CriticSociety- film reviews

Review

The Talk of the Town

Director

George Stevens

Year

1942

Rating

Reviewed by

a.k.a. Jacinda

Review date

Thursday, August 30, 2001

When the Holmes Woolen Mill burns down, Leopold Dilg (Cary Grant) is charged with arson and murder. The corrupt mayor tries everything for a possible conviction because the outspoken man got into the way of his career. Dilg breaks out of prison and hides in the house of his old school friend Nora Shelley (Jean Arthur). The same night law professor Lightcap (Ronald Colman) arrives to move into Nora’s house for a summer rental. Convinced of Dilg’s innocence, Nora tries to talk the professor into defending the falsely accused. But Lightcap prefers to stay passive since he believes in the justice of the law system. The chaos is perfect when the police gets on Dilg’s trail.

The Talk of the Town is a screwball comedy of a different kind. Suspense, romance, philosophy, humor: this movie has it all. The witty script combines all these elements in an intelligent way. One of the most notable aspects of the movie is the constellation of the three lead characters.

The unlikely trio is held together by the ever so radiant presence of Jean Arthur. Arthur is dead-on perfect. Her lines evolve into the funniest moments of the movie. Cary Grant plays the anarchic fugitive who feels betrayed by the system. Arthur has to make up for his impulsiveness again and again. However his attractiveness only grows with his failures. In contrast Roger Colman’s Lightcap is a man of reason. Colman’s portrayal of the absent-minded professor is remarkably charming.

These men‘s different point of views cause severe debates. Law theory vs. law practice. The discourse on justice is a welcomed change in the genre. The arguments are in a way serious but manage to keep a humorous undertone.

The major asset of The Talk of the Town is the perfect chemistry between Arthur, Grant and Coleman. Even though Arthur becomes the love interest of both men, this issue never gets between them. In fact, the romantic aspects are very subtle. I figured it would be hard to find a proper solution to their relationship. But the outcome of the movie feels natural. The characters of Dilg and Lightcap are perfectly balanced while Nora Shelley is stealing the show.

George Steven’s The Talk of the Town is a witty screwball classic with a brilliant ensemble cast. The stand-out performance goes by the name of Jean Arthur. This charming crime story is something to think about.. and to laugh about!


CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Moulin Rouge!

Director

Baz Luhrmann

Year

2001

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Tuesday, August 28, 2001

In an era where musicals have almost vanished, director Baz Luhrmann was brave enough to create one of his own. He not only shows why this kind of movies was so popular decades ago, but he also reinvents the genre and gives it a flavor of its own. Moulin Rouge is as unique as a movie can get, and for that only, it instantly becomes a must.

The story is simple. It is 19th century Paris and a young penniless writer (Ewan McGregor) gets in the way of a group of bohemian characters (which include Toulouse-Lautrec, played by John Leguizamo) who are preparing a play to be performed at the Moulin Rouge. Thus he gets the chance to meet courtesan Satine (Nicole Kidman)... and it’s love at first sight. The problem is a wealthy duke (Richard Roxburgh), who also wants her. He happens to be an important investor, so the club’s owner, Zidler (Jim Broadbent), must please him in any way he likes. A tragic story soon evolves.

The movie is not so relevant for its plot rather than for its style. Baz Luhrmann had already showed us what he was capable of in his two previous outings. We also knew he was different. Using more edits than any other movie in the past few years, and requiring the most complex camera angles, he manages to create a world like nothing we’ve seen before. There’s so much energy going on you’d think the screen might explode any time soon. There were certainly a bit too many slow-motion shots for my taste, but here you don’t really care. It is all about excess.

Much has been said as well about the way the movie employs past hits from every decade as the songs the characters sing. Because the movie is a fantasy you accept what you’re shown and you simply go for it. It is a crazy idea that works to perfection.

There are four musical numbers throughout the movie that rose above all of the others (at least for me) and that I wouldn’t hesitate to call brilliant. They’re so good that they affect the rest of the movie, as you don’t want them to finish and have to go through a number of rather slow scenes to get to the next one. Fortunately they’re spread throughout the entire running length, so you’re always surprised and interested and immersed.

The first one has to be the first 12-15 minutes of the movie. A perfect introduction for what is to come. Wild, colorful, extravagant, with the inspired mixing of Patti LaBelle’s “Lady Marmalade” and Nirvana’s “Smells Like Teen Spirit” in a rather peculiar way.

Then comes the “Elephant Love Medley”, a blend of about a dozen love songs (including such as The Beatles’s “All You Need is Love”, David Bowies’s “Heroes”, Elton John’s “Your Song” and Dolly Parton’s “I Will Always Love You”) that Ewan and Nicole sing to each other in what becomes simply the best and most unforgettable sequence of the movie. Unbelievable!

Third is the “Roxanne Tango” musical number (inspired by Sting and Marianito Tores). As intense, erotic and suspenseful as a sequence like this can get. Masterfully performed, emotionally wrenching and very well shot and edited.

Finally, I have to mention the last half hour of the movie, although I don’t want to spoil anything for you so I’ll just say you’re in for a roller-coaster of a ride.

Part of the success of the movie is the way the songs have been so masterfully updated and converted into something completely different from their original versions. From the orchestration to the voices, they are simply wonderful and a very good job was done in this arena.

I have to say Ewan McGregor and Nicole Kidman are at the top of their forms. Both of them. Much of the attention has been surrounded after Nicole, but it is Ewan who I think steals the movie from anyone else. He’s perfect as this romantic leading man who woes Satine and is not afraid of showing his true feelings at any moment. Nicole is ravishing, luminous, funny, you mention it. She’s just wonderful. Supporting players do an excellent job as well.

All in all, a magical, modern, eye-popping, one-of-a-kind musical experience!

“This story is about truth, beauty, freedom; but above all things, this story is about love.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Amélie

Director

Jean-Pierre Jeunet

Year

2001

Rating

Reviewed by

a.k.a. Jacinda

Review date

Monday, August 27, 2001

Immersing one’s hand in a sack of grain, cracking the crust of a crème brulée with a tea spoon, skipping stones on the Canal Saint Martin.. Amélie loves the simple things in life and so does Jean-Pierre Jeunet.

Amélie Poulain (Audrey Tautou) is a shy young woman that grew up in isolation from other children. One day destiny decides that Amélie should give up her solitude to step out into the world. Through her vivid imagination she starts to straighten out other people’s lives. When Amélie meets Nico (Mathieu Kassovitz) she believes to have found her soul mate. Step by step she tries to win over his heart.

I do not want to give away further details of the story. Amélie’s universe is filled with odd characters and weird incidents. Magic is the word that describes Amélie best. Jean-Pierre Jeunet’s visual style is something you have to experience for yourself. There are no limits to his creativity. He surprises us with breath-taking special effects every other minute. This is a combination I have never seen before.

The movie has a fairy tale feeling to it but it is also a modern story of the city. Paris takes on an important role while the musical score creates a lovely and incomparably French atmosphere. Jean-Pierre Jeunet collected all sorts of weird anecdotes and stories over the years. The idea of Amélie made it possible to combine them in one fabulous movie. Hardly is there a movie which is capable of capturing the essence of life in such an enchanting way. It is pure joie de vivre sparkling in Amélie’s eyes.

Audrey Tautou is a genuine find. She captures Amélie’s astonishment at the world in a magnificent way. There is such an incredible warmness to her character – especially in the scenes in which she tries to attract Nico’s attention. Amélie never feels like a weirdo, we rather find pieces of ourselves in her.

Amélie from Montmartre is not just a movie, it is a one-of-a-kind experience. A timeless classic that will possibly change the way you see the world!

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Edward Scissorhands

Director

Tim Burton

Year

1990

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Sunday, August 26, 2001

We all know Tim Burton’s a genius. At least that’s what I think. Only Tim is capable of pulling off whatever weird story has gotten into his head and doing so with impressive and rare visuals that never cease to surprise us. Edward Scissorhands is, for me, his definite masterpiece. A movie so rich in so many levels that comparing it to anything else I’ve seen in my life would be impossible.

The movie tells the tale of a man-made young guy (Johnny Depp), whose creator (Vincent Price) dies just before putting hands on him. Thus, Edward’s hands remain as scissors for the rest of his existence. One day, a nice Avon lady (Dianne Weist) finds him and brings him to her home, where her husband (Alan Arkin), son and daughter (Winona Ryder) receive him with different responses. Suddenly, Edward becomes the talk of the town, but it ain’t gonna be that easy for him to adapt to this new environment.

Where do I start? This is that kind of movie which one loves so much that I really really really have no words to express my feelings. This is one of the most beautiful enchanting stories I’ve ever seen. It is also one of the most unique movies I’ve ever witnessed. And the love story at the core left me breathless. It is haunting, poignant, compelling, subtle and one of the most amazing romances ever put on the big screen.

The movie is part fable part social satire. It is a rare mixture, but it is to be expected of Tim Burton. That’s what he does best. A fable because the whole story has a fairy tale-like feel to it. The world Burton portrays might not exist. It is all product of his imaginative mind, but is it the perfect way to tell his story. Burton paints a portrait of American suburbia that is flat out hilarious. The way people interact, the way they respond to Edward, the way they’re influenced by each other, the way things might not be as they look. It is all shown here in full splendor with a wicked sense of humor.

Edward Scissorhands might also serve as a metaphor of how difficult it is for a young lad to adapt to the world surrounding him. We all know how difficult it is to grow up. Edward embodies that uncertainty. He has never seen the world. He is suddenly shown how things really are. It is not a pretty picture. Alienation, love, hate, confused feelings, so much going on. He’s special, he’s got a special talent that makes him unique. But, as a matter of fact, aren’t we all supposed to be special and unique? Or are we just like others want us to be? Do we really feel that we are one-of-a-kind? We are, you know. And there’s nothing more satisfying than realizing that.

Johnny Depp plays Edward in what is one of his best performances. He barely talks, but it is through his movements and expressions that we understand him and know how he’s feeling. Dianne Weist is extremely likable as the woman who accepts him into her home just to help him. Winona Ryder is simply marvelous as the beautiful and confused daughter, and Kathy Bates is a lot of fun to watch as one of the neighbors.

Danny Elfman’s score actually deserves a paragraph of its own, because it simply is grand, splendid and touching all at the same time. Blended with the jaw-droppingly impressive visual style and scenarios and makeup and costumes, the movie has it all going for it.

You know, I could go on forever talking about Edward Scissorhands. It is just one of those experiences you can’t stop thinking about. Like that snowing scene, which will stay in my mind forever. It ends in a perfect note that embodies everything Burton wanted to tell us. It is enchanting, it is magical, it is a masterpiece. And I can’t get this stupid smile out of my face!

“I can’t”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Gift

Director

Sam Raimi

Year

2000

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Saturday, August 25, 2001

Widow Annie Wilson (Cate Blanchett), gifted with psychic abilities, makes a living by telling some people in her Savannah town things about their present, their past and their future. When the daughter of a local rich man disappears, the police goes to Annie hoping for some answers after their investigation has mostly failed. Here’s where things start to get ugly.

An excellent thriller, The Gift presents a set of very interesting characters through its development: the good teacher (Greg Kinnear), his manipulative fiancée (Katie Holmes), an abused wife (Hilary Swank), her abusing husband (Keanu Reeves) and a psychologically disturbed young man (Giovanni Ribisi). Swank and Reeves are terrific, Holmes convincing in a role most unlike her “Dawson’s Creek” character, Blanchett perfectly delicate as the psychic, Kinnear good as usual and Ribisi extraordinary as the real raison d’ être of this story.

Though the film does turn a little bit predictable and clichéd towards the end, it manages to keep tension at its top for most of its running time. Most of the characters are pretty disturbing, which creates a most dark atmosphere with quite scary results. There are jumpy moments but the psychological horror rules here.

Two surprise endings and a morale lesson at the end make up for all the flaws that might be found throughout the film. A terrific Blanchett in the lead and support from great actors couldn’t help more. Sam Raimi succeeds in a conventional but in many ways original horror film that should be seen for all it has going for it.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Odd Couple

Director

Gene Saks

Year

1968

Rating

Reviewed by

a.k.a. Jacinda

Review date

Thursday, August 23, 2001

Two of the most loveable actors ever team up as an unlikely duo in this hilarious comedy. The Odd Couple ultimately brought together the names Lemmon and Matthau – even though this was not their first collaboration. It was Billy Wilder who cast them together in The Fortune Cookie earlier in 1966. The Odd Couple is based on Neil Simon’s successful theater play and tells the story of a very special friendship.

When Felix Unger (Jack Lemmon) is left by his wife his perfect world falls into pieces. His buddies fear he could even try to kill himself and decide that it would be best for him to stay away from his wife. Therefore Oscar Madison (Walter Matthau), a divorced sports reporter now living on his own, invites Felix to live with him in his apartment. Felix turns the chaotic home into a splendid place and spends his time cooking and cleaning up the apartment. But soon Oscar, who tends to lose his temper easily, realizes that living with Mr. Perfect is too much to bear!

Two worlds collide when neurotic Felix steps into the life of unreliable Oscar. This is where the comedy starts. Not only does Felix spend most of his time keeping the household, he also sports attitudes you would expect from a stereotypical housewife. Hilarious scenes derive from this idea. When Felix tries to change Oscar’s habits heated arguments about the origin of spaghetti and the appropriate time for a man to be home arise. In the end we get to see some of the funniest fights in film history.

My favorite scene is the one that shows Matthau throwing spaghetti on the wall while Lemmon imagines the horrible results if no one cleans up the mess. And he certainly won’t do it! Certainly not! This is one of my favorite comedies featuring two of my most beloved actors. I love the opening sequence in which Lemmon’s futile attempts to commit suicide fail while the unforgettable theme music plays.

Even though the conflict between the characters is the essence of this comedy, the tragic elements of Felix’s life take this movie to a higher level. Once again Jack Lemmon masterfully combines tragic and comic elements in his persona. Felix Unger is a modern antihero destined to suffer from his state of being. His dilemma adds bittersweet undertones to the movie.

Lemmon’s performance is funny and touching at the same time which is rarely achieved by an actor. Combined with Matthau’s over-the-top portrayal of the grumpy Oscar this odd couple undoubtedly deserves its name.

Every minute of Gene Saks’s The Odd Couple delivers nothing but a good time. It is one of the most intelligent comedies ever made. Besides, you won’t find a team like this in ages. Lemmon and Matthau, a perfect match!

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Ninotchka

Director

Ernst Lubitsch

Year

1939

Rating

Reviewed by

a.k.a. Jacinda

Review date

Monday, August 20, 2001

What is the Lubitsch touch?

A label to describe Ernst Lubitsch’s unique cinematic style. The phrase was invented by studio PR men trying to establish Lubitsch as a brand name of quality. The Lubitsch touch has remained a mystery over the years. There are many approaches to the phrase, but none of them is able to capture the full essence of what the Lubitsch touch means.

Ninotchka tells the story of the three Russian comrades Iranoff (Sig Ruman), Buljanoff (Felix Bressart) and Kopalski (Alexander Granach), who are sent to Paris to sell the jewels of the Grand Duchess Swana (Ina Claire). The comrades are slowly undermined by the pleasures capitalism has to offer and try to prolong their stay in Paris. A higher ranking official is ordered to find out what takes the deal so long to be finished. The stern and sober Ninotchka (Greta Garbo) is determined to examine the case. When she arrives in Paris she is shocked by the lavish surroundings. Count Leon (Melvyn Douglas), a friend of the exiled Grand Duchess, is sent to interfere with the sale. Leon feels immediately attracted though and tries to win over a woman that detests everything he stands for.

Ninotchka is one of Ernst Lubitsch’s finest achievements. A movie that plays with ideology. You can never tell where the comedy starts and where the satire ends. This is what the Lubitsch touch means to me. It is simplicity that goes beyond simplicity. A closer look reveals the subtle meaning. One of my favorite scenes of the movie shows Ninotchka in her hotel room. She opens a drawer, takes out an extravagant hat and puts it on. This is the same hat that she earlier called a ridiculous asset of a society destined to fail. When the delighted Ninotchka is watching herself in the mirror we realize that capitalism won her over. Could there be a better way to express this transition? Certainly not. Lubitsch does not need words.

He is also one of the few directors to create a perfect blend of comedy and satire. There is a certain boundary that Lubitsch never crosses. The comedy mainly derives from the opposing philosophies presented in Ninotchka. Despite the fact that the movie deals with ideology in the first place the comedy feels perfectly natural and light-hearted.

This is Greta Garbo’s first Hollywood movie and one of her last movies ever. She gives an excellent performance that proves her talent for comedic roles. Garbo is helped by a poignant script written by Billy Wilder and Charles Brackett. The dialogue is witty and intelligent all the way. Iranoff, Buljanoff and Kopalski are the most hilarious comrades cinema has ever seen. Melvyn Douglas is also a great support as a man that represents everything Ninotchka hates. I love the scene in the restaurant when he tries to make Ninotchka laugh. Simply irresistible!

Ninotchka has lost nothing of its spark and feels as fresh as ever. The inimitable direction of Ernst Lubitsch and the brilliant script make this movie a must see!

“Garbo laughs” and we laugh with her…

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Usual Suspects

Director

Bryan Singer

Year

1995

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Sunday, August 19, 2001

The Usual Suspects is one of the few modern movies that have gone to receive cult status. It definitely is one of the best movies of the 90’s and continues to be more powerful every time you see it.

After a truckload of stolen guns has been hijacked by the police, the “usual suspects” are lined up: Dean Keaton (Gabriel Byrne), an ex-cop, Todd Hockney (Kevin Pollack), a technology expert, Michael McManus (Steven Baldwin), a maniac, Fred Fenster (Benicio del Toro), a man with an undecipherable accent, and Verbal Klint (Kevin Spacey), a crippled con man. While in jail awaiting their fate, the five men hatch a plan for a big emerald heist.

The Usual Suspects might be the ultimate 90’s noir thriller. It’s got all the ingredients: a moody atmosphere, fascinating characters, a complicated plot, wicked dialogue and an unexpected ending. Bryan Singer crafts his movie borrowing some aspects from the masters. The result is an unpredictable suspense yarn which will keep you on the verge of your seat for its entire running length.

It also has a very intricate Oscar-winning script by Christopher McQuarrie that unashamedly toys with the audience. The movie is told in two different time frames. One takes place in the present and has Klint narrating the events of the past to Special Agent Dave Kujan (Chazz Palminteri). The other one is the aforementioned storyline. One has to pay a lot of attention to detail when watching the movie. Not everything might be what one expects. The movie builds towards a dramatic plot twist that is, for me, one of the coolest endings in the history of cinema. Clever, poignant and completely out-of-nowhere.

There is special tension throughout the movie concerning a man called Keyser Soze, the brain behind it all and an emblematic figure of fear and viciousness. The fact that we never get to see him helps us believe he might be the devil incarnated. Everyone is afraid of him and so are we. Nail-biting consequences follow.

The cast of The Usual Suspects forms a great ensemble. Gabriel Byrne is excellent as a man torn apart between his past and his present. Kevin Pollack, Steven Baldwin, Chazz Palminteri and Benicio del Toro all give great turns. But it is Kevin Spacey who steals the spotlight and gives the best performance of the movie as a weak man afraid of violence. It is subtle acting at its best.

With an excellent score by John Ottman to spice up the proceedings and an equally arresting photography, The Usual Suspects is a must.

“The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

A Little Romance

Director

George Roy Hill

Year

1979

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Saturday, August 18, 2001

Alienated teenager Lauren (Diane Lane, irresistible in her film debut), living with her mother in Paris, suddenly finds love in a charming French kid (Thelonious Bernard) who turns out to be a misunderstood genius just like her. Due to further disapproval by the girl’s mother (Sally Kellerman) and a twist that terribly affects their relationship, Lauren and Daniel decide to run away to Venice, in order to immortalize their love according to a legend one man told them. This man is an old charmer, Julius (exquisitely played by Laurence Olivier), who wanders around in life with no destination and preaching love while hiding a bunch of facts about himself. Being Julius their only friend and an adult, the kids ask him to come along, with poignant results.

A charming mixture of candid love and road movie, A Little Romance is in fact a little gem that should be given a shot. The beauty of 13-year-old Lane, her chemistry with Bernard and the charm of the three main characters is only the engaging masquerade of a really profound character study full of twists, turns and deep emotions. The main story is absolutely irresistible and heartbreaking, which turns out to be nothing compared to Julius’s personal story. Subplots about Daniel’s father, Lauren’s current stepfather (Arthur Hill) and such are also a plus. I’ve heard people call this film superfluous and badly developed. I wouldn’t dare call it that in my whole life.

Daniel’s movie buff status gives place to many bits from classic films, including key scenes from a couple of George Roy Hill’s best. Impossible to ignore, a cameo by Broderick Crawford means a lot to the ironic look of Hollywood superstars that this film has.

Also worth of mention are the fun score by Georges Delerue, which has place for serious moments as well, and the delicious cinematography by Pierre-William Glenn, capturing immortal scenarios in Paris and Venice. The final scene will be in my mind forever.

“Call me ‘Bogey’”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Blade Runner

Director

Ridley Scott

Year

1982

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Tuesday, August 14, 2001

The cult movie per excellence. Blade Runner was a significant flop when it first came out. Years have gone by and people have started to realize its brilliance. An intriguing psychological futuristic escapade, Blade Runner has much to give, little to feel guilty about.

It’s 2019 L.A. A strange, genetically engineered form of life has been created, and thus the existence of the “Replicants”. They look exactly like humans, but they aren’t. As a matter of fact, they are not welcomed on Earth. It is the job of “Blade Runners” to kill them (or as they put it, to “retire” them) if found there. Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) is a Blade Runner who has been given the mission of finding some Replicants that have just escaped and retire them. This is how he gets involved in the world of the Tyrell Corporation, where Replicants are created and where he meets Rachael (Sean Young) a beautiful girl with whom he has a poignant relationship. Meanwhile, the leader of the escaped Replicants (Rutger Hauer), along another one called Pris (Daryl Hannah), are looking for answers as they have been created to live just a few years and can’t understand why.

When I first saw Blade Runner I was expecting something completely different than what I got. I thought it was going to be kind of a weird action-driven futuristic extravaganza, but instead found myself presented with a quite simple story concerning many philosophical issues. I was amazed by the way the movie has such a calmed and slow feeling. You get the sense that nothing is happening, while stuff is always going on. To use this approach in this specific environment felt like a one-of-a-kind experience for me.

On the other hand, the movie is always building momentum until its final suspenseful scenes. I loved the way there are not good and bad guys per sé in the movie. I mean, there are, but you can perfectly understand their motifs. These are people that already know they are going to die for no reason whatsoever and just want to avoid that. They want to know where they came from, where they’re going. Who wouldn’t feel that way? And it also questions the way life can be manipulated and created without facing the consequences and realizing that life is life after all, and no one should ever play with that. Touchy subjects that resonate in our minds and feel more dated today than ever.

The look of the movie is always dark and gritty. This ain’t a bright future, and L.A. has gone ugly, to say the least. You might expect this to be disturbing, but I couldn’t keep thinking about anything else but how beautiful it all was. This movie is beautiful beyond words. I don’t understand how this was accomplished, but only genius minds could have done it. This is a spectacular visually arresting world. Breathtaking!

I must point out that the version I am reviewing is that of the Director’s Cut. Apparently, Ridley Scoot got rid of the boring Harrison Ford narration, added some extra scenes and changed the ending. I think it was an improvement all the way. Even if the ending leaves a lot in the air, which is one of its many qualities, it now seems more true to itself.

I have to credit Ridley Scott for making this movie work in so many levels and doing it admirably. This movie is sad, and contains a bit of romance, suspense and violence which fit flawlessly. It is a journey full of emotions mixed with interesting ideas.

Harrison Ford is his usual self, which works well with his character. Sean Young is intriguing and has one scene that goes above any other: when she finds out the truth about her past. Rutger Hauer, Edward James Olmos and Joe Turkel are appropriate. And Daryl Hannah is excellent as Pris: from her looks, the way she moves and everything in her performance.

This is the rare kind of picture that leaves you thinking. Where you know you’ve just seen something more than special. Where you go back and realize what a great, intelligent, poignant experience it has been.


CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Searchers

Director

John Ford

Year

1956

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Monday, August 13, 2001

No-good Ethan Edwards (John Wayne) comes back after a long absence to his brother’s house and is glad to see his family again – except, of course, for that half-breed Martin Pawley (Jeffrey Hunter) who has been adopted and thinks he’s part of the family, even calling Ethan “uncle.” An Indian-hater with a dark past, Ethan is planning to settle down until a revengeful apache kills half of the family he’s so glad to see, except for Martin, who’s alive and well, and Ethan’s nieces, who have been kidnapped.

Ethan goes on a search for the girls, reluctantly accompanied by Martin Pawley and Brad Jorgensen (Harry Carey Jr.), the older girl’s boyfriend. Their relationship is not that good but Ethan does take care of the guys. After a while, it’s only Martin and Ethan searching for Debbie, the younger girl, which goes on for years and years, during which their relationship evolves in a really interesting way...

Among the tons of westerns by outstanding director John Ford, The Searchers is probably the best one. As a matter of fact, it’s my favorite of all westerns ever made. This one presents a nasty anti-hero with cruel intentions throughout the whole film, dealing with a man he hates (in a contrast between good and evil) and searching for a girl, with a not-so-obvious goal in mind. The film is filled with moments of comedy (especially through Laurie Jorgensen (Vera Miles), Martin’s fiancée, and Mose Harper (Hank Worden), a mentally unstable but extremely loyal man). All surrounded by beautifully photographed locations and wonderful Max Steiner’s score. The storytelling is varied and it all comes down to a poignant conclusion and a classic final shot that can make you cry.

Great performances by the whole cast include Natalie Wood as grown-up Debbie and Ward Bond as a Reverend Captain.

This one’s indispensable.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Singles

Director

Cameron Crowe

Year

1992

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Sunday, August 12, 2001

No need for an introduction. ‘Tis Cameron Crowe, and that says it all.

Linda (Kyra Sedgwick) has only had bad experiences when it comes to men. Suddenly, a seemingly perfect guy named Steve (Campbell Scott) enters her life and, well, things happen. On the other hand, Steve’s friend Janet (Bridget Fonda) is in love with Cliff (Matt Dillon), a guy who is so concerned about himself that he doesn’t care about his surroundings. Meanwhile, eccentric Debbie (Sheila Kelley) is looking for Mr. Right in all the wrong places. All this people have a connection one way or another: they live in Seattle and, you know, life ain’t that easy for them.

The movie’s all about relationships. But it is Cameron Crowe writing and directing, so you know this isn’t your usual fare. Instead, the movie is filled with rich dialogue and a sense of reality hardly to find in movies nowadays. It’s as if Crowe knew it all about men and women, because even to the smallest detail the movie rings true and close to us.

The background is the music scene in early 90’s Seattle. It was the beginning of grunge and even though that’s not the central theme, Crowe paints a very realistic portrait of those days and how people lived.

On the other hand, as is usual with Crowe’s movies, we establish a strong connection with the characters and we understand them, care for them. The main storyline involving Steve and Linda is very well-achieved and really poignant. Throughout the movie, Crowe explores love, fear, loss, superficiality, acceptance and self-confidence in a world that is simpler than that. Men and women, so different, but looking for the same things.

Everyone in the movie gives great performances, although Kyra Sedgwick and Campbell Scott definitely rise above. Cameron Crowe, as I’ve said before, is a master. And this movie is no exception.

"Come to where the flavor is. Come to Debbie country"

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

12 Angry Men

Director

Sidney Lumet

Year

1957

Rating

Reviewed by

a.k.a. Jacinda

Review date

Saturday, August 11, 2001

When an 18-year-old boy is charged with the murder of his father 12 men must judge about his life. The jury's vote decides about life and death. 11 jurors are convinced of his guilt, but one of them (Henry Fonda) has serious doubts. In a heated argument he tries to explain that the evidence is not strong enough to sentence the accused with death.

12 Angry Men raises the question whether a jury is an appropriate institution of justice. Can jurors decide about another person's life? Without prejudices? Without doubts? Without being personally involved? Everyone of them is a human being who happens to make mistakes. The juridical system apparently is not perfect. The rhetoric of a brilliant lawyer might present evidence in a credible way while another lawyer's defense might be less persuasive. What happens if a lawyer is ordered to defend a man whose innocence he doubts himself? In this regard a trial seems more like a big gamble.

In the movie the trial is not shown so that the details of the crime are not revealed. We just know that the jurors are completely convinced of the man's guilt. Henry Fonda's performance is more than compelling. He makes us follow his ideas as well as his ideals. The case is like a puzzle to be solved by the jurors and we are the ones to witness their struggle. The superb script made me feel entirely involved in the process of finding the possible answers to the scanty evidence.

The jury is a group of men who is driven by personal interests. Each of them is different in their attitude and their decision is influenced by prejudices, personal interests or even the absence of interest. Only Henry Fonda's character is willing to invest more time in this young man who seems not to be worth a penny. He sees him as a human being which makes deciding about his life very hard. You can be wrong - and if you are, an innocent person has to die.

The case presented in the movie shows too well how people can be easily convinced that a person of a certain background committed a crime. After all they are all the same - or so it seems. One person is made responsible for the failures of a whole society. This phenomenon finds its expression in the title of the movie. These men feel helpless in many ways but this time they are able to perform an act of power. The power that is given to them makes them more then eager to use it. In fact the tension derives from the interaction between the characters.

12 Angry Men is gripping from the very first minute. Sidney Lumet's flawless direction makes this movie an extra-ordinary character study with outstanding performances by all its cast members.

You won't forget the intense power play of 12 angry men for a long time.

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Akira

Director

Katsuhiro Otomo

Year

1988

Rating

Reviewed by

a.k.a. Coffee

Review date

Wednesday, August 08, 2001

Every once in a while the average cineholic might find himself turning his head to gaze to a place far to the east where the standard rules of what a motion picture is supposed to look like don’t apply.

Of the many innovative and colorful films that Asian cinema has to offer, one of the great classics is certainly Katsuhiro Otomo’s Akira which was first released in 1988. Akira is not just a Japanese movie, it’s an anime – the anime, the single most influential piece of the entire genre some might say.

Set in the year 2019, Akira tells the story of the two go-go-gangers Tetsuo and Kaneda. The two bikers have known one another since their childhood, but while Kaneda has advanced to be the leader of a merciless gang, Tetsuo is insecure and regarded as a weakling by his buddies. One night as they prowl the streets of Neo-Tokyo on their bikes, Tetsuo has a strange encounter with a child that seems to have superhuman powers. Suddenly he finds himself in the midst of a power-struggle involving the government and a group of zealous terrorists. On his way to save Tetsuo, Kaneda has to face the anti-government activists, greedy politicians, irresponsible scientists and a powerful military leader. The confrontation sparks off Tetsuo's own supernatural powers leading to bloody death, a coup attempt and the final battle at Tokyo Olympiad where the body of a mysterious boy called Akira was buried thirty years earlier...

Visually Akira is extraordinary, though not for the faint-hearted. It displays a level of violence which is unknown to western film and a plot that is so bizarre you won’t be able to forget it. Otomo sees the future as dark and anarchic – a world where the individual doesn’t count yet in the end the existence of this world can be challenged by a single individual. In the film the young generation is assaulting every authority and refuses to follow even the most elementary social and moral codes.

The two most important characters are Kaneda and his antagonist Tesuo who struggle with one another to settle a deep-rooted rivalry. Both of them are outlaws but still seem far more human than the leaders of the government and the armed forces who are only puppets manipulated by even stranger denizens. Like I mentioned earlier, the plot of Akira is simply insane compared to the tame likes of Hollywood’s animated pictures. At the beginning the viewer will find it quite impossible to piece the story together but as everything falls into place one can only marvel at the complexity of the synopsis.

Akira is essentially a movie that depicts the hybris of man – his ability to transform himself into something else and lose his humanity in the process. It’s one hell of a ride and manages to be both visually intriguing and bizarre in it’s concept, even though it might confuse at times. Although the film has been in hibernation for the past decade the release of a new DVD special edition with digitally re-mastered picture and many extra features such as an English translation of the grafittis that decorate the walls of Neo Tokyo’s backyards brings this unique movie back into the spotlight.

Buckle your seatbelts!

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Raging Bull

Director

Martin Scorsese

Year

1980

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Tuesday, August 07, 2001

I have always considered Martin Scorsese and Robert De Niro to be a match made in heaven. They have collaborated in so many movies together and memorable stuff has always come out of these two. The best example of what I’m saying lies here, in a movie called Raging Bull.

Jake La Motta (Robert De Niro) was a middle-weight boxer whose biggest battle wasn’t inside the ring, but with himself. Raging Bull tells the story of his rise and fall. It also depicts his life along his wife (Cathy Moriarty), his brother (Joe Pesci), and ultimately, his temperament.

Biographies are always a hard task to bring to the big screen. Some are filled with sappy melodrama, others just can’t attach with the viewer. So the fact that a bio about such a repellent man could achieve such greatness and be so compelling should be credited to the collaboration between director Martin Scorsese, actor Robert De Niro, and scribes Paul Schrader and Mardik Martin.

The movie is a meticulous character study of an unappealing man who led himself to his own destruction. Always impulsive, jealous, egoistic, he was a rather complex man. And his life was fascinating. The movie shows it all with great attention to detail and character development.

It also helps that Raging Bull is one of the best crafted motion pictures ever. Shot in beautiful black and white, it contains some of the most harrowing boxing matches ever committed to celluloid. That’s what editing is all about! Besides, it all moves at a nice pace even though it is a difficult movie to digest. And it contains a memorable segment at the middle that shows extracts from Jake’s life using color home videos intertwined with his victories at the ring.

Robert De Niro won a well-deserved Oscar for his outstanding portrayal of this man. There’s always an underlying sense of pity and sadness beyond his acting that pays off admirably to make a better portrait of what Jake was all about. He also went through one of the most impressive physical transformations an actor has ever done to portray a character accurately. His fat persona is unbelievably shocking.

Lending great support are Cathy Moriarty, as Jake’s fragile yet strong wife who, like many women, get attached to a man who is not worthy of her and who gives her quite a hard time along the way. Joe Pesci is also a standout in a role that fits him perfectly and makes a great counterpart to De Niro’s Jake.

Raging Bull is, without any doubt, one of the best movies of the 80’s. It feels like something completely different and represents a remarkable achievement in every aspect!

“You didn't get me down, Ray.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Road Home

Director

Zhang Yimou

Year

1999

Rating

Reviewed by

a.k.a. Jacinda

Review date

Monday, August 06, 2001

When you look into the eyes of this young woman you know all about The Road Home. Zhang Ziyi is the heart of this outstanding movie that comes from Chinese director Zhang Yimou.

When his father dies Luo Yusheng (Sun Honglei) returns to his home village in North China. In retrospective he recalls the story of his parents – how they met and how they fell in love. The story is as simple as this, but beneath the simplicity there lies a beauty that you will hardly find in any other movie. The village girl who falls for the primary-school teacher from the city is played by Zhang Ziyi, the actress we best know for her performance in Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000). The Road Home is her first feature film that will make you fall in love with her all over again.

I can hardly express my feelings about the movie due to the fact that it moved me so deeply. The love story is in fact one of the most simple, but beautiful stories I’ve ever seen. Zhang Ziyi’s attempts to attract the teacher’s attention are so heart-warming that it is impossible to resist her charms. The beautiful cinematography makes the Chinese scenery another essential element of the movie. You feel that these people are related to their country in a way we can hardly imagine.

As the title suggests the road home is a symbol that is closely related to the characters. The road is the connection between the small village and the city. It is the place where Zhao Di and Luo Changyu
first meet and fall for each other. The road separates them and is the place where they reunite when the teacher is allowed to return. In the present the road leads Luo Changyu on his way home for the last time. His dead body is carried by his loved ones as a celebration of his life. His son uses the same road to come back to his home. It is not only a journey back to his family, it is also a journey back to his roots, to his origins.

Chinese tradition plays an important role in the movie. You can clearly see that Zhang Yimou’s movie is a homage to old times. The younger generation leaves the countryside to become successful in the big cities. Their families are left behind but Yimou’s characters are not bitter about this. Times change and there is nothing you can do about that. Still this small movie reminds us of the things that are most important in life. And even if you decide to go away from the place where you grew up a piece of you will always stay there.

Behind the romantic story subtle criticism of the Chinese political system is implied. There were times when learning was considered a danger for ideological reasons. Thus intellectuals were physically abused and locked away. The Road Home is also a story about a teacher trying to emancipate from this system. He has to fight to make a stand against these rules. His efforts result in new possibilities for the next generation.

A beautifully photographed movie about love, tradition and family bonds, The Road Home is pure poetry on celluloid.

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Adventures of Rocky & Bullwinkle

Director

Des McAnuff

Year

2000

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Sunday, August 05, 2001

To tell you the truth, I hadn’t heard about these cartoon characters before the movie was made. People told me they were quite big at their time. No wonder...

Fearless Leader (Robert DeNiro) and his two spies, Boris (Jason Alexander) and Natasha (Rene Russo), have come to real-life with a big plan to rule the world. Agent Karen Sympathy (Piper Perabo) has been appointed the mission of stopping them, but she’ll need the help of our two heroes, Rocky and Bulllwinkle, to do it. Of course, she’ll need to bring them over as they have been stuck in “reruns” for several years now. It is now a matter of time before Fearless Leader accomplishes his goal.

I was totally blown away by the sense of humor in this movie. It is sarcastic, self-referential, ironic and intelligent all in one. The movie’s creators were clearly having fun while they were making it. You really sense it. And I always enjoy a clever movie that manages to entertain and satirize all at once. People here know they’re in a movie, talk to the narrator, have no problems dealing with cartoon characters in the real world, make fun of the plot, and everything is always delivered in a tongue-in-cheek manner that is hilarious. Nothing to take seriously here.

Our heroes’ primary goal is to get to New York quickly. Rocky is the smartest one, or should I say, Bullwinkle is the dumbest of the two. Together they’ll live a lot of adventures while Boris and Natasha try to destroy them. In their way, they’ll poke at Hollywood in the smartest way I’ve seen lately. There’s even a very funny reference to Duck Soup (1933) stuck in there.

When I saw the movie I could clearly see why it didn’t connect with general audiences. It was too weird and unique for its own good. But those who get it will have a lot of fun watching it.

Robert DeNiro definitely has some fun playing the villain here. He even has the time to play with his Travis Bickle persona a bit. Rene Russo and Jason Alexander are hilarious. Piper Perabo is adorable. And watch out for many wonderful cameo appearances such as Whoopi Goldberg (as “Judge Cameo”), Billy Crystal and John Goodman.

Kenneth Lonergan scripted this movie and kudos should go to him, the director and the animators for making such an interesting different movie.

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

A Hard Day's Night

Director

Richard Lester

Year

1964

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Saturday, August 04, 2001

During their early years of success, John, Paul, George and Ringo (The Beatles) have fun, make jokes and live life mocking society and everything that surrounds them. Singing songs, hanging out, disobeying all orders, these guys live a unique kind of life that makes their international acclaim look insignificant.

That is, at least, the approach that we get in this film, an extraordinary, documentary-like take on the life of the most famous quartet in history. Filled with surrealism and original ideas, this film is actually a musical and visual treat, hauntingly shot in striking black and white but colorful in its atmosphere thanks to classic jokes and unforgettable songs (including “And I Love Her,” “I Should Have Known Better,” “Can't Buy Me Love,” title tune). The sarcasm in the screenplay surpasses any frontier, as it is manifested in many ways, from simple pantomime to multi-layered phrases. The supporting characters are wonderful (especially Wilfrid Brambell as Paul’s grandfather) but The Beatles do a great job as well, acting naturally and believably.

Richard Lester created an innovative and unforgettable comedy, not without amazing insights into the personal life of famous people, including the trauma of being otherwise insignificant to the eyes of everyone else. That sequence, featuring Ringo, is my favorite in many ways. The whole thing is a unique gem.

Aren’t you a fan of The Beatles? Check this one out, and you’ll definitely be!

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Shakespeare in Love

Director

John Madden

Year

1998

Rating

Reviewed by

a.k.a. Jacinda

Review date

Friday, August 03, 2001

I don’t have the writing skills of a Marc Norman, neither do I have the writing skills of a Tom Stoppard. But thanks to their talent John Madden had the possibility to work with a brilliant script called Shakespeare in Love. Adaptations of Shakespeare classics have become fashionable these days but few is known about the writer himself. He is a mystical figure, a genius praised and glorified by literary criticism. The movie deconstructs the myth behind William Shakespeare in an irresistible way.

Set in 1593, young Will (Joseph Fiennes) is an aspiring author who writes plays for two competing theaters. He is short on money, uninspired and only the second choice after Christopher Marlowe (Rupert Everett). When he starts working on his next play titled ‘Romeo and Ethel, the pirate’s daughter’ he meets Viola de Lesseps (Gwyneth Paltrow) and is mesmerized. Viola is madly in love with poetry and disguises as a man to sneak into Will’s theater group. She becomes his muse and inspiration to write ‘Romeo and Juliet’. Soon the lovers have to face the fact that Viola is forced to marry Lord Wessex (Colin Firth) at the order of Queen Elizabeth (Judi Dench). Will’s personal tragedy seems inevitable. Their passionate love can find its fulfillment only on stage...

Tom Stoppard and Marc Norman ingeniously play with elements of Elizabethan theater. They created a modern version of what Shakespeare could have been like in his early years. He is not yet aware of his own genius and has to deal with problems that are well known to modern audiences. Joseph Fiennes is the perfect casting choice for this daring role. Indeed we get to see a compelling man who has to find his inner balance. His perfect match is Lady Viola, the young woman whose deepest love is the theater. Together they find the essence of true love by taking on the roles of Romeo and Juliet.

The plot plays with fact and fiction in a humorous way – the approach focuses on the idea that Shakespeare’s plays were actually inspired by his real life experiences. There are innumerous references to his plays in the movie – most notably to Romeo and Juliet, but also to The Two Gentleman of Verona, The Tempest, Twelfth Night and the Sonnets.

What makes this movie so perfect is not only the blend between fact and fiction, but also the blend between romance and comedy. The play with historically authentic elements makes it one of the funniest and most enjoyable romantic comedies ever. Not to forget about the outstanding supporting cast of hilarious characters – Geoffrey Rush as Fennyman, Ben Affleck as Ned Alleyn, the ‘Tom Cruise among actors in the 16th century’, and the one and only Judi Dench as the funniest Queen Elizabeth in film history.

Another important aspect of the movie is the definition of gender roles. Theater was considered an immoral business in these days. It was kept alive due to Queen Elizabeth’s personal fondness to be entertained. Young men played the female roles on stage. In Shakespeare in Love a woman breaks the social rules and dresses up as man to fulfill her dreams. Cross-dressing is a common phenomenon in Shakespeare’s plays and it is also a topic in the movie. Viola doesn’t give in to her assigned role as a woman and has to fear to be punished for it. Gwyneth Paltrow gives an outstanding performance that earned her the Academy Award for Best Actress. She shines on screen and makes us fall in love with poetry all over again.

After all this story is there to entertain us and it succeeds on every level. The witty dialogue combined with the hilarious characters and situations add up to a masterfully crafted romantic comedy.

Shakespeare in Love is a multi-layered modern classic that I love “beyond poetry”.

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Die Hard

Director

John McTiernan

Year

1988

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Thursday, August 02, 2001

Die Hard is a movie that represents what a good action picture should be all about. It certainly is one of my favorite along the lines of Speed and Cliffhanger. A knockout!

John McLane (Bruce Willis) is a N.Y.C. cop who arrives to L.A. in time to spend Christmas with his wife (Bonnie Bedelia) and children. At his arrival, the first thing he does is attend a big corporation party at a building where his wife works and where she is at the moment. He would never expect some terrorist thieves, headed by Hans Gruber (Alan Rickman), to take over the building. It all then rests in his ability to save the situation...

There’s not that much to say about this type of movies because they’re not precisely planned to be either profound nor complex. Die Hard is a movie made for the sole purpose of entertaining. How it accomplishes that is what makes this movie so special.

It is all an unstoppable high-adrenaline ride whose best scenes belong to the cat-and-mouse game Willis and Rickman play with each other. Two very intelligent minds put together in extreme circumstances. And I really admired the way everything played so real. I know, action movies are always overdone, but Willis’s character wasn’t your typical hero. For one thing, he is way too talky, but he behaves just like a normal guy would do in his place. It all adds to the credibility.

I also have to mention the great interaction between Willis and Reginald VelJohnson as Sgt. Al Powell, whose dialogue scenes are remarkable.

But what is it that elevates this movie from others of the same type? What has it going for it? First of all, it’s got great stunts, great special effects, a tight direction by John McTiernan and great editing, so it all works perfectly. But the aspect that did it for me was the hilarious sense of humor with which the movie is plagued. Sarcasm at its most and very well-delivered lines that will put a wicked smile on your face while experiencing the thrills and excitement of the proceedings. It is a one-of-a-kind script for an action movie.

McLane is a tailor-made part for Bruce Willis which he takes at its most. I’ve always thought Willis to be good at almost anything, so he is excellent here playing the vulnerable hero having to come to terms with his wife while saving many lives... including his. Alan Rickman is outstanding as the villain and the many supporting players just add to the punch.

A high-octane thriller you have to see to believe, Die Hard represents the best of its genre!

“Yippee-ki-yay, motherfucker!”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Matrix

Director

Andy Wachowski

Larry Wachowski

Year

1999

Rating

Reviewed by

a.k.a. Coffee

Review date

Wednesday, August 01, 2001

What can you possibly write about a movie that has received every imaginable criticism and every possible praise? A movie that has received countless awards and that has grossed a staggering 456 million dollars at international box offices? A movie that a fellow critic has remarked about “It's probably the best looking movie I've ever seen.”?

Such a case is groundbreaking sci-fi flick The Matrix by the Wachowski brothers. And while it may seem pointless to many people to review a picture that – excuse me – every person on this planet who ever goes to see a movie should have seen, that is the daily bread of the critic. So stop complaining.

The Matrix sure has a life of its own. Depending on what your expectations are when watching the movie you will either get an action-thriller with strong comic-book styled tendencies or a philosophical sci-fi adventure of epic proportions. You might get a good movie or you might get a bad movie and either way chances are good you’ll only see part of the whole picture. Because the true accomplishment of Larry and Andy is not the fact that they’ve created 136 minutes of great special effects. Or an intriguing plot. Or great action.

No, what makes The Matrix so special is that it is what you might call a layered picture. Like peeling the layers from an onion the viewer can dive into the depths of The Matrix and he or she will find a genuine mixture, a piece that blends various styles without making them seem out of place. Of course although there is a truly philosophical layer underneath all the great FX and the flashy martial art scenes The Matrix is not a Shakespearian drama. The film displays something that actually reminds me more of the original Star Wars series – the characters are adventurers that fight an almost mythical evil and have a very simple ideology that drives them.

The plot is better understood if you give it room to enfold before your eyes – the hacker Neo (Keanu Reeves in one of his better performances) is haunted by mysterious visions. His dreams tell him that he has to find out what The Matrix is, although he himself is unsure what the term actually means. One night he finds a strange clue on the screen of his computer and when he follows a white rabbit knocking on his door (almost literally) he meets an equally strange and attractive woman called Trinity (Carrie-Anne Moss). Through Trinity and her mentor Morpheus (Laurence Fishburne) he learns that the reality that he knows is nothing more but a simulation created by autonomous machines which have enslaved humanity. When Neo sees “the real world” for the first time he has to decide whether he wants to fight the A.I.s or be ensnared by their temptations.

When I decided to dig up some facts and opinions on The Matrix I was surprised about the large variety of different views that people have about the film. Of course many movie-goers praised the movie but I want to focus on that group of antagonists who actually didn’t like it.

One guy wrote in a newsgroup that he thought The Matrix had been massively overrated and wasn’t half as innovative as most people claimed it to be. He pointed out that there were countless “Star Trek” episodes where the theme of Man vs. Machine had been present and that the holo deck concept of “Star Trek” was actually stolen by the Wachowskis for The Matrix. He basically criticized that the film wasn’t as original as it claimed to be.

The man clearly overlooked a tad.

I really do not consider myself a science-fiction expert. The guys and girls here at Criticsociety.com wanted me to cover the sci-fi drawer because a) I’d read two or three SF novels and b) because nobody else was really that much into the genre. And while I am really not too proud of myself, neither as a critic nor as a science-fiction expert I do know a few things. And here they come...

#1 The idea of humanity being threatened by an independent artificial intelligence (machines) actually derives from the 20s and 30s of this century. Various short stories were published in magazines like for example “Amazing Stories”. It is not an invention of “Star Trek.”

#2 The holo deck issue isn’t quite correct either. The idea of a virtual computer generated space that imitates reality as we know it had first been explored in the 60s and 70s. The single most influential piece of work might be German director Rainer Werner Fassbinder’s “Welt am Draht” (“World through a wire”, a little roughly translated) from 1974 that was based on Daniel F. Galouye’s The 13th Floor (surprise, surprise). Anyway before we lose sight of The Matrix let’s just agree for now that this whole theme is neither an invention of Trekkies nor of the Wachowski brothers.

#3 There are half a million ideas that can be found in the picture which are borrowed from great works of literature, movie classics, TV shows, martial arts Easterns... the list goes on. But just because these things aren’t new doesn’t mean the film isn’t cool.

Actually what makes The Matrix so good is the fact that you’ve never seen all these things in conjunction. Or to supply you with a stupid and flat metaphor for the phenomenon – an eclipse is by most people considered a great and unique event, although basically it’s nothing more than the moon hanging in front of the sun. Everyone has seen the moon and the sun, but what makes the eclipse so special is the conjunction of the two. Now before you consider flaming me - of course The Matrix is not an eclipse of motion picture art. But it is one hell of a good movie.

Into the dazzling melange of action, mysticism and cyberpunk elements the directors have mixed a unique visual style which will continue to affect motion pictures for many years. I could go on and preach on the technical issues that we’ve all heard about – bullet time, wires, cg animation.. the list goes on. But I’ll leave that to other people and instead I wish to emphasize that there are many hidden ideas and notions that find a place in The Matrix which I haven’t seen in any other movie. There are countless references to Alice in Wonderland, to the concept of mind, soul and physical body appearing in detached from one another and to the question whether man is nothing more than a virus ravaging this planet.

But, hell – no matter how much I write, there’s always someone who thinks it’s all a waste of time and rather watches “Star Trek” instead. Okay with me – as long as there’s a cool sequel to The Matrix I don’t care.

And after all – “nobody can really be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it with your own eyes.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter