole era.

Music, costumes and production design are all top-notch by the way, capturing every moment as it must have been back then and there.

Mike Myers owns the movie in one of the few serious performances of his career. He truly becomes Steve Rubell and does so in a seriocomic way that’s outstanding because of how grounded he keeps it. Ryan Phillipe is good as the innocent boy who discovers life inside the club isn’t as pretty as he thought, although a more charismatic actor maybe could’ve done a better job. Salma Hayek shines as Anita, the screen lights up anytime she appears (which, by the way, is with a different wig every time). Breckin Meyer, Neve Campbell, Sela Ward and a plethora of guests including Lauren Hutton, Ron Jeremy, Michael York, Sheryl Crowe, Cindy Crawford, Heidi Klum, Art Garfunkel and Peter Bogdanovich bring excitement to the proceedings. Michael Pitt and Mark Ruffalo appear in walk-on roles when they were still nobodies.

“Not with that shirt.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Private Life of Henry VIII

Director

Alexander Korda

Year

1933

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, July 03, 2007

My new obsession is called Henry VIII. I’m just fascinated with the English King who was so worried about having an heir that he did things that unwillingly secured his prominence in history much more. The most relevant of course was separating his church from Rome, thus creating Anglicanism which allowed him to annul his first marriage and re-marry as many times as he wished. But his personal life was all the more passionate. It’s hard to separate one from the other though, since he made his crown so personal and his life so royal, and one thing motivated the other, but if you watch him closely you’ll find a fascinatingly complex character worth studying and being perplexed at.

The classic 1933 film starring Charles Laughton is the definitive take on King Henry on film. There’s been many more films featuring him, and some outstanding TV movies and mini-series, but this is the one best remembered and it’s easy to see why: in a very short running time (of little more than an hour and a half) they show us Henry the man, the king, the monster, the brat, the compulsive eater, his own worst enemy, and many more facets that made him so unforgettable. His notoriety comes mostly from marrying six times, the fate of his wives so famously remembered in the mnemonic “divorced, beheaded, died, divorced, beheaded, survived”. This is the story of how he got to marry four of the six, and what happened to each marriage.

The film begins as Henry’s second wife, Anne Boleyn (Merle Oberon), prepares for her execution. Why the film doesn’t tell of Henry’s previous story is riotously explained in the film’s introduction: his first wife, Catherine of Aragon, was a respectable woman, so Henry naturally divorced her. The second, we’re told, was ambitious, and the third one, Jane Seymour (Wendy Barrie), who’s making choices on her wedding dress the day Anne Boleyn is executed, is deemed stupid. She quickly gives Henry a boy, his long-expected heir, but she dies in the process. Admittedly, Henry feels for her, but immediately forgets her in the joy of having a son at last. That was just the third of six, and we’re told every story.

I love how old movies used to tell their tales. Instead of going for the ridiculously pompous, they recurred to old theatrical storytelling tricks that sometimes worked like wonders. Here, for example, we see Henry discussing with his royal barber (Hay Petrie) a couple of times and being teased about marrying again through a comment of the barber’s that didn’t mean much. It tells us through a practical joke that the king was childish, that he was selfish and insecure, and that he was afraid. Both scenes make you laugh and both change the course of history, and both are obviously not true, but summarize a process of years in less than a minute.

Another example is Henry’s bedroom scene with his fourth wife, Anne of Cleves (Elsa Lanchester). This is by far the best scene in the movie and Lanchester gives the best supporting performance in it. The true story of German Anne of Cleves is quite infamous, since Henry married her for political reasons but required that she be pretty, and relied on a painting of hers to settle the union. Once he met her in person, he’s said to have despised her looks and regretted his decision at once, though it was too late to withdraw unless he wanted all Europe to turn against him. Later on, Anne agreed on a divorce and the thing was off… This could have been a bore on film, almost documentary-style, totally crude concerning the treatment of this young girl, etc. Instead, screenwriters Lajos Biró and Arthur Wimperis reinvented Anne, having her despise her attachment to Henry so much that she did her best to be disliked by him, playing him around in such a way that he begged her to withdraw, almost falling for her in the process given her brilliancy. This is one of cinema’s great moments and one I’ll never forget; Lanchester is highly regarded for it, and should be remembered for it as much as she is for her most iconic (dual) role in Bride of Frankenstein.

Rounding up the cast, there’s the always-reliable Robert Donat as young courtier Thomas Culpeper, who romances the king’s fifth wife, Katherine Howard (Binnie Barnes). Then there is Everley Gregg as his last wife, Katherine Parr (Everley Gregg).

The show belongs to Charles Laughton from start to finish though. This finest of actors captured the king’s looks and moods in such a multifaceted way that one can’t but be astounded. The script has him laugh, cry, fight, shout, joke, eat, drink, hate, love, and he does it all like it’s nothing. That haunting scene where he jokes about marrying again and the whole court laughs along, both struggling to please him and intoxicated by his almighty persona is completely believable on account of Laughton. He’s as great as a king.

Kudos to Kurt Schröder for his music, John Armstrong for his costumes, Georges Périnal for his cinematography and everyone involved in set and production design. This is a sumptuous show, worthy of an English court of the 16th century.

“The things I’ve done for England.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Sicko

Director

Michael Moore

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, July 02, 2007

Filmmaker Michael Moore has never been known for his subtleties. Many people hate his style, others prefer to focus on the material. I actually find him quite amusing, even though I know there must always be another side to the story he’s presenting. That said, he sometimes presents information so damning that it’s difficult not to sympathize with him and his cause. Sicko is such an example.

The attack in this instance goes towards the health care system in the United States. Moore starts by presenting heartfelt stories of common people who have lost a relative or who can’t have a decent way of life because of a certain illness, and that are directly related to the treatment they’ve received by health insurance companies and by their own country. A particular one involving a mother who brought her child to a hospital which wouldn’t treat her because they weren’t affiliated with their insurance company is downright chilling. So is one involving a husband and father who was denied the chance to get better because the transplant he needed was considered experimental and thus not covered. Moore unmasks how these companies work and the way in which they strive to save as much money as possible. Sure, every company does that, but when you’re dealing with human lives the values involved are more delicate and should be treated as such.

Moore, with his always acid voice-over, then goes on to involve the government and talks about politicians who have either encouraged a better health system or just plain oppose it. An attack on the current administration led by George W. Bush is, not surprisingly, present as well. This portion of the movie is where his ramblings become a bit messy and a lack of focus becomes apparent.

An interesting bit has the director traveling to Canada, Britain and France to find out about their health care system and expose how good they do and how ridiculous the “most powerful nation in the world” looks when compared to them. As it happens, they all have great benefits and barely pay for them (if at all). People don’t worry about the expenses related to getting sick, because there mostly aren’t any. In the U.S. medicine prices are extra orbital and the costs of getting medical attention are almost unbearable even for some upper-class families. Moore shows up himself to interview people, but he is more restrained than we would expect from him. The things he finds out are so “comical” by themselves that he doesn’t need to push them further.

The final portion of the flick, and by far the most controversial, has Moore taking some 9/11 rescue workers to Cuba where they can get medical help and cheap medicines. This bit is quite enlightening, and it is also highly emotional. Sure, it’s essentially Moore staging one of his big numbers, but the result in this instance is heart-wrenching. I found myself crying more than once during this documentary, something I certainly didn’t expect before seeing it.

Hopefully this piece of art, while not bringing anything new to the table, will put the topic back on the public’s awareness, and maybe, just maybe, something could be done. It is never too late to make a change, and as clichéd as that sounds, it is absolutely necessary in this matter.

“If you can find money to kill people, you can find money to help people.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter