CriticSociety- film reviews

Review

Bedazzled

Director

Stanley Donen

Year

1967

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, July 31, 2008

The “Faust” legend has never been funnier than in Peter Cook and Dudley Moore’s Bedazzled, the delicious 1967 comedy about a man who sells his soul to get a girl, and to, well, be who he doesn’t believe he can be. In this episodic comedy the matter of identity is surprisingly explored: the two main characters are: this man, Stanley Moon, who craves for a girl he can’t reach, and the devil, George Spiggott, who loves his job but longs for the grace of God.

In attempting to become what neither is meant to be, the comedy becomes bombastic and curiously poignant. Their conversations are overly cynical but somewhat candid, and the devil becomes the more sensitive of the two. It’s like watching two men stuck in successful jobs that they don’t really like. I see that at work every day, and it’s sadly funny.

Laughter explodes from the get-go, as Stanley, played by Dudley Moore, is offered by George, played by Peter Cook, the opportunity to get seven wishes in exchange for his soul. The wishes turn Stanley into anything he wants to be, always an attempt to conquer the love of waitress Margaret (Eleanor Bron), his co-worker that never even notices him, though their interaction is constant, as he’s the fast-food cook she yells the orders to.

Moore’s controlled performance is ideal for the naïve character, and makes his transformations completely credible: he goes from an intellectual to a multimillionaire to many more things that I won’t spoil, and he seems so sure of himself every time that it’s riotous. Bron is pulled into the fantasy complete with a transformed personality to suit the occasion. I must say she does seem like a different person every time.

Every scenario goes to the bleak side each time thanks to George, who sticks his nose at every turn and makes the ideal situation completely awry and inconvenient in the most unexpected ways. Realizing how things go wrong every time is hilarious. My favorite sequence is the one where Stanley contemplates, in complete impotence, how his wife (Margaret) is head-over-heels for her not quite constrained coach. Moore’s nuances are irresistible. Similarly riotous sequences include one about flies, one about guilt-ridden infidelities, and of course one about nuns. Peter Cook’s screenplay (from a story by him and Moore) never misses an opportunity. Stanley Donen directs in total respect for the material, and Moore provides the music. It’s a hit!

Outside of the seven wishes, as George and Stanley explore their frustrated situations, while slowing down a bit, it’s none the duller. George has a team working for him comprised by the seven deadly wishes in the form of people representing every sin. Each is funny enough, but the undeniable winners are Lust, played by Raquel Welch in a way that needs no introduction, and Envy, played by Barry Humphries uttering brilliantly ironic lines with such disdain that laughter can’t be helped.

While I didn’t quite enjoy the ending, as what happens is largely circumstantial, I did love the irony in it and the final message by the devil. Cook is a real treat to behold, and he suits this role a tee; Dudley Moore is fantastic; and if I was to sell my soul to the devil for a woman, Eleanor Bron would not be a bad choice, she’s bedazzling!

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Saw

Director

James Wan

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

When people ask me which genre I hate the most I always have a quick answer: anything gore-related, whether it’s a horror movie, a thriller, a slasher film, torture porn, etc; you get my drift, a gorefest. But then, as in everything, there are exceptions and that’s why I ultimately decided to give Saw a chance, a little film that got better reviews than expected, became a huge hit and spawned plenty of (not-so-good) sequels.

Dr. Lawrence Gordon (Cary Elwes) and Adam (Leigh Whannell) wake up in a bathroom that doesn’t seem to have been cleaned in years, tied with chains in opposite sides of the room and with no recollection of how they got there. Worse, there’s a corpse lying between them. Soon both men realize they are the latest victims of the “Jigsaw Killer”, who communicates with them and starts by delivering the rules of the game: Dr. Gordon must kill Adam before 6 o’clock or his wife Alison (Monica Potter) and daughter Diana (Makenzie Vega) will be murdered. As hell unleashes, Detective David Tapp (Danny Glover) tries to find and stop the killer.

James Wan directed from a screenplay by Whannell himself, based on a story they developed together. The movie doesn’t rely only on a clever premise, but lives up to it. The script they came up with is intelligent, original, exciting and unpredictable. It took a horribly overcooked genre and gave it new life. Wan’s direction is also praise-worthy. He makes some really fine choices such as when there’s a car chase and he doesn’t stick to the cliché of showing both cars go through the unthinkable; instead he fast-forwards the shots, goes to the point, and continues with the meaty stuff. Or to put it better… the creepy stuff. He also manages to build a lot of suspense, almost to an unbearable point.

Saw took me by surprise every step of the way. I see it as coming from the Fincher school, with a very gloomy atmosphere, an extremely eerie villain and a lot of twists and turns that only build towards a shocking (and excellent) finale. The movie is not as good when it gets away from that dirty bathroom, but it holds interest and never stops with its pulse-pounding elements. That said, if you pay a lot of attention you will find many contrivances. But going with the flow is the best approach to it; think about logic later.

Cinematographer David A. Armstrong has the difficult task of making things exciting inside a single room with two characters for most of the running time… and he delivers. Charlie Clouser’s score is also fitting.

Acting-wise, Cary Elwes comes short of what he was required to do, especially at the end when he goes over-the-top and becomes almost laughably bad. Leigh Whannell makes a strong counterpart and Danny Glober and Monica Potter keep things moving outside those four walls.

“Fuck this shit!”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Dark Knight

Director

Christopher Nolan

Year

2008

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, July 29, 2008

A typical comic book contains adventure and excitement that leave you with a good after-taste. It’s an entertaining piece, something to pass the time and an addition to the whole universe of the characters you’re reading about. Then there’s the graphic novels, those kind of separate pieces that work as stand-alone sagas, containing a different perspective on the same or a related universe, changing some elements to make them more poignant, more realistic and cruder. I used to read those too sometimes and I remember how close to home they were, how more real they made the superheroes appear, and how affecting the experience of reading them was. The Dark Knight has that exact same effect. It’s powerful as a whole, contains loads of information, has a darker mood, and makes it work independently from any related piece, namely its predecessor, Batman Begins (2005).

Writers David S. Goyer, Jonathan Nolan and Christopher Nolan have taken obligatory and melancholy elements from the Batman legend and used them for a script that shows pure love of cinema, as well as screenwriting passion. The film is outstanding on its own, and it’s also a Batman addition. But the latter is the least, incredibly.

The story explores the absurdity of a society accustomed to a vigilante, the impossibility of an anonymous hero doing the job that the police should do, and the obligatory spawn of psychopaths to confront the self-appointed crime-fighter. The opponent is no other than Batman’s most famous foe, The Joker, so successfully reincarnated countless times in comic books, TV shows and that notable film adaptation, Batman (1989), where he was so famously played in full-hammy mode by Jack Nicholson, who so made the character his own that guts were needed to dare include the character in the latest universe, not to mention the balls it should’ve taken to play him.

I was most concerned about the credibility of The Joker’s motivations, but they’re so well-defined that it’s also the most successful of the character’s aspects: he’s in to create mayhem, to practice the chaos theory to its full extent, and to prove that the worst can come from the best, and that freaks have many forms, even if the disguise is noble. The schemes he plays on the heroes, regardless of their implausibility, are successful in transforming the characters in ways that achieve catharsis of countless dramatic consequences, bringing to the film its greatest achievement. It’s all about dilemmas, and in the end, about power, and I bought it.

As is usually the case, the villain steals the show, and in this case even more so, for four reasons: the way The Joker is made the star by the script, giving him the most dialogue, the juicier scenes, and the control of the plot, which is welcomed because Bruce Wayne/Batman had all that in the previous film; the characterization, with unbearable makeup and amazing costumes; the controlled performance that explores full craziness without ever going over-the-top, by Heath Ledger; and Ledger’s sudden death, which came after the film’s production and before its release, bringing, sure as hell, much more box-office success to the film than it would have probably had, even though there’s no doubt it would have been, in any case, a super-smash. Ledger is scary and wonderful, seeing him is a guilty pleasure, and hearing him is the stuff that nightmares are made of. His death multiplies his chances for awards at the end of the year, but it would be unfair to claim he does not deserve them.

Christian Bale, on the other hand, has seen his screen time reduced, and this is not the kind of comic-book film that looks for any excuse to show him without his mask. Even though we see enough of him as Wayne, it’s as Batman that we see him most, and most of that time he’s not talking (thank God, because the husky voice he uses in disguise is laughable at times). We can always feel his struggle and dilemma, which is a strong asset, but there’s not much showcase for the actor, which is a pity. In fact, I regret seeing so little of his real self as Wayne, since there’s much of him as the playboy he pretends to be.

That great actor that usually accompanies him when not in disguise, Michael Caine playing his butler Alfred Pennyworth, embodies the conflict much more, as a sort of translator. His scenes though, as is a problem throughout, are largely explanatory. There’s so much going on, and so much concern that it can get confusing, that everything is thoroughly explained. This makes much of the middle section tiresome; a lot of simplifying would’ve helped. As it is, there’s the mafia, the government, the cops, the girl, the rival, the villain, the other villain, the chases, the fights, and it’s all well and clear in the end, but it’s a little bit too much. Sadly, to make it all fit, some little but crucial things are taken for granted or happen off-screen. Since I’m not the filmmaker, I’m not sure what I would’ve skipped, but it’s my job to say it’s so.

There’s a point in the film when it’s all clear and advancing quickly though. Things have gone out of hand; chaos reigns, Batman is tired, The Joker can’t be stopped. The DA, Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart), goes to extreme measures. His girlfriend, Bruce’s ex Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhaal), is secretly waiting for Wayne, though she’s quite unsure whom she should prefer, and which has the less risky job. The Joker is setting them all up. In the middle, there are unstoppable action scenes, as is expected, and they’re incredible; nothing looks unreal. The locations of Chicago where many of them were shot are mesmerizing, but the focus, thankfully, is not on the production design, but on the unobstructed action. Who cares whether Gotham City is called that for a reason? It’s what goes on in it that matters. And what Dent goes through is credible because of that; and it’s also a great showcase for Eckhart.

Completing the Grade-A cast are Gary Oldman, who also has his moments, Morgan Freeman, who performs mostly routine, and Eric Roberts, showing much panache in a short appearance. It’s so great to see so many known faces, and really believe they’re the guys they’re playing.

James Newton Howard and Hans Zimmer again provide the music and again underscore, which works because their tunes don’t get in the way, always finding the right moment to take center stage. Towards the end, I noticed the music most. In the last and great sequence, their music, the editing, and the last lines reminded me of a typical closing in a graphic novel. I, again, saw my teenage years’ dreams come true, and I’m very thankful for that.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of The Dark Knight (2008): Morris

Review

The Dark Knight

Director

Christopher Nolan

Year

2008

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, July 28, 2008

Batman Begins was my second favorite movie of 2005, a movie that resurrected a long-forgotten franchise and gave it new life; and which I considered, and still do, a masterpiece. I remember having watched its finale for the first time and having conflicting sentiments about the Joker being the next villain, since Jack Nicholson had left his indelible mark almost two decades ago and I feared the comparison would cloud this new treat. But I underestimated the Nolan brothers and the actor chosen to play the part. Their work in this sequel is beyond words, and now I’m terrified about the next installment living up to such high standards; but then again, I’d like to think I learned my lesson and should not underestimate them this time around. So… which was my favorite that year? Brokeback Mountain, starring some guy by the name of Heath Ledger.

Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) is still battling Gotham City’s criminals while living in a fancy penthouse with loyal butler Alfred (Michael Caine). Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman) is now running his enterprise while continuing to perfect his gadgets and Lt. James Gordon (Gary Oldman) has been working with him thoroughly, with the intention of putting the city’s entire mafia behind bars. Newly appointed D.A. Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart), who is dating Bruce’s childhood friend Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhaal), also joins forces with them, but the unexpected appearance of a dangerous figure known as The Joker (Heath Ledger) comes into the picture and threatens to make all their work pointless.

Christopher Nolan directed from a screenplay he wrote along with his brother Jonathan, based on a story also developed by David S. Goyer. The approach they took with this sequel, having established Batman’s origins in their previous collaboration, was of studying what would become of a city with a night vigilante working outside the law that had to come face-to-face with a nemesis that would have to up his ante to provide a ying to his yang; all of this set in a world where everyone is driven by fear and in which criminals have taken advantage of it. It’s a task of epic proportions, one that the director handles with impeccable expertise, taking an unlikely genre to the roughest of realities.

The Dark Knight is ultimately a hell of an entertaining movie, filled with dark undertones that stay with you even after the credits have rolled. It appears at first that the movie is all about Batman dealing with the Joker, a megalomaniac psychopath with no apparent motives other than creating chaos; but there’s a subtle symbiosis between their interaction that implicates a third character, the promising savior that is Harvey Dent, and whose ramifications slowly unravel until they start to become tangible and give way to the poignant and tragic finale. That’s where the real arc lays, one that gives the entire movie a new and more intricate meaning.

The Joker’s agenda is complex, and he continually surprises everyone around him, including us, with his genius plans and heartless behavior. But that’s exactly what he wants to challenge. Are his acts really inhuman? Is he the only one capable of showing such an unmerciful side? What is it that makes us tick? How far could we go? At one point he calls Batman a freak, just like him, and it makes us wonder. His rants and allusions are far-fetched, but sadly contain a touch of truth; problem is he needs to prove them by delving into radical anarchy and needs, wants, someone to stand up to him.

Without giving anything away I can simply say that there are plenty of brilliant set-pieces that border on being unbearably tense and in which characters are placed in impossible situations with different degrees of implications. The fact that such a complicated movie with so many threads makes complete sense and feels like one whole, clean package is one of many reasons to applaud Nolan and be thankful for his undeniable talent.

Equally apt is the way he handles the action scenes, with cinematographer Wally Pfister firmly on his side to provide as big a spectacle as such a story deserves. Many of these sequences were filmed in IMAX format, a complicated task that requires moving a huge and very heavy camera around. Having seen the movie in both its IMAX and 35mm formats I can only say the effort was well worth it; if you can, opt for the former (the truck scene alone is a wowzer). The visual display is breath-taking and only enhanced by James Newton Howard and Hans Zimmer’s remarkably ambitious score and the top-of-the art special effects.

Minor quibbles: Batman’s costume voice can come off a tad ridiculous at times, and Dent’s eventual makeup is, I don’t know, cartoon-y. Neither of these issues have any lasting or diminishing effect, but they’re there and there’s no way around ’em.

The cast is flawless. The centerpiece performance belongs to Heath Ledger, who infamously passed away before the movie’s release and didn’t live to see his creation join the ranks as one of the most unforgettable villains that have ever graced the big screen. His work goes beyond a gimmick, giving every manner, eye-roll, line reading or body movement a specific meaning. It’s outstanding and an instant classic. That said, he’s not the only one delivering the goods, for Aaron Eckhart’s work, although not as showy, is just as good. I’ve always admired him and I’m glad he was given the opportunity to show what he’s got in a big-budget extravaganza; remarkable work from top to bottom. Christian Bale is excellent once again, as are Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman and especially Gary Oldman; while Maggie Gyllenhaal proves to be a welcomed replacement for Katie Holmes. Eric Roberts, Cillian Murphy and Anthony Michael Hall also appear, joining a big ensemble of supporting players that are all up to the task.

“Why so serious?”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of The Dark Knight (2008): Groucho

Review

Hellboy II: The Golden Army

Director

Guillermo del Toro

Year

2008

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Saturday, July 26, 2008

Hellboy maintains the same overly extroverted personality, his explosive antics never diminishing and his constant insecurities emerging every now and then. We follow the character we already know quite well and care for him as much as before. He’s more human than many humans; and at that, he’s more fun than most. His love life is basically what we expected: a chain of uncontrollable fires in the form of his girlfriend Liz’s temper every time she has to deal with his recklessness that’s not unlike any guy’s. The supernatural is still real in this world, only hidden to the public eye. It’s hard to decide whether there’s more supernatural aspects at their office, the Bureau for Paranormal Research and Defense, than in the slums outside. That’s gotta be a fun job, and that’s for sure the way we see it.

We continue to follow the adventures of this guy from hell who wants to be a good guy in what’s an independent story from the first one, the same way as was handled in the comic book source by Mike Mignola. How awesome is it to have a sequel that doesn’t depend on its predecessor(s) to make sense, yet doesn’t forget its origins?

Even though most of the spirit is the same as in the first film, something has changed quite a bit, and we realize that from the get-go: Guillermo del Toro, with all the strengths that have characterized him through the years, is a stronger, better filmmaker, a man of countless skills and a universe of his own going on in his mind. Whether his intentions are fantastically serious or seriously fantastic, he’s in for making them surreal in a way that turns out enchanting no matter who you are or what you like. There’s enough reality to please the objective and enough fantasy to please the daydreamer, and the mixture is accomplished in equal measures.

Some creatures in Hellboy II resemble some from del Toro’s own Pan's Labyrinth (2006), and that’s no coincidence: Hellboy lives in the perfect universe for such things. As far as Mignola took his universe, he couldn’t have dreamed with a guy like del Toro to translate it into celluloid with so much inspiration that at least half of what’s presented came from his mind as if he’s plugged to Hellboy’s world and simply writing what’s dictated from it. The story by del Toro and Mignola is a typical action adventure, but it’s full of stuff to behold that constantly pleases the eye, while also making the procedures as entertaining as they get through the inimitable sense of humor—which, admittedly, sometimes goes to the conventional, but there’s so much of it that you won’t mind.

The story has a resentful Elf Prince, Nuada (Luke Goss), planning to awaken an invincible Golden Army to finish off the humans once and for all and regain the Earth for those he considers its rightful owners. Aside from the obvious implications, so obligatory nowadays, and so recurrent on film, about humans destroying the planet, the plot is typical: an incalculable threat, an iron will to fight it, and a gargantuan resolution. I barely noticed these things. I was quite busy enjoying the characters, their looks, their personalities, and their interactions. The one thing I regretted was the constant reality check; to me, watching a bit of Jimmy Kimmel’s show right in the middle of this piece serves more to remind me that this movie isn’t real rather than adding to its credibility. That happens all the time: brands, references and jokes that might work for some but constitute obstacles for my enjoyment. Minor quibble.

In the previous installment, Abe Sapien (played by the great Doug Jones) used to be my favorite supporting character. This time around, I felt betrayed by the way he was used as a plot device towards the end. Also, I didn’t get the “resignation scene” after the adventure was over. Another character, however, that of Johann Krauss (voice of Seth MacFarlane) was a fresh addition and, I think, quite unforgettable; I can’t wait to learn more about him. Selma Blair is still taking my breath away as Liz Sherman, and there’s no cooler guy in the world than Ron Perlman in general, and as Hellboy in particular. What a guy!

The show is endless, at least in the visual department. Kudos to everyone involved. Danny Elfman’s score, which I think is rather uncharacteristic of him, serves the movie right. Guillermo Navarro’s cinematography is very special and, talking about Mexicans, I wonder if the inclusion of the Tecate Light beer was something of an in-joke of del Toro’s. Irresistible, that while quite a professional, he shares Hellboy’s sense of humor. Also, no wonder.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Hancock

Director

Peter Berg

Year

2008

Rating

Reviewed by

Alejandro Legorreta a.k.a. Lego

Review date

Thursday, July 24, 2008

With so many superheroes flooding the screens this summer, it’s good and refreshing to see one that’s unconventional and does, somehow, his job; but most people end up hating him even after he’s punished the rowdy criminals.

Will Smith is John Hancock, a superhero that spends the night drinking and sleeping on a bus-stop bench; wakes up half drunk, half hung-over, and then he wrecks a good part of downtown L.A. while chasing and capturing a group of careless lawbreakers fleeing from the police in an SUV.

Hancock saves people and sends criminals to jail, but the people are not too happy because he is reckless and trashes cars, buildings and streets while doing it. To put a cherry on top of his latest stunt, he decides to dump the captured vehicle, occupants included, on top of the Capitol Records building antenna. I know all other superheroes do similar things at some point in time and nobody questions them for destroying whatever to save the damsel in distress or the cute baby. But, for some reason, the people have kept the tab on Hancock. He’s on the news but for the wrong reasons. News people announce that this time it’s going to cost seven plus million dollars to fix what he damaged and they also say that Hancock’s got a bunch of pending lawsuits of all his previous, similarly lackadaisical, actions.

On one occasion, trying to prevent an accident, he stands in front of a train coming at full speed and stops the convoy dead, with the obvious repercussions, as all other wagons continue to come and end up in a big, chaotic pile. Again, people question whether he should have done it like that, perhaps, some suggest, he should’ve just lifted the car where the guy was trapped and let the train continue its ride without causing any more damages.

The guy he saves from certain death at the train wreckage is Ray Embrey (Jason Bateman), who’s different from other people as he is obviously grateful that Hancock saved his life so it doesn’t matter to him that he destroyed a whole convoy in the process. This way, Ray gets another chance to see his wife Mary (Charlize Theron) and his son Aaron (Jae Head). Aaron is thrilled to see Hancock in person, but Mary is not too happy, and she even despises Ray for inviting that abomination to the family-only ritual of spaghetti night.

Ray starts getting familiar with the superhero’s predicament, and then he experiences it first hand as well, when all other people come to blame Hancock for his latest irresponsible actions. Ray is in debt with him and he doesn’t know how to pay back, so he offers to do some image improvement consulting for him. He feels he can help the troubled superhero. Hancock, at first, is reluctant to take it, but the social pressure is too much and, finally, he decides to accept it.

Initially, Ray points out that saving a stranded whale while trashing a multi-million dollar sail boat is not good for his image, nor is it to show up almost naked in front of an ice-cream bus where lots of young children usually flock. Also, Hancock is super strong and can fly, of course, but he looks and dresses like a vagabond, which doesn’t help his image, of being a thoughtless, unsympathetic law enforcer.

Ray devises a plan to help Hancock, which includes everything: from a new suit, a clean shaven face and a neat haircut, to a different, more “thankful” attitude towards regular crime fighters. And since he’s definitely broken the law, maybe spending some time in prison might help his image as well. Ray correctly predicts that, with Hancock in jail, crime will rise and people will come and beg him to return to his watch.

Up to this point, the movie is really fun and original; I would’ve loved to see this premise fully dissected, however, something changes along the way and the pitch suddenly shifts.

It is really difficult to write comprehensively about Hancock without spoiling it or at least mentioning that there is a plot twist. Yes, there is one that changes the whole focus on the superhero flick that then goes to explore some interesting choices such as eternal love, divine creation and the yin and the yang. So I won’t tell much more about the plot, and although I was enjoying the first approach, I’d say that I welcomed this transformation and found it creative and out of the ordinary. You might think, perhaps, that the excuses for the action scenes after the twist seem incomprehensive and that there is no real motivation other than to throw at us a bunch of special effects and explosions, but I found them rather intriguing, inventive and thought-provoking. So, the movie works effectively as what it is and unpretentiously flirts with some themes that seem much more pretentious.

At the end, Hancock is an action movie built to showcase Smith and Theron, and does this effectively. I can’t really think of anyone better than Will Smith to play the role of John Hancock. He is a great actor and he gets away with the superhero-with-the-rude-attitude performance. Charlize Theron is also perfectly cast in the role of Mary; she’s beautiful and her interaction with Smith definitely pays off.

The music by John Powell and songs from artists like Franz Ferdinand, M.I.A. and Ludacris give the movie an adequate hip-hop pace that seamlessly matches the mood and atmosphere.

So, if you want to steer clear from the DC and Marvel superhero duopoly, Hancock is definitely a good, fun alternative.

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of Hancock (2008): Groucho

Review

Batman Begins

Director

Christopher Nolan

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, July 23, 2008

Director Christopher Nolan made Memento (2000), Insomnia (2002) and this film in a five-year span. For a director to accomplish the task of delivering three such strong works in such a period of time takes guts, but most of all talent. And I have to say that, while every year I only consider two or three movies to be perfect, and while two of the three aforementioned ones achieve that status in my book… I guess I have a new idol. At least it’s someone that has established his name with a bang.

Billionaire Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) is in search of meaning after he became an orphan at an early age because of a criminal act that he blames on himself. He goes on a trip to no specific destination to find out what he can do with his anger. Henri Ducard (Liam Neeson) finds him and makes an offer to become a member of the League of Shadows, an organization led by fearful Ra’s Al Ghul (Ken Watanabe) where he eventually turns into a powerful weapon. But Bruce flees back to Gotham City, where his loyal butler Alfred (Michael Caine) is waiting for him. He then opts to combat injustice by his own means, which is also what his childhood friend Rachel (Katie Holmes), now an assistant DA, is fighting for. Bruce enlists the help of genius Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman) and also of Jim Gordon (Gary Oldman), the only honest cop in a mile. He starts by facing Carmine Falcone (Tom Wilkinson), the corrupt criminal leading the underworld mafia who has also been helping mysterious Dr. Jonathan Crane (Cillian Murphy).

Now that was a long premise. It’s just that, when describing this movie, you can’t just talk about a set-up, or about a specific plot point. Everything about it is important. Nolan and his collaborators opted to tell Batman’s story from scratch, which means that this movie happens in a different universe than the four previous big-screen treatments it has got. And it also means that it is bigger in scope than any others in the saga, as we trail Bruce from his childhood to his youth as he becomes the Batman and ultimately gets his hands dirty.

The movie’s main difference with its predecessors, and one of the reasons it’s so special, is that it is more real in its depiction. Well, as real as a movie based on a comic book (in this case created by Bob Kane) can be. And here’s where I want to address something that I think is quite important: even if it is the best Batman movie, and arguably the best comic book movie ever made, I have to admit that I am a big fan of Tim Burton’s two incarnations, especially of Batman Returns. But there’s barely any point of comparison between both. Burton was all about fantasy and being over-the-top, where his emphasis was more on the villains than the hero. But it worked in what it tried to accomplish and it had Burton written all over it. With Batman Begins we get gritty, we get rough, we get scary and we get Batman above all. It is dark, violent and it pulls no punches in the psychological traumas with which Bruce has always been haunted. This is one pissed Batman, and I loved it.

The movie does not conform to just entertain, but it also has a lot to say about fear, especially in a time when we’re mostly driven by it. Bruce is a man tormented by it, and he goes through a radical change throughout the movie in which the subject matter is treated carefully, even profoundly. Here’s a movie which has something to say, with characters that have worthy intentions and which is masterfully put together down to the last detail.

When a movie reaches such a high level of artistry it’s because of a conjunction of different factors. Nolan’s work behind the camera is superlative, with character scenes just as thrilling as action ones. He knows where he wants to take us and achieves it masterfully. That said, his collaboration with David S. Goyer to write the screenplay is what sets this movie apart. It is an extremely intelligent, overly engrossing and perfectly crafted manuscript. Every line of dialogue resonates and every plot thread has a purpose.

I was melancholic about not hearing Danny Elfman’s terrific Batman score this time around, but Nolan opted to go with James Newton Howard and Hans Zimmer instead and they sure delivered. Their work is assured and haunting.

Christian Bale is, in my opinion, the best Batman incarnation amongst the four actors that have tackled the part for the big screen. His transformation is completely believable and he is equally good as a tormented man looking for an answer as he is as a drunken playboy, a scared man looking for protection or even as the most menacing human creature in the city. The supporting cast is a drool-inducing parade of actors at their top form such as Michael Caine, Liam Neeson and Gary Oldman. And then there’s Morgan Freeman, Rutger Hauer, Katie Holmes, Cillian Murphy, Ken Watanabe and Tom Wilkinson. It’s difficult to pin-point who’s better, since everyone is perfectly suitable in their part.

“If you make yourself more than just a man, if you devote yourself to an ideal, you become something else entirely. Are you ready to begin?”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Godzilla, King of the Monsters!

Director

Ishirô Honda

Terry O. Morse

Year

1956

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, July 22, 2008

Distributing Godzilla (1954) in the United States, as it was, seemed impossible back in its day and, even though it can be argued that it had more to do with close-mindedness of distributors than of potential audiences, and that not even giving them a chance to accept the film as it was spoke of a limited vision all in al, it also can’t be denied that Americanizing it, disrespectfully though it was done, worked for audiences and made of Godzilla the famous monster that it is now in our side of the world. Yet, the monster’s camp status is owed in great part to this treatment. I’m not sure how it’s viewed in Japan, or if the original film is considered mildly serious over there, but more serious it is, and a much superior film.

The Americanization consisted of chopping the film, discarding many scenes, and adding new ones. The new ones are ludicrous: they star Raymond Burr in the role of Steve Martin, a reporter who happens to be in Tokyo when Godzilla attacks. Not only is his presence a coincidence, but he also happens to be a good friend of every major character, have enough connections to be informed of every major event as it happens and be in every right place at the right time, and have enough good fortune to be in the best spot to report on the happenings and yet come out unharmed—or harmed and martyred, which is even luckier.

Instead of the original storytelling style of the film, which presented many sides of society—science, militia, media, the people—in the form of major characters who all had something to do with the disaster, the American version has Burr narrating most of what’s going on, with the dialogue in Japanese muted by his narration, simply ignored, or heard, only to be followed by Burr asking someone next to him, “What was that?”, and the other guy translating. It’s funny, in general, but it’s particularly hilarious that Burr seems so incompetent yet so respected by everyone around, and that he’s so politically incorrect, like when he suggests that a guy who describes Godzilla has had “too much sake”.

The major characters, though major is an overstatement since their onscreen time has been dramatically reduced, are still Dr. Kyohei Yamane (Takashi Shimura), his daughter Emiko (Momoko Kôchi), her fiancée Dr. Daisuke Serizawa (Akihiko Hirata) and her real love, Hideto Ogata (Akira Takarada). The impact of Yamane’s contradiction, Serizawa’s conflict, Emiko and Ogata’s passion, and the way their stories intertwined, is diminished in favor of everyone being inexplicably drawn to Burr, actually wanting him around while they should instantly reject him, if they had any common sense. It’s no bad job to have reproduced some sets, or bits of them, to place Burr and a few extras and simulate their presence in original scenes. But it’s plain laughable to have people resembling Shimura or Takarada, shot from the back, interacting with Burr, the way they would never do if there was any logic in the world, even in a world with Godzilla. Oh, and let’s not forget the dubbing of some scenes that couldn’t (and thank God they didn’t find a way to) have Burr in them; it’s atrocious.

Now, all this is told from the strict point of view of having seen the original film first and then the American version second. I have tried to imagine the experience of watching this one only. Even if I hadn’t known that this was a reediting of an original Japanese film, I guess I would’ve guessed, and would’ve thought that it was ludicrous and would’ve regretted not watching the original first, even if it was out of my reach. Yet, the core is there: a giant dinosaur-like creature attacking Japan as a consequence of the atomic bombs. Despite the dubbing and the reduction of their scenes, the passionate performances are still there, as is the grand score by Akira Ifukube. Untouched are the top-notch production design, art direction, set decoration, visual effects, etc. And, of course, the monster is still scary, even if the scariest creature in this version if Raymond Burr.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Godzilla

Director

Ishirô Honda

Year

1954

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, July 17, 2008

I was missing on the history of Godzilla but I was intrigued for years: why did I respect so much the trademark American monster-movie monster, King Kong, while I had so little regard for its Japanese counterpart, that giant lizard that spawned countless sequels and imitators, and even a poorly regarded American reinvention in recent years? When I read something about it, at least to figure out where to start (I didn’t know that much!), I found the irresistible fact that the original was Japanese and then reedited into an American film with inserted scenes starring Raymond Burr! I had to see that with my own eyes. Luckily, I was able to snatch the two versions at once, and frankly, after seeing the first, original one, I didn’t feel much like watching the next, which I was sure would be quite inferior and disrespectful (I found the first one to be well worth of respect, which I didn’t expect). I did anyway, and I was right, and I’ll talk about that separately. For now, let me praise this imaginative piece that holds enough thrills to match the cult following it has had through the decades. Who hasn’t heard this famous monster’s name?

The original name, though, is Gojira. It is, according to the film, a legendary monster god that many villagers in Japan have feared forever. It’s also very real, popping out of the ocean after, according to scientists, the atomic bomb made its underwater habitat inhabitable. Whichever the case, Japan has to deal with a giant monster which has an insatiable hunger for destruction. It’s clear how the constant attacks against it only worsen its rage. Godzilla’s presence raises many issues: social, political and scientific.

The characters are neither generic—with “the government” or “the science institute” as protagonists, and only a few individual representatives of them that don’t have much human drama—nor specific—with protagonists that are usual citizens in the midst of the disaster representing the whole of the population. Instead, Godzilla is smart enough to tell its tale from the point of view of crucial characters who have a personal drama, painful points of view and haunting ghosts in their résumés. I enjoyed the film as a whole, concerning its visual effects and overall success when making the fantasy believable, but what I enjoyed the most was being immersed in the storylines of the people who both represent important niches of society and are directly related to the disaster.

These are four people whose stories intertwine beautifully: Paleontologist Kyohei Yamane (Takashi Shimura) is an authority concerning Godzilla, who explains its scientific justification and fears for the “monster’s” security, considering it invaluable for research and finding its destruction unforgivable, thus encountering a huge dilemma. His daughter Emiko (Momoko Kôchi) is as concerned as he is, and as if that wasn’t enough, she’s torn between two men: her fiancée and scientist Daisuke Serizawa (Akihiko Hirata), who just might have the solution against the monster (and a bigger dilemma than that of Yamane), and Lieutenant Hideto Ogata (Akira Takarada), who finds that there’s no other choice than to destroy Godzilla, which naturally causes disrupt between him and Yamane.

Emiko is the glue that holds these three together and the one who eventually manages a solution. Kôchi’s performance is invaluable. Shimura, whom I have admired since I first saw one of his performances in an Akira Kurosawa film and whom I didn’t know was in this film, which I can’t believe I didn’t, is as passionate as ever, and there’s no doubt that he’s more concerned about the problem than anyone else. The personal drama is so intense that there comes a point where it becomes the most important conflict of the film, and the viewer might not notice how long the sequences when Godzilla is offscreen are, and the reason is there’s nothing to worry about, because the entertainment provided by the human characters is top-notch.

The visual effects are uneven but mostly effective. While the monster itself doesn’t look quite realistic, the destruction he brings to buildings and streets is, or seems, perhaps because we want to believe it, as real as can be. Akira Ifukube’s music score is exemplary because it swings completely from monster tunes to poignant ones. After unforgiving bangs march along with the monster, all of a sudden we find ourselves walking among an ocean of wounded people, with Ifukube’s notes accompanying us and tearing us apart.

Perhaps, if seen closer, there’s not much logic in anything this movie has to offer, but what it does offer is entertainment, and there are no complaints there. I became a follower. I now get it.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Hellboy

Director

Guillermo del Toro

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, July 16, 2008

I had never heard of Hellboy before Mexican director Guillermo del Toro showed interest in directing a movie about him. Watching it was the first encounter I had with the unlikely superhero, but to be honest I would have never seen the movie had it not been for the reaction it got. Surprisingly, at least for me, it got good reviews. But unfortunately the movie came short of the expectations that I had built and I was more disappointed than enthralled.

The movie takes off in October 1944, when a group of Nazis tries to help Hitler by recruiting supernatural forces. Their intent fails, but not before a baby demon crosses the open portal. American Professor Bruttenholm (John Hurt) immediately adopts the baby. Hellboy (Ron Perlman) then grows up as an agent of the FBI Bureau of Paranormal Research and Defense, battling every type of evil non-human presence in the nation along with Liz (Selma Blair) and Abe Sapien (Doug Jones). It is until Rasputin (Karel Roden) resurrects that Hellboy faces his biggest challenge, as he wants to destroy the world.

Guillermo del Toro directed from his own screenplay, based on the comic book created by Mike Mignola. Del Toro had had Hellboy as his pet project for years, refusing to shoot it until a studio would accept previous Cronos collaborator Perlman in the lead role. No wonder he was so relentless, Perlman is a perfect hit for the character.

What sets Hellboy apart from other superhero movies is its tone. It doesn’t take itself seriously, as the continuous mentions of the comic book it is based upon prove, and if you took out all the fights here and there, the movie could be considered a comedy. Every character in the movie is grim, except for one big red fellow who keeps delivering funny one-liners and behaving in unpredictable ways. Just watch how he reacts when he gets jealous and decides to spy on Liz; priceless.

And yes, there’s also a love story thrown in there for good measure. Liz is a fire starter; she starts fires when she gets angry or excited. And Hellboy is immune to fire. You could say they’re made for each other, but it’s far more complicated than that. And scenes dealing with this subplot are quite touching.

One of the movie’s best assets is its visual grandeur. The atmosphere is accentuated by dark photography (courtesy of Guillermo Navarro) and gothic sets. Hellboy itself is a work of art courtesy of make-up artist Rick Baker; amazing job there. The evil monsters Hellboy has to battle are way over-the-top in terms of design, just as Del Toro likes them, but they work within the realms of the world that is presented from the first frame. Abe Sapien is particularly peculiar and quite the creation. Only technical flaw: some special effects look really fake, especially those that deal with fire; and there’s a lot of it in there.

Ultimately why I didn’t love the movie is because I never really got into it. Hellboy fights a lot of bad guys, but I never got that sense of excitement I should get from this sort of material. I didn’t really care about the characters and even when one main character died I wasn’t that moved. The movie also gets repetitive towards the end, and the big finale is too much for my taste. Fortunately it doesn’t last too long.

As I said before, Ron Perlman owns the character and makes of Hellboy a truly charismatic and unique hero. He has a blast and it shows. I’m glad a character actor got the chance to be front and center in a mainstream film like this, and even more glad that it paid off. John Hurt, Selma Blair, Doug Jones, Karel Roden, Jeffrey Tambor and all the supporting cast are solid.

“You should be running.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Hancock

Director

Peter Berg

Year

2008

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, July 15, 2008

I remember, during my years of great following of comic books, admiring a superhero more than any other: a DC Comics character, who was a partner of Superman in the Justice League of America, but with whom he didn’t look eye-to-eye; he was rude, reckless, sloppy and rather cocky. His name was Guy Gardner, and he was one of the ones to do everything in their power to save good ol’ Blue when he was being killed by the monstrous Doomsday. Not to get too technical or specific into that particular universe, which has nothing to do with Hancock, I’ll just say that the title character of this movie reminded me of that great guy. Sadly, I never understood why, but it definitely had something to do with image, Guy Gardner was soon shoved off and replaced by a neater, cleaner, more polite version of him. It had something to do with split personalities, I think. The cooler guy was dismissed. I hoped the same wouldn’t happen to Hancock, but it did. Bummer.

Still, even though I got the feeling that that’s what was going to happen since the film began, I hoped that the process of getting there would be interesting and entertaining enough to make it worth the while. It was such, but not for long. Hancock’s change is unendurable when he goes to jail, willingly, in order to redeem himself from causing more harm than good in the way of protecting justice, and he finds the people he has sent there, all of them angry at him, and actually thinking they can get some sort of rebound. Have they forgotten his indescribable powers? Also, he loses his beat. He’s there because a PR expert has suggested that he come clean with society, but he never considers that his rugged look is actually way cooler than a conventional superhero’s. Leaning him towards the conventional might work in the real world, but it doesn’t in the movie, which makes the character work against the actual product. That’s a dilemma.

Hancock tries to make a superhero scenario plausible. It shows how hard it would be to be one, with the constant responsibility and the difficulty of keeping a good image while destroying a few blocks to catch a thief. There’s no real innovation in this subject: Spider-Man deals with it all the time, and every superhero has dealt with the stigma at least once in their history. There’s also the issue of the law being unhappy about this undesired help. It’s not that they don’t appreciate a hand every now and then, but someone doing their job better and for free isn’t anyone’s idea of appreciated professionalism. No one would like it. In real life, a superhero would always be an awkward presence. Also, I don’t think anyone with such abilities would work for free. That makes this film as cartoonish as the best of them; I don’t complain, only I don’t think that was the intention.

Speaking of which, I struggled to identify with the PR man, who’s the second on board in Hancock, played with almighty heart by Jason Bateman (an actor I didn’t like much, but who has finally won me over). This guy, Ray, is a bigger hero than Hancock in this story because he guides him towards actual heroism. Yet, considering Ray’s life ambition—to create an altruistic organization that intends companies to actually give away one or more of their products in their entirety—it’s not hard to see that his guidance might be crooked. Not to say that his intentions are bad, but rather that his idealism can lead to worse consequences than the current situation of the world, which is, in my opinion, what eventually happens in both storylines: that of Hancock becoming a squeaky clean hero and that of Ray’s organization, AllHeart, having its logo displayed to the entire world whether they want it or not—I won’t explain how.

The redeeming value is a subplot full of revelation involving Ray’s wife, Mary (played by Charlize Theron), who seems to be giving Hancock more than a few intrigued glances, something that creates unsettlement and builds up toward a big surprise that opens up the plot to countless possibilities—which, incidentally, are poorly exploited, not that it matters much, because we’re still intrigued; too bad they use this as an excuse to create a conventionally gargantuan comic-book-inspired-movie fighting sequence that’s as illogical as the actual existence of a superhuman, of which we’re reminded during those visual effects-ridden minutes that simply don’t belong (just notice the makeup of Hancock’s rival!).

The film never makes up its mind. It starts as a joke, develops comically, quickly goes the action way, then gets dramatic, attempts at poignancy, tries to touch, reverts to comedy, and ends in cheesiness. What a task for the cinematographer, the editor and the musician—one John Powell, who never has enough time to present a heroic tune, or a dramatic one, or a comical one, but gets the job done quite well anyhow, the same as everyone else. Topping them all is the star, one Will Smith, who keeps proving that no matter the material, he’s up for it, ready to raise it up a level. I would’ve seen this [not quite waste of time of a] movie if I had heard it was terrible, if only to see him perform. I’m a follower, and I think much of the good time that this film is, because it’s loads of it, is owed to him. It’s good to know that Will Smith knows he’s so good and charges a good amount of money for it, unlike, as far as we’re concerned, his superpowered but self-underrating character, John Hancock.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of Hancock (2008): Lego

Review

WALL•E

Director

Andrew Stanton

Year

2008

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, July 14, 2008

Enough has been said about Pixar and how they came to save Disney and brought it to a whole new spectrum. The company has delivered year after year what could already be considered animated classics, some more than others but each with its own set of charms. I’ve always wondered how they can deal with the pressure of upping their previous efforts and maintaining the level of quality and heart. But somehow they do it, and WALL•E is Pixar’s latest... no, not movie... masterpiece.

Hundreds of years into the future, the human population has deserted Earth due to unlivable conditions caused by excessive pollution. WALL•E (voice of Ben Burtt) is the only survivor among many robots who were set to clean up the mess by lifting garbage and compacting it. His only company is a cockroach until a spaceship drops and leaves modern robot EVE (voice of Elissa Knight) behind. He is instantly enthralled but she takes her time to open to him, and as finally something unexpected happens that will ultimately take them to space and beyond.

Andrew Stanton directed from his own original screenplay. When I first saw the trailers for WALL•E (which admirably only showed portions of the first half hour) I didn’t much care about it, somehow the story of a lonely robot didn’t seem too appealing, but I underestimated Stanton’s touch. The movie takes us through unexpected paths that are always surprising and never predictable, conjuring a tale that can be read differently by kids and adults, but that ultimately works for everyone.

WALL•E starts with a 20-to-30-minutes portion that contains barely a line of dialogue and shows how this lovable robot spends his days picking up garbage, building skyscrapers, collecting human artifacts, recharging with solar rays and watching an old VHS copy of Hello Dolly!. It then shows how his life is turned upside down with the arrival of EVE. This portion recalls the work of such greats as Chaplin and Keaton albeit with the twist of taking place in the future and with robots involved. It is absolutely enthralling, involving, poignant, spectacular and masterfully executed to the very last detail. I was so in awe I really and truly had to hold back tears.

It is when both robots leave Earth that the movie drastically changes. I was horrified that the story wouldn’t be able to live up to what had preceded it and for a while I doubted. But Stanton does the impossible and creates a follow-up thread that actually holds its own. The sequences in space are nothing like those on Earth, but are perfect in their own particular way. This is where the conscious messages begin to unravel regarding what could happen if we continue to treat our planet as badly as we do and also if we continue to uncontrollably make our lives more comfortable with the advances in technology. I was also surprised that a mainstream American movie would have the balls to address its own culture’s problem with obesity. Hooray to that!

And yet every theme, every subplot, is treated merely as backdrop to what essentially is a beautiful love story. That’s the brilliance of it all. WALL•E is a love story about a naïve and gentle being who goes through every obstacle imaginable to be with the love of his life. That there’s an intelligent social undercurrent going on behind is a statement to Stanton’s talent for wanting to achieve too much... and succeeding.

Aside from the opening scenes introducing the title character, some of my favorite ones include WALL•E showing EVE the artifacts he has collected and stored, a magical dance in space and every scene involving the “crazy” robots or M-O. There are also welcomed references to 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) and the work of Arthur C. Clarke in more ways than one.

Technically speaking, the movie is flawless. The visuals, especially when at Earth, are breathtaking. But the animation is all-around pristine, what is usually described as a work of art. That a simple old robot can exude so many feelings speaks volumes about the quality amongst Pixar animators. Every setting, every character, every moment is rendered with careful precision and inspired artistry while being beautifully accompanied by a wondrous Thomas Newman score. Voice-work, which is scarce but comes from the likes of Sigourney Weaver, Kathy Najimy, John Ratzenberger and Jeff Garlin, is uniformly good.

Be sure to stay through the end credits, which are presented with such a clever and imaginative idea that it was the just like icing on the cake.

“I don’t want to survive, I want to live!”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of WALL•E (2008): Lego, Groucho

Review

Fiddler on the Roof

Director

Norman Jewison

Year

1971

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, July 10, 2008

The lightness of Fiddler on the Roof can almost make the viewer forget the centennial weight that lies upon it. It’s based upon the stage musical based upon the Sholem Aleichem original stories published in 1894 and which also went on to inspire a famous film in Yiddish by the name of Tevye, the dramatic story of the comic/tragic Jewish milkman and his daughters. In a much more mainstream entertainment-driven adaptation, the Broadway musical adapted the story using music and songs to celebrate the spirit of a man who couldn’t give up tradition but became forced to, little by little, by the change of times and the search for happiness by his daughters. It’s such a sweet point of view that it has admittedly enhanced the story, spread it around the world, and made it a classic. Some people don’t even know its origins.

Topol is the man who plays Tevye the dairyman, and he has become so associated with the role that it’s a much lesser known fact that the great Zero Mostel was probably more prominently associated to it on stage, but director Jewison chose Topol’s more subdued performance for the film, to much controversy. I’ll end the trivia here. I dare say the film adaptation is superior to the stage play because it actually transports the viewer to Tsarist Russia in a time when the Jewish community felt the danger of unsettlement but still lived up to their traditions and customs, “like a fiddler on the roof”.

As the story begins, Tevye is a happy man, though far from wealthy, who only wants to see his daughters marry good men and be happy, and counts on a matchmaker to achieve this for them. His eldest daughter, Tzeitel (Rosalind Harris), is more down-to-earth than her sisters, and knows that the lack of a dowry will get them no-good husbands, perhaps much older men who can afford the compromise and be fitful for them even against their wishes.

This comes true and Tzeitel is assigned to marry the butcher Lazar Wolf (Paul Mann), and that’s when the family revolution begins: she won’t have it, much to her father’s displeasure, and it’s eventually revealed that whom she really loves is young tailor Motel (Leonard Frey), who’s completely incapable of offering what her family deems suitable. However, Tevye gives in, and all hell breaks loose. Step by step, daughter by daughter, Tevye must struggle against his internal conflict breaking millennial traditions, as well as his wife’s (Norma Crane) approval at every turn, not to mention the social reaction and scorn.

Tevye holds conversations with God, often misquotes “the good book” and preaches tradition though he’s the first one to break it. He’s a spectacular character and all that this is about. But he’s also the representative of the Jewish people and their evolution. The responsibility of playing such a man is so huge that it comes as no surprise that Topol’s inspired, intense portrayal gave him immortality and forever associated him with the film. Most people probably won’t remember the name of the main character, but the name of the actor will instantly come to mind. His performance of “If I Were a Rich Man” has its own spot in immortality. The song, one of many by Jerry Block and Sheldon Harnick, is perfectly integrated with the story. Each and every one of the songs is memorable, telling the bittersweet story with joyous spirit note by note.

Oswald Morris photographed the picture with colorful realism that achieves the time-traveling experience for the viewer. The atmosphere is flawless, including costumes and production design. Jewison’s direction has a perfect rhythm and in no way becomes stagy though it never forgets its source. Only at the end does the film drag; though powerful, the melancholy theme it adopts only makes it lose tempo. But the realization of a story like this in cinema can only be applauded, and I’ve always been one to add a cheer.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

WALL•E

Director

Andrew Stanton

Year

2008

Rating

Reviewed by

Alejandro Legorreta a.k.a. Lego

Review date

Wednesday, July 09, 2008

I thought that, after the good reviews that Kung Fu Panda from their rival animation shop got, the folks at Disney/Pixar must have been somewhat nervous and impatiently waiting for the opening of their own summer delivery: WALL•E. But instead, now I believe they must have been comfortably sitting, leisurely sipping coffee and perhaps again scribbling on their napkins the plots for their next two or three masterpieces and just waiting, confidently, to unleash this sensitive, touching little robot upon us.

Comparisons in this case might be inevitable; but perhaps these should be avoided, for these two movies have less in common than what it might look like initially. I believe the only things in common are that they are computer animated, they were released in the summer of 2008 and they are extraordinary in their own practical universes. And although both take advantage of known plots, they do exploit them in the least anticipated of ways. Other than that, I must say that these two good movies are a thousand miles away from one another.

DreamWorks’s Kung Fu Panda is wonderful, but I am really amazed on what the people at Disney/Pixar have accomplished with WALL•E. They have come up with more than a few things, or rather a combination of them, which I might have considered tough, or better said, I couldn’t have possibly imagined myself.

For one, of course, they have managed to use machines, manmade mechanical artifacts, as their own central characters. But obviously the masterfulness didn’t stop with the daring pick. What's more, they had to manage giving WALL•E, EVE and the other robots something to be easily drawn to them. Whether it was in the form of character, self-awareness, or even consciousness, bestowing the robots with those personalities and emotions that go even beyond the human race, that make them feel even more human than humans, it is just a remarkable accomplishment. I know that this is not new and that, certainly, we have seen some inanimate objects brought to life by the magic of animated movies and, in some other cases, robots or computers in live action films where the premise had been very similar to the one seen here. The 1986 film, Short Circuit, comes to mind as one of these examples. However, Number 5, the robot from that movie, although shockingly similar in appearance to WALL•E (I know that I might not be the first one to make this connection), falls in a whole different category. So, what separates those characters from the ones here? Maybe, first, it’s the way WALL•E straightforwardly conveys his own experience, his poignant existence and how he does this naturally and seems even glad to do it, and then, our realization that this is a machine and, ultimately, that this is, actually, just an animation. After all that, it is just impossible not to care and fall for the lovable little robot. And if you add EVE’s also enthrallingly simple, but nonetheless effective and genuine expressions, and the other funny members of the renegade robot posse, it only amplifies the magnitude of this great accomplishment in animation and moviemaking.

Additionally, and to be honest with you, while I was watching this movie, I could not keep myself from thinking about how sad the story was and the gloomy scenario where everything was unfolding. Since, after creating those already unconventional characters, writer-director Andrew Stanton threw them into a science fiction formula mix, depicting this unwanted, menacing future that encompassed everything: from the ranges of holocaust and a devastated Earth, to a civilization composed by humanized live automatons and mechanized, lifeless, automated humans. But this did not matter, eventually the whole story takes over and this just seems like the right way to do this movie. Thankfully, this is Disney, so there isn’t a nuclear holocaust involved, but, should we expect the obligatory happy ending that these guys have gotten us used to? That is another great thing about this project, and without spoiling it for you, let me say that, although yes, this is Disney at its best, the result of this combination should come as a surprise from more than one angle at the time. Again, the fact that this comes from no other than Disney, only emphasizes this bold and daring proposition.

Finally, after last year’s successful Ratatouille, the streak of amazing productions continues for Disney/Pixar. Walt Disney once said: “I do not like to repeat successes, I like to go on to other things”. Well, I can say that following up the tale of a French mouse cook with a compelling story involving a little charismatic robot, Earth obliteration, references to Isaac Asimov’s “Three Laws of Robotics” and Clarke’s masterpiece is, definitely, moving on to something else. The success, however, should just come as a natural thing for them. And great part of this success is, clearly, due to writer-director-producer and Pixar’s mastermind Andrew Stanton. This is another difference between this and the DreamWorks production. The people behind Kung Fu Panda are a bunch of newcomers; however, Mr. Stanton adds this installment to his already impressive collection of hits that include Toy Story, Finding Nemo (2003), Monsters, Inc. (2001) and A Bug's Life (1998).

Another animated feature meant another visit to the movie theater for me and my family. After sitting restlessly throughout “Presto”, the usual Pixar (very funny by the way!) prelude short to the movie, my kids got still and ready for WALL•E, I’d like to think, in anticipation of an out of the ordinary experience to come. I don’t think my seven-year-old son even blinked and, as dialogue is scarce, we mostly avoided our standard why this? what was that? exchanges. On the other hand, my five-year-old daughter, after the first ten or fifteen minutes of the movie had already developed an instant, almost perpetual, connection with the little endearing robot. It was really thrilling to witness, because this connection really seemed way beyond the usual attraction that lively animated characters produce. She was completely immersed in the story and she suffered alongside WALL•E. Well, I don’t know if the correct verb is to suffer because, paradoxically, she looked like she was enjoying the moment. Whatever the case, she definitely underwent a moment that tested her own young emotions. From the beginning she was able to immediately assess the sadness of the humble robot’s lonely existence and she cried for him. She cried not just once, her tears rolled down her cheeks several times more, even as she offered her hand to that small being on the screen that seemed to need her as much as she needed him.

I do feel compelled to share this personal experience because I believe it summarizes what this movie accomplishes and what it is all about. It is sad, and it is moving; but it is in this sadness where this film finds its greatness.

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of WALL•E (2008): Morris, Groucho

Review

Gandhi

Director

Richard Attenborough

Year

1982

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, July 08, 2008

Gandhi is a word that has become a part of our vocabulary in many ways: it’s of course the surname of a hero, but it’s also a synonym for peace, non-violence and an example to follow, and yet it’s amazing how little many people know about the actual man whose name it was, yet it’s sufficient to know that it was a man who bore that name, because if someone was worthy of that honor, it must have meant that it was an enlightened man, someone really worthy, a man who wasn’t born just to be a man, but a symbol, a man who was born with a responsibility and the means to sustain it, a man who was to become much more than a man, even while living.

That’s the way it seems nowadays, and that’s the focus of Richard Attenborough’s biopic of this very real man, which begins with the symbol and goes back to the man, and how he became what he ended up representing, and how hard it was, yet how simple, because it doesn’t take more than a few principles, but the task is to live up to them, to be an example of them, and never let go no matter what.

This man is Mohandas K. Gandhi, an educated Indian who became well aware of the everyday injustice against his people in South Africa and fought against it, and learned the hard way that violence was not a means to achieve anything, and came up with the concept of non-violence as the mightiest force against violence, as the most powerful means of protest, and as a lifestyle. He became the most recognizable face in the struggle of Indians to be recognized as citizens of the British Empire, and, as stated before, and a well-known fact, a synonym for all that he fought for, if fighting is an admissible term in his case, which it’s in fact not, because that’s exactly what he was against.

In an old-fashioned way, most identifiable with David Lean, Attenborough directed John Briley’s screenplay sumptuously, deliberately, without any hurries, and in fact admittedly regretful of everything that couldn’t be included, because a life like this, with all its implications, cannot be encompassed in one telling, as stated in the introductory text. This story goes from Gandhi’s earlier struggles to the last, never losing a detail concerning his selfless actions, including hunger strikes and well-documented risks, in order to achieve peace for his people and his country.

It’s interesting to note Gandhi’s transformation from a distinguished Englishman to a most proud Indian, because circumstance took him into that path. One can hardly see the line that separates internal from external forces in his evolution. It could be said that he chose the role that he ended up representing, but it can also be argued that even though he forged his way, he ended up obliged to be what he ended up being, and perhaps he had his doubts along the way, but there wasn’t a way out.

Since so many people became influenced by his strength and determination, he couldn’t but behave exactly the way he was expected to, or everything he stood for would’ve crumbled. Thus, his life is an example, beside anything else, of congruency and strength. It can’t be imagined that it’s easy for a man to be what he meant for so many people, without much everyday sacrifice involved. How he found the strength to go on, particularly during his early stages, is intriguing; but how he was able to sustain what he had become, even during his later stages, in full support by powerful people, is not the easier to imagine, but in fact, I think, the harder.

One can only guess what a tribute like this film would’ve meant to the late Gandhi—he would probably have been indifferent to it—but it’s true that it helped establish his figure in the modern world. In parallel, nowadays it’s impossible to separate the actual character from the great actor who portrayed it, who was rather unknown to mainstream audiences back then and became a well-known face immediately: Ben Kingsley. The triumph of a man playing such a noble figure in such an outstanding way is quite fortunate to the actor in question, because to the mind of the viewer every distinguished asset of the character is inherent to the actor who gave himself up to the role, and in this case Kingsley was benefited. Not only does he look the same, but he acts the same, and one could say he shares the ideals. This is one of those performances that can hardly be disassociated from the real-life figure, and that’s a tribute to great acting and devotion to the profession.

Also worth applauding are everyone involved in making this look and feel so real yet so potent, people such as cinematographers Ronnie Taylor and Billy Williams, editor John Bloom, production designer Stuart Craig, everyone in the art direction and set decoration departments, as well as the makeup artists, costume designers, musician Ravi Shankar, and every one of Kingsley’s cast-mates, including John Gielgud, Alyque Padamsee, Martin Sheen, Candice Bergen, Rohini Hattangadi and Saeed Jaffrey among others.

Richard Attenborough gave almost everything he had up in order to make this film. It’s probably not the same kind of sacrifice that Gandhi made, but it’s in the same ballpark, and towards the same goal: to spread his message in the world. That Attenborough found pessimism and opposition in his quest is haunting. Perhaps the world will always struggle against the non-violence that Gandhi preached. But as long as he’s remembered, I’m sure some of his impact will remain, and that, in itself and its ramifications, is immeasurable.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Get Smart

Director

Peter Segal

Year

2008

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, July 07, 2008

I had high expectations for Get Smart. The original idea of doing a big-screen adaptation of the TV show sounded trite; but then the short, yet effective trailers came out and they made me laugh, there was hope. Unfortunately, at the end, there was the realization that the promotion included the best moments from an otherwise awful movie, moments that also worked best in the trailers than when watching them in the movie. What a cheat.

Maxwell Smart (Steve Carrell) works as an analyst at CONTROL, an American intelligence agency run by The Chief (Alan Arkin), with hopes of becoming an agent one day. When their central headquarters are attacked and the identity of all their agents compromised, he is appointed as Agent 86 and partnered with Agent 99 (Anne Hathaway) to infiltrate the KAOS organization and prevent a fatal attack that their chief operative Sigfried (Terence Stamp) has planned.

Peter Segal directed from a screenplay by Tom J. Astle and Matt Ember, based on the characters created by Mel Brooks and Buck Henry. When going to watch a movie like Get Smart, you certainly need to know what you’re getting into, leaving aside any pretence of intellectualism. That said, there’s “comedy” so idiotic that not even being in a receptive mood can handle it.

There’s a certain charm to Maxwell being considered incompetent (and actually being so at many tasks) while always being able to get out of every difficult situation. I have to admit certain scenes gave me chuckles and maybe a couple did make me laugh. But overall the flick is perfunctory. Maybe I’m not the right audience, or maybe I didn’t get it, I can’t tell. But from my point of view the script lacks the necessary oomph and director Segal is not able to make the most out of the concept. Get Smart is supposed to be a spoof of characters such as James Bond, but for my money the Austin Powers saga was much more successful.

There’s also action galore, but nothing that really stands out or that I can remember even from days of having watched the movie. There’s supposed to be comedic bits thrown in there for good measure, but stupid takes over for smarts. To make matters worse, there are some dramatic and romantic scenes thrown in the mix as well, neither of which work by a mile. Maxwell and Agent 99 don’t have much chemistry, and the subplot involving her plastic-surgery past is the kind of thing that studio chiefs must have surely come up with to have a young hot actress in the role; lame!

Steve Carrell’s subdued kind of comedy might’ve worked for the material if only more thought had been given to it, but I do blame him for many of the jokes falling flat. Veterans Alan Arkin, James Caan and Terence Stamp come and go, but leave no strong impression whatsoever. Anne Hathaway I love, and I think she’s pretty good regarding what she’s given, but she doesn’t shine much although she’s very watchable and makes the proceedings easier to go through. Dwayne Johnson, Masi Oka, Ken Davitian and Nate Torrence also have prominent roles. And Bill Murray has a small appearance for which the less said the better.

“Just once, but I don't think you expected him to lift you that high.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of Get Smart (2008): Groucho

Review

WALL•E

Director

Andrew Stanton

Year

2008

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Sunday, July 06, 2008

In the best tradition of poetically silent story-telling, WALL•E takes off. His is a post-apocalyptic world that in its decadence holds its beauty. Most of the skyscrapers of an ancient city (that looks like any modern city of today) are composed of garbage compressed into blocks and piled up in admirable order by a mechanic intelligence that we soon learn to be the title character, a short and adorable robot that is now the sole survivor, as far as we can tell, among thousands alike—robots that were left behind by humanity to clean up the mess that made the world inhabitable, in expectance of the time when Earth could hold life again and be called home by someone with flesh, brains, and soul.

But in the best Arthur C. Clarke mode, WALL•E has gained conscience and seems well-aware of his centuries-old reality, and doesn’t lose his cheer. He longs for friendship, love and human joy, but he never stops working. He has collected a good amount of spare parts from his expired colleagues, and he goes on and on, working in pro of humanity not knowing perhaps this goal, but fighting for it like he did, and never resting except at nights, when the sun isn’t around to energize him, during which he spends a while looking at a collection of interesting items that include a light bulb, a Rubik’s cube and a tape of Hello, Dolly!, which he watches over and over in hopeless longing for the same kind of joy, dance and love in his own “life”, which he’d be pitifully optimistic to expect to come true.

This is a segment so absolute despite being dialogue-less that the whole film could’ve been like it and no one would’ve complained. Even when the most unexpected event happens and comes as a breath of fresh air for the wild-eyed cleaning robot in Fantasia style, we get all that we need—stunning visuals, outstanding designs and mesmerizing music by Thomas Newman. Everything in this powerful segment is like this, from the very rusty robot that we embrace as protagonist, complete with expression-ridden eyes that are actually two moving lenses, to the sense of a world well beyond his expectations and ours, which we soon know we’re irreparably going to meet, though we’re not sure we want to. I will always regard WALL•E’s long introduction as one of the most astonishing sequences I have seen in a movie theater, and for that, I will always love this film.

There’s a downside to this mood, but that only talks of Andrew Stanton’s storytelling effectiveness: it’s distressingly sad, almost depressing, to witness the sole “survivor” of a lost world we know to be our own, and that’s for many reasons: because we’re so convinced that this is real we get homesick, even though we know we’ll walk out the movie theater in a few minutes and enjoy our “home sweet home” that will probably last at least for our lifetime; because we so feel the humanity in the title character that we can’t but feel for him, and fear for him, and dread that his only hope of happiness vanishes at a moment’s notice; and because we feel that we have the same hope for happiness that he does, because our existence is also continuously threatened, and there’s nothing we can do about it, and even when we’re happy and we’re going with it and we’re living our lives, we don’t know if we might lose it all momentarily, and it’s very likely that we will, but still we cling to what we experience because that’s the way it is, and that’s what defines us as humans.

The larger plot of WALL•E is for the viewer to discover, but it’s incredibly contrasting in that it goes to safer Disney/Pixar territory and it changes tone, mood and rhythm except for a few exquisite exceptions. That’s not to say that the story doesn’t work because it does, and it still speaks of human resiliency and many more identifiable aspects, like the tendency towards obesity and the forgetfulness of one’s origins in favor of an easier existence. I enjoyed this part because I wasn’t so worried about WALL•E’s fate anymore, but I still would have enjoyed better to see the story develop the way it started. And still there is enough space for a good amount of references to 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) to remind us that Pixar will never let its pieces just be what they seem, but much, much more than that.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of WALL•E (2008): Morris, Lego

Review

Be Kind Rewind

Director

Michel Gondry

Year

2008

Rating

Reviewed by

Alejandro Legorreta a.k.a. Lego

Review date

Friday, July 04, 2008

Passaic is an old town in eastern New Jersey, a town that must have seen better times in the past. Currently, it’s just another inexorably decaying neighborhood that’s resisting progress and change. As you could expect, there are some jewels from the past lingering around, dearly holding to one last gasp and waiting for an impossible miracle that might alter the course of evolution.

One of these little jewels, buried in a condemned building in the feeble town, is Be Kind Rewind, a video rental store owned by the ever single Elroy Fletcher (Danny Glover). Mos Def is Mike, Mr. Fletcher’s longtime store employee and protégé whose best friend is Jerry, played by Jack Black.

Jerry likes to hang out in the store with Mike and Mr. Fletcher. He lives in a trailer parked next to a big power plant. He has somehow convinced his friends that being constantly near to this power source might get their brains fried. So, when they visit him and while they are having a few beers and talking about women, they all wear protective helmets made out of pans, strainers and wire to shield them from the “harmful microwaves”.

Mr. Fletcher is facing eviction from the crumbling building because it violates almost every construction and safety rule there is and, of course, he doesn’t have the money to do the appropriate repairs and he’s also feeling the pressure from the developers that want to convert the whole block into brand new apartments. Danny Glover makes Mr. Fletcher seem oblivious of what is happening around him. It doesn’t help that for some reason he still clings to the past, whether it is in the form of VHS tapes or whether it is in his faith on some old, long-gone jazz legend that supposedly was born in his building a hundred years ago and made his neighborhood thrive. But, in the end, Mr. Fletcher is a down-to-earth guy. He understands that he has to change; he is just overly uninterested in doing it hurriedly. He wants to do it at his own pace, although he might end up doing it a little bit too late.

So, as Mr. Fletcher faces both exile and competition from the DVD format, he decides to embark on a research trip. He wants to scout the West Coast Video Store and find what it is that’s been limiting his business growth and success and, perhaps, sort out what’s been hampering his own affairs too.

Mr. Fletcher leaves Mike in charge of the store and is lucid enough to warn him about letting Jerry get too close to the store because he knows he spells trouble. And indeed, Mr. Fletcher was right because as soon as he is gone, the power plant actually comes to life and takes it on Jerry. It gets him magnetized and the worst happens afterwards, when he shows up at the store and accidentally erases all the tapes.

Mr. Fletcher has a guardian angel: Ms. Falewicz (Mia Farrow) gets to keep an eye on the odd couple and she’s with Mr. Fletcher on the phone every day while he’s gone. She visits the store and finds Jerry and Mike fighting over the erased tapes. She wants to rent Ghost Busters (1984) so she gives Mike until closing time to get her the movie and tidy up the store, or else she’ll tell Mr. Fletcher about his carelessness. Mike doesn’t want to let down his boss, but that movie is gone along with every other single title. It looks that it would be impossible to get another copy on VHS, so Mike comes up with the idea of shooting his own version of Ghost Busters, assuming that gullible Ms. Falewicz won’t notice the difference since she’s never seen a science fiction movie before.

Jerry, of course, doesn’t hesitate and immediately takes on the project as if it was his own and, together, they reenact key Ghost Busters scenes in what is the funniest sequence I’ve seen in quite some time. The scenes involving a photocopier and the “negative” button on the VHS camera are simply hilarious.

Soon, another customer requests Rush Hour 2 (2001) and Mike and Jerry recruit Alma (Meloni Diaz) to help them film this title as well. What comes next is predictable, as their “sweded” (Jerry claims that the movies are from the far, expensive country of Sweden) version of the movies fascinate whoever catches a glimpse. Jerry and Mike become a hit and they are even allowed to charge twenty bucks instead of the usual one for their unique work. Jerry, Mike and Alma create a system where customers can request movies sweded, “You name it, we shoot it!” they say and, alongside Mr. Fletcher, they get to film over 200 titles more in their own distinctive way. More movies, more customers, and higher prices mean more money, of course.

It looks like they might end up raising enough money to save the building. Will it be enough? Apparently, it is not for us to know that now.

Just the other day I was reminiscing about the time when I used to go to the video rental store to get my favorite movies, but these were all available just in VHS format or, even in some cases, the ill-fated Beta format. Video rental stores came as a blessing because you had a chance to see some of the movies you had missed. Yes, that was great, but what a pain in the ass it was to have to rewind the tapes before you returned them to the store! If you didn’t, you got fined. But it was not just the five plus minutes it took your VCR to do it, it was also that its precious heads got worn out by doing this repeatedly. So you had to pick your movies carefully and you had to make sure everyone in the household was there to see them in one show; repeated viewings were, definitely, out of the question.

For now, I think something like this inspired French writer-director Michel Gondry to create this movie. And, in any case, I think this is also why I didn’t get the point of Be Kind Rewind. I’m still wondering because this is the kind of movie that usually has a meaning. Heck, I actually feel that it has one; an underlying message that supersedes its own entertaining proposition. But I can’t find it. I searched hard, and I’m still searching. Is it a movie about movies? Is it about the thrill of watching movies? Or is it perhaps about the joy of making movies? Is it about nostalgia for the good ol’ times or the longing for the better times to come? I don’t know and, unfortunately, I haven’t been able to realize it yet.

Nevertheless, this movie has a heart, it’s funny and it is well made. The cast is particularly outstanding. Mos Def solidly leads as the soft-spoken Mike; Jack Black is his usual self: irreverent, funny and sometimes insightful; Danny Glover is perfect as the old-fashioned Mr. Fletcher and Meloni Diaz comes as a surprise, as she suddenly sparkles while she takes on and comes up with some good ideas for the team as well. Sigourney Weaver makes a quick cameo as Ms. Lawson who shows up to charge the trio on copyright infringement.

Anyway, if I had a chance, I would gladly spend twenty bucks and I would love to ask Mike, Jerry and Alma to swede Be Kind Rewind for me. I’m sure their version would have whatever this one lacks, or would lack, whatever this movie has in excess. I’d dare say that they would do a better job and would give us, solely, what this movie should’ve been all about in the first place, no more, no less.

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Get Smart

Director

Peter Segal

Year

2008

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, July 03, 2008

It seems like two of the most remarkable movies of the year, Speed Racer and Get Smart, have more than a little in common: they’re based on well-loved TV shows, they add an awkward plastic surgery to their plots, they’re disrespectful to their sources, they have bombastic visual effects that clearly cost quite a bit, and they suck in general.

That’s not saying much, but at least this one has Bill Murray in one of its scenes! It’s probably Murray’s worst onscreen moment in history, but even Murray’s worst is better than many people’s best. Truth is, I laughed twice during this movie, and Murray’s scene is not among those moments. But I would have kept him onscreen just for the sake of hoping for the best instead of doubtlessly knowing that it was hopeless.

I had faith in Get Smart. The TV series was clever and ingenious and had a continuous political undertone that made of it “entertainment for all ages”. I remember watching it as a child and finding Maxwell Smart to be an irresistible character, not dumb enough to be incompetent but not smart enough to be outstanding, yet with enough sense of humor to keep anyone around amused. His eternal companion, #99, was smarter and sexier, more fitting to the role of secret spy, and something of a platonic love for the star.

Wait a second: most of this has been kept! Smart, as played by Steve Carell, is indeed clever enough to find his way into the field work (instead of the desk job that he had for a while) but never quite fitting for that responsibility, #99 is smarter and sexier, and there is some political parody, so how could it go so terribly wrong?? By making it the typical modern comedy where slapstick counts more than cleverness, dumb means stupid and stupid means idiotic, and there’s no real “smart”. The comedy routines are worth two bits, and if there’s any fun in them I wouldn’t know, because most were so gruesome I had to look away.

Steve Carell is doubtlessly talented but he has a way of making some of his full comedic performances bland and unremarkable. In the role of Maxwell Smart, Agent 86 of CONTROL, he never manages to convince as a smart man playing dumb, a dumb man playing smart, or even a dumb man playing dumb; he just doesn’t go through, he never buys the character, and he’s not even to blame, because when you’ve got in your hands a character that says or does something clever in one scene and almost kills himself in the stupidest way possible in the next, there’s just no way to have faith in it. Don Adams had it much easier in the TV show, but he did it so well he became one of the most recognizable faces from that media.

As his boss, Alan Arkin has the best moments but doesn’t really fill the shoes of Edward Platt, which is not to say he doesn’t make the most of it. Terence Stamp and James Caan also have appearances which, while thankless, are more fun than watching the protagonist. Oh, and a very welcome presence comes in the form of Dwayne Johnson, who’s not much of a character here, but brings more life to the procedures than most anyone else.

As #86 and #99, Carell and Anne Hathaway have no chemistry and never seem to have any fun together. When they’re exchanging snappy dialogue, it looks like they’re praying for it to be all over soon. Hathaway was never as disappointing, by the way: she’s not sexy, funny or cute; I could’ve forbidden everything else easily, but this was just too much, they missed me by that much!

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of Get Smart (2008): Morris

Review

4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days

Director

Cristian Mungiu

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, July 02, 2008

There was much ballyhoo when Cannes Palm d’Or winner 4 luni, 3 saptamani si 2 zile, a Romanian film that gathered countless accolades around the world, was not chosen as one of the finalists to get a nomination for an Academy Award, so much so that after this omission the Academy decided to change its rules for its Foreign Language Film selection process. It’s yet to be seen what will become of the category, but there’s no doubt this little film has left an indelible mark wherever it’s been presented.

It’s 1987 Romania, during the Cold War, and student Otilia (Anamaria Marinca) decides to help her friend and roommate Gabita (Laura Vasiliu) have an abortion. It needs to be clandestinely performed, so they get the help of a man by the name of Bebe (Vlad Ivanov) who doesn’t turn out to be how they expected, and get immersed in a dangerous series of circumstances while Otilia has the added pressure of attending her boyfriend Adi’s (Alexandru Potocean) mother’s birthday.

Cristian Mungiu directed from his own screenplay. He says he crafted the movie on a story he was told by a friend which supposedly actually happened. It’s not difficult to believe it, for there must have been plenty of horrific stories such as this one during the Iron Curtain era or in any castratingly-governed country for that matter. The director pulls no punches in depicting a bleak portrait of his own, one that feels excruciatingly real.

In fact, if there is some aspect that deserves all the praise it can get it’s precisely this: its naturalistic representation. I was fascinated from the first frame regarding how easy-going Mungiu is at handling the camera, actors and dialogue. There are long takes that are hand-held and plenty others which are completely static. The effect each causes is precisely what the director intended, and the orchestration of each sequence is flawless. Take the one in the dormitory at the beginning; it establishes the characters and the environment they live in with such ease that it can’t but leave you in awe.

There’s a downside to this though, the technique wears out its welcome after a while and reaches overkill territory at times. Mungiu has a knack for letting long takes play to the point of frustration. The dinner scene, for example, has Otilia sitting there desperately wanting to be somewhere else while people around her talk nonsense; it is 10 minutes long and 5 would’ve been enough to put the message across. Ditto for Bebe’s threatening encounter with the girls at the hotel, which goes on for so long it becomes redundant.

I’m also mixed about the direction the script takes. Mungiu is certainly sending a damning message with his movie but decides to do so with an intimate story between two people and barely anyone else and in which (spoiler alert) everything ultimately goes well. Yes, the movie is successful at creating a frightening atmosphere in which you never know what’s going to happen and always think of the worst, heightening the tension to sometimes unbearable levels. But we never really get a grasp of what could happen to these people except for mentions of jail-time; we don’t see policemen or understand the scope of what the country is going through except for people behaving abnormally rude. Having the abortion go wrong and dealing with the consequences would’ve been more predictable, yes, but I think also more powerful.

That said, the movie is not only about politics and breaking the law, it is also a highly interesting portrait of a woman who is not willing to give up and who wants to help her friend at all costs while also making her reflect about her own life. This is an extraordinary woman who doesn’t judge, just as Mungiu doesn’t, but who is there for those who need her.

Anamaria Marina’s portrayal of Otilia is chilling and an absolute work of art. She and Laura Vasiliua were non-actors who the director chose because of their unaffected acting. It paid off. Both are terrific and completely credible in their very different performances. Veteran Vlad Ivanov also leaves a haunting impression as Bebe, and I also enjoyed Alexandru Potocean and Luminita Gheorghiu as his mother.

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Darjeeling Limited

Director

Wes Anderson

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, July 01, 2008

Wes Anderson is a master of filmmaking mainly for one reason: he has managed to portray angst onscreen more clearly than possibly anyone else in history. I don’t find his films entirely satisfying because they’re so distant, like an introverted person you don’t have any intention of interacting with but whom, after being forced by circumstance to do so, you find to be quite an enthralling human being who hides so much richness of experience and interpretation that you can’t but want for more, which you might never get.

After meeting such a person, the feeling usually is that of lost potential, which he or she is not to blame for, because sharing is not an obligation, nor something anyone can demand from someone else, but still you’re left wondering what else this person hides or what’s the reason for hiding it. Wes Anderson’s films are like such people, powerful inside but concealed outside, undeniably brilliant but not obviously so, and frustratingly shy in the outcome, yet well-worth meeting. I for one have never regretted meeting such a person, or watching such a film.

The Darjeeling Limited could well be a voyage inside the psychology of its leading characters, three brothers who never seem to quite grasp reality because they’re so profoundly affected by their own personal world which they have created both individually and collectively, not quite getting along as clichéd siblings, but unwillingly and helplessly sharing so much experience and disturbance, that they can’t but be attached to each other despite the long periods of time during which they lose contact with each other. They meet in the title train to achieve what one of them, Francis, hopes will be a spiritual journey. Photographed under a very special light by Robert D. Yeoman and heard through a mosaic of remarkable Indian music and songs, the journey as a film is quite the spiritual type.

Spiritual though the trip is attempted to be, the three brothers are constantly under the influence of some sort of medication, each for a different reason, all hypochondriacs who nevertheless don’t complain about their ailments, but instead seem to be causing their own pain, and using that as an excuse to be controlled by varied drugs whose possible side effects they don’t know well, and to which, given the uncontrollable no-prescription-needed access they have to in India, where they are at the moment, they’re addicted.

The brothers are so into themselves, meaning each into himself, that it’s funny that they don’t hate each other immediately, but that unquestionable fact is what prevents the viewers from disliking them. Only this way can we spend enough time with them to be able to eventually feel something for them because we achieve the basic discovery of their inner personalities so as to want to follow them along their journey despite their frustrating tendency to run away from anything that might oblige them to come out of their shells and show their weaknesses to the world, even if disguised as strengths.

Whenever one of them has a chance to prove to the world, in this case represented by the other two, that he’s capable of reaching out in order to contribute in a way that will potentially create a virtuous circle that will eventually benefit him more than anyone else, they don’t. Whatever good they do, they usually spoil it by making it obnoxious. And whatever’s admirable, they don’t share it with the rest, as if being good at something or creating any kind of broad sympathy, like, for instance, the typically admirable task of making love to a girl one just met, they do it in secret, and hide it in shame.

Otherwise, they seem proud of their eccentricity, their uniqueness, and their lack of will to belong. They don’t break by opening up and pouring out their feelings, but by connecting in a very personal and unconventional way to their brothers, usually one on one, with the other left outside, only to be informed later by one of the two, the one that listened, who is later seen as a traitor, but also, simultaneously, thanked for the indiscretion, because that’s the only way to communicate, and it is not these guys’ fault.

Deep inside, but at the same time rather superficially, the story is about the upbringing and how it affects the entire life of people. There’s a lot about the father, but it’s not a nostalgic reminiscence or even a collection of memories of anything the father did or didn’t do; it’s all symbolic, like the use of the father’s personal objects, the fate of his car, or the current situation of his baggage, which has been split among the brothers and is their strongest connection (and the film’s most recognizable motif). The mother is a whole different story, and getting to know her is one of the film’s greatest assets, because it lights things a little both in that it relieves the stress and in that it answers some questions. She’s played by Anjelica Huston in one short but quite inspired appearance.

The brothers are played by Owen Wilson, Adrien Brody and Jason Schwartzman. To me, getting into who they are and what are their peculiarities is getting into spoilerland, so let me say enough by stating that they do seem brothers physically and otherwise, yet they have their own personal definitions so well delineated that it’s impossible to confuse one with the other, or to attribute any of one’s characteristics to one of the other two, because Anderson has defined them so well, and in their strangeness they’re so truthful. The three are outstanding, but in his amiable numbness, I admired Schwartzman the most.

Schwartzman, by the way, also co-scripted along with Anderson and Roman Coppola. That must have been some draining writing, and I wouldn’t be surprised if each of them were represented by one of the onscreen brothers. I wonder if their self-exploration made them feel like they were inside an interminable tunnel which in turn was buried in the heart of a strange but irresistibly peculiar world, like the Darjeeling Limited in India.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter