CriticSociety- film reviews

Review

Pi

Director

Darren Aronofsky

Year

1998

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, August 31, 2005

When a little independent movie called Pi played at the Sundance Film Festival in 1998, the arrival of a new talented filmmaker was announced. The public went nuts for the movie and Darren Aronofsky won a directing award. The movie was surely not for everyone, so it ultimately got more of a cult status than a crowd-pleasing one. But great things were to be expected, and Aronofsky’s next, Requiem for a Dream, proved that he was here to stay, becoming one of the critic darlings of its year and certainly a favorite of mine too.

Max Cohen (Sean Gullette) is a genius mathematician who has been trying for years to understand the possible ramifications that come from the term “pi”. Using a computer he built himself, he thinks he can find a pattern in the financial markets that can help him know what’s going to happen the next day. He thus stumbles upon a series of 216 numbers that do not mean anything to him initially, but he starts to suspect that he’s into something when his mentor (Mark Margolis) tells him that he once encountered a “virus” with the same amount of digits. It gets even weirder when a Jewish numerologist (Ben Shenkman) tells him that the Torah’s pattern has that quantity of digits as well, meaning that with them the real identity of God could be revealed.

Pi is a really fascinating movie in the way it was put-together. The movie could be considered a drama or a suspense piece, but if you look closer you realize that it is pure science fiction; yet it’s done in minimalist fashion, something we’re not used to see in this genre. In a word, this is a true original.

The movie is shot in black-and-white, and I don’t know if it was because of budget concerns or because of an artistic decision. Either way, it feels right. The look gives the movie a dreamy atmosphere that helps underline the general claustrophobic tone; even more so when the movie goes into a somewhat pretentious final minutes dealing with spirituality and equilibrium.

What I liked the most about the movie is the psychology of its central character, a man so obsessed with his goals that he has forgotten everything else there is to life. He hates any kind of human interaction, even when a beautiful neighbor is interested in him. He also lives as a recluse, inside his own world. He thinks that numbers can explain everything in the universe, and that patterns can be found to reach control. Yet his life is anything but. His genius comes in hand with a series of strange headaches that come from a mark he has in his head; a mark that appears to be the source of his intelligence. And no wonder that a lot of people find his discoveries interesting, so paranoia starts to kick in as soon as he starts getting results. It’s not easy being him, and madness may be the ultimate escape…

Sean Gullette, who also helped write the script, is excellent as Max. He’s in every frame of the movie and never ceases to be compelling, embodying Max’s internal struggles with conviction. I also enjoyed Margolis as his mentor. Great scenes happen when both are around.

Welcome Aronofsky, and thank you.

“There will be no order, only chaos.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Sabrina

Director

Sydney Pollack

Year

1995

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, August 30, 2005

If you read my review of Billy Wilder’s Sabrina (1954), you know I have a huge problem with Humphrey Bogart’s casting. It’s a pain when such a key role doesn’t convince you on account of the player, but that movie’s so good otherwise that I can live with it. However, I was in to watch the modern version, with Harrison Ford in the role, hoping he’d be OK in the part. Right I was, but now I have a different problem: while no one’s as appealing as Audrey Hepburn in this universe or others, so I wasn’t expecting Julia Ormond to match her, she didn’t cut it for me at all. I would’ve been happy with a little charm here and there, but Ormond turned out stiff and cold during most of the movie. Oh well, that’s my story with Sabrina. Will there ever be a version whose cast convinces me completely?

The story is quite lovely. It tells of a chauffeur’s (John Wood) daughter (Ormond) who grows up in their masters’ house falling in love with their younger son David Larrabee (Greg Kinnear). He’s a natural playboy who romances one girl after another, always with the same routine, and Sabrina is happy to watch, hoping one day it’ll be her. One day she’s sent to Paris, where she becomes more educated. When she comes back, she’s so distinguished as opposed to her old self, that she calls everyone’s attention, including David’s. He’s engaged to marry Doctor Elizabeth Tyson (Lauren Holly) though, whose father (Richard Crenna) is about to make a business deal with his family that’s probably the biggest they ever made. When Sabrina endangers this, the older Larrabee brother Linus (Harrison Ford), who’s always been devoted to business, gets to work: he starts romancing Sabrina, getting her away from David, but forgetting she also has feelings.

This is one from the heart. Samuel A. Taylor’s play on which it’s based (actually, it also credits Wilder’s and Ernest Lehman’s script) is an ideal modern fairytale, and also a perfect comedy. It’s all about Linus trying to be someone he has never been for the sake of someone he has always been, and the conflict that comes from that. David becomes more of a plot device than anything else, but Sabrina’s feelings for him are so real that he comes to life easily. Kinnear is great in that role, but Ford rules completely.

The screenplay by Barbara Benedek and David Rayfiel is a good update to a classic gem but still has old-fashioned values. A good example of that is the society of servants; I love Wood’s character in that he has his head on his shoulders yet he’s an idealist. It gives his daughter’s quest an extra edge. The script also cares about contrasts. It’s great to compare the classy fiancée (Holly) to the servant’s daughter (Ormond), and to find out who’s who on account of their inner selves. The Tyson parents are also very contrasting to the Larrabee family, especially Mrs. Tyson, a former flight attendant played with gusto by the great Angie Dickinson.

One thing I disliked was the Paris sequence. While it was nice to see how Sabrina developed over there, it seemed a bit out of place. Fanny Ardant, who plays Sabrina’s French mentor, is completely wasted.

All in all, it’s a sweet romantic comedy, not free of flaws, but replete with good moments. Very recommendable.

“Paris is always a good idea.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Amityville Horror

Director

Andrew Douglas

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, August 29, 2005

Just for the record, I have never watched the original The Amityville Horror (1979) nor any of its countless sequels. I’ve read that neither of those is any special, but somehow the original did stay in viewers’ minds. Now comes a remake, or yet another re-interpretation of Jay Anson’s book. A book, I might add, that has been proven to be pure fiction over the years, yet the “Based on the true story” caption is still there in the new version. Whatever, they may call it anything they want, but is the movie worthy of anyone’s time?

George and Kathy Lutz (Ryan Renolds and Melissa George) have been dreaming of a new life with her kids, Billy (Billy Lutz), Michael (Jimmy Bennett), and Chelsea (Chloë Grace Moretz) as their relationship gets stronger and the children start seeing him as a father figure (their own died). So they end up buying a huge house in a very luxurious neighborhood for a cheap price they can afford. As it happens, the house bears a secret: decades ago, a man murdered his family there, and strange things have been known to happen inside. But they don’t really care, and eventually move in. The next 28 days would then make for an unforgettable life experience…

The good:

The movie is creepy. It sustains a credible level of suspense, tension and overall eerie atmosphere. A lot of things start to go wrong when the family moves in. Chelsea claims to befriend an imaginary friend, who happens to be one of the victims of the horrible incident that took place in their house. There’s also an entire sequence involving a nanny that is flat-out hilarious. She’s a parent’s worst nightmare, and it all plays really well.

But perhaps the best thing about the movie is the way all the character react to what’s happening, especially George. He suddenly starts to go all Jack Nicholson on us and the transformation is subtle and shocking and ultimately disturbing. People don’t really do stupid things in this movie, but the stupidity lies in the plot and explanations themselves, being the most moronic of all the fact that the family just doesn’t leave the house before.

The bad:

There’s barely anything new, the horror comes from well-known places, the boo-moments are pedestrian, the film ultimately turns into a slasher romp and the plot is silly overall. I like the idea of a house being bad, you know, but when the creators try to explain why and try to find a backstory, it all goes downhill.

The acting is good overall. Ryan Reynolds is impressive, both in his physicality and in his internal struggles. His change is credible and he does a pretty good job of turning into an eventual wacko. Melissa George is a great counterpart, being the sane character in the movie we all root for. And the kids are good too. Philip Baker Hall appears in a few scenes and leaves a strong impression.

Well done, but ho-hum…

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Crash

Director

Paul Haggis

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, August 25, 2005

TV veteran Paul Haggis became a name for his adapted screenplay of Million Dollar Baby (2004), which was certainly worth noting and admiring. Later he debuted as a screen director with Crash, which he also co-wrote (with Robert Moresco from Haggis’ story), a surprising personal ensemble movie that tackles racism among many other sensitive subjects of the human nature. The film became a sleeper hit and I was surprised to see its cast. And though the effect wasn’t exactly positive on me, I did enjoy my time and I’m eager to recommend it as a unique and very potent experience.

The setting is Los Angeles. There are several subplots intertwined masterfully with each other. Coincidences abound but it’s never unbelievable, and I’m a believer that real life is exactly like this: we’re all connected, probably more closely than we can imagine.

There’s no point in comparing this film to other such ensemble pieces, but I’ll say it’s easier to follow than many and the stories are hardly forced into each other. Also, the contrasts are subtle and though this is actually a story of contrasts, you can feel a general mood that is always the same so it’s a pleasant ride… if the term pleasant can be used for such a gut-wrenching movie.

To name a few stories, we get Detective Graham Waters (Don Cheadle) investigating the murder of a young man and having an affair with his Lain American partner Ria (Jennifer Esposito); D.A. Richard Cabot (Brendan Fraser) and his wife Jean (Sandra Bullock) dealing with a mugging they suffered from a couple of black men (Chris “Ludacris” Bridges and Larenz Tate); a black couple of high society (Thandie Newton and Terrence Dashon Howard) trying to cope with a harsh experience they had with a racist cop (Matt Dillon); the latter’s partner (Ryan Philippe) trying to find the strength to protest against his co-worker’s ways; that man’s (Dillon) hard time trying to get his father (Bruce Kirby) proper medical attention which is on the hands of a black woman (Loretta Devine); a Persian immigrant (Shaun Toub) having a hard time trying to reach the American dream; and so on.

As you can see, every story thread has something to do with racism, and I must say it’s somewhat excessive. However, Haggis manages to deal with it in a decent way and never preaches or lectures, though he seems a bit tragic about the situation. What I liked is the way racism is treated in every way, from black to white, white to black, white to Arab, and so on. As expected, some of the stories work better than others. The one that broke my heart involves a man (Michael Pena) who tries to protect his daughter (Ashlyn Sanchez) from a violent world; his scene involving an invisible and invincible hood made me cry. On the other hand, the story of the D.A. and his wife didn’t get me at all and I felt it was a waste of time. In that matter, I was sad that many stories were underdeveloped, though it was too much to swallow already so I don’t really wish they had spent more time. Somehow the film made me feel overwhelmed yet left me wanting. I wonder if that’s a good thing.

Truth is, there are several powerful scenes. The most effective are the ones with little dialogue, like one involving a man shooting another and someone getting in the way, another involving a man struggling in the bathroom, and especially one involving an officer trying to save a mistrustful woman after a car accident.

All the performances are pretty impressive. Dillon in particular surprised me with his rough turn, and after him Ludacris and Newton were the best. Bullock is good but a bit over-the-top, and Cheadle’s presence is pretty potent.

Not quite memorable, but an interesting film, and a good one too.

“You embarrass me. You embarrass yourself.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Bewitched

Director

Nora Ephron

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, August 24, 2005

You know, I don’t really mind all the remakes that Hollywood keeps coming up with, as long as they’re fun or good on some level. Remaking old classics almost always results in a lesser movie, but remaking TV shows is a different story. Some turn out to be pretty good, depending on the approach. With Bewitched, sisters Delia and Nora Ephron opted to avoid remaking the beloved show and instead had the idea to make a movie about people who are actually remaking it. Get it? Clever… not!

Jack Wyatt (Will Ferrell) is a well-known film actor in the urge to revive his career after the disastrous results of his latest venture. His agent, Ritchie (Jason Schwartzman), thus recommends to star as Darrin in a new version of “Bewitched”. Jack accepts, but only if he can choose his leading lady to play Samantha, and if they tone down her role and make the series mostly about him. After a tiresome search, he meets Isabel (Nicole Kidman) at a library and realizes she can twitch her nose as Elizabeth Montgomery used to, so he hires her. As it happens, Isabel is a real witch, one who is tired of always getting away with things only because of her powers, and longs for a human, ordinary relationship, finding in Jack the perfect example of the mess of a man she craves for.

What the fuck?

Yeah, what the fuck?

I went into the movie with moderate expectations. I’d heard it sucked but I hoped I would like it because I’m such a huge Nicole fan and because I liked the series the few times I came to see it, so there was that nostalgia factor.

Right.

Truth is, the movie is a mess. It doesn’t really know what it wants to be. You can’t really make a romantic comedy and a Hollywood satire if you’re not one of the most skilled writers or directors in the world. And this movie tries to be both. One scene you get a cute moment, the next you get biting sarcasm. And it’s all such a horrible miss-match that you start wondering “why the hell was all this nonsense created to pay homage to such a sweet and charming comedic series of yesteryear?” I started to wish they had gone with a straightforward remake instead of this weird hybrid.

I also have to mention that a lot of my problems regarding the movie have to do with Will Ferrell. It is as if the script was modified to suit him and his “comedic” antics. And he’s so over-the-top, like Jim Carrey in steroids. He does have a couple of funny scenes, but after a while it becomes so tiresome that I just wanted to kick his ass so he could shut the hell up. It is also quite pathetic to realize this is a comedy, but almost all of his scenes fall flat. I started to become embarrassed!!! And when a movie makes you feel that way… it’s not good.

Nicole Kidman, in the meantime, is barely ok. I can’t believe I’m saying this, but that’s what I thought. She keeps talking in whispers, trying desperately to be as sweet and cute as she can, but she starts becoming tiresome after a while as well. Michael Caine cleverly appears now and then to give the movie a change of pace, but I even thought he was lame! A movie that makes Caine look lame should be really ashamed of itself. Sporadic moments of fun are delivered by the deliciously nasty Shirley McLaine, whom I wish was more in the movie, for I got a kick out of most of her scenes. That said, her character goes nowhere and it’s a pity. The whole movie goes nowhere. There are instances of intelligent, witty comedy here and there, but most of it is pure crap.

Stick to TV…

“Yes, I'm watching it, and you're right, he is a great big male reproductive organ!”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans

Director

F.W. Murnau

Year

1927

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, August 23, 2005

During the vacation season, a sassy woman from the city (Margaret Livingston) comes to a small rural town and stays longer than she had planned. As it turns out, she met and seduced a married farmer (George O’Brien). The farm workers observe that the man used to be madly in love with his wife (Janet Gaynor); they used to be like children, carefree… always happy and laughing. Now the man only thinks of the woman from the city, ruining his farm in the way, and causing his wife to fall into a big depression.

One day, the woman proposes to his lover that they move to the city together, leaving the farm behind. And my wife?, asks he. Couldn’t she get… drowned?, is her chilling response. This key scene is responsible for the movie’s drama. It’s a short sequence but very crucial, and probably the most unforgettable. For one, it has dramatic impact, but it’s also relevant in its use of visual effects and imagery to create the fantasy of city life and the horror of murder. For its dazzling use of technology, this scene sets the movie apart from any other silent film. But the man’s conflict is so clear it can almost be touched, which is also an awesome asset. And this is only where the movie takes off!

To reveal more of the story would be a sin as it would easily spoil the experience to any first time viewer. Let’s just say that the man plots the murder, and from then on it’s an extravaganza of human feelings taken to the extreme. The love the wife feels for her husband is so moving it actually turns the movie upside down, and the events depicted throughout are, one by one and all together, completely unique and remarkable.

The title is very appropriate as the story is poetic to say the least, and full of contrasts. But overall, it’s an extremely romantic take on a marriage complete with passion, jealousy, forgiveness, unconditional love, separation, tragedy, and redemption.

Most of the movie takes place in town, and there’s where Murnau develops an awesome world straight from his imagination, made possible by meticulous production design, gargantuan settings, and eye-popping visual effects. The transition from rural town to big city is only one of the movie’s many contrasts, and it’s a perfect backdrop for the love story. What’s more, it aids the endless tension that turns a simple tale of love into an unlimited thriller where everything could happen and the viewer is in stitches the whole time.

Another simple reason why the film is so effective is the performances. O’Brien and especially Gaynor are impressive, he the one who creates the conflict, she the one who makes it so affecting. You just have to look at her facial expressions at every turn to find out why she’s one of the greatest actresses of her time, and of all time. No wonder she became the first Oscar winner in history (for this and two other movies).

Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans is also notable for being one of the first motion pictures to have a recorded music score, and a very effective one at that.

If there’s one flaw in this piece, it’s that it’s so beautiful it hurts. Don’t miss this gem. It’s my favorite film from the silent era.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Island

Director

Michael Bay

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, August 22, 2005

It’s really difficult for me to understand why this movie failed miserably at the box office during the summer. I just don’t get it. From the second I saw the first trailer I was intrigued. So I wasn’t cutting my veins in expectation, but the movie always looked fun to me. Not only fun, but intelligent, well-made, perfect-for-summer-season, with two very appealing stars at the center and a surprisingly strong supporting cast… Sure, these actors are not box office names, but since when does this matter in a popcorn flick? Dennis Quaid and Jake Gyllenhaal weren’t either, and The Day After Tomorrow opened big. Perhaps people are tired of the same old blow-everything-up kind of flick, but it’s a crime to say that’s all there is to this movie. So anyway, I could keep ranting for hours. Bottom line is… I liked the movie, it is good, solid and of great entertainment value.

Lincoln Six Echo (Ewan McGregor) and Jordan Two Delta (Scarlett Johansson) live every day wishing only one thing: to be the lucky winners of the lottery, meaning that they’re going to The Island. As it happens, the whole world has been supposedly contaminated so the survivors are secluded in a huge compound waiting until they’re called to the only place on Earth that hasn’t been affected. The actual truth is that they are clones. They are clones of people who paid to have them ready in case they need an organ transplant or whatever medical condition for which they could help. And when Lincoln discovers this with the help of a technician (Steve Buscemi) from the real world, he goes berserk, runs away with Jordan, and tries to survive amidst a colossal hunt from the military hired to kill them by Dr. Merrick (Sean Bean) and the cops who realize something is wrong.

The Island is many things in one: it kicks off as a sci-fi romp and then it gives an 180 degree turn to become a full-blown action picture. One could argue that this is a cop-out. Why on Earth, when having such an interesting premise, did its creators think it was a good idea to boil down the movie to explosions and chases? I think we might be missing the perspective here, for it is a Michael Bay movie, so we should think about it the other way around. He went out to create an action picture but on the way he found a very interesting premise to tackle. And for that I am thankful, because I don’t find a problem in having an action movie which is actually a bit more intelligent than usual. On the contrary, bring ’em out!

Still, I do wish maybe another filmmaker had taken hold of the project so they could have given continuity to its great first half and created a much better, smarter and complete movie. The whole cloning theme and the way it’s treated in the movie is certainly thought-provoking and fascinating in its depiction. It raises a lot of questions that have no easy answers.

To bring all this mayhem to the big screen its creators didn’t stop at nothing. There are endless action sequences. They go from the overly exciting (the truck chase sequence with the structures falling from it) to the utterly unbelievable (the red-sign fall, although they’re clever enough to insert a punch line admitting this). But it’s all supposed to be fun and big and splashy and it is. And I had a hell of a good time with it, even if the movie is a bit overlong.

Casting-wise the movie is a pleasure to behold. Scarlett Johansson has never looked this sexy, beautiful and yummy. She’s ravishing. And Ewan McGregor is hot to watch in anything, but here he creates an indelible character. There are even some scenes involving two Ewans that are flawlessly acted and put-together. Actually, the final showdown between both is one of my favorite scenes in the movie. Michael Clarke Duncan, Sean Bean, Steve Buscemi and Djimon Hounsou round out the extraordinary cast.

Kudos also to Mauro Fiore’s impressionistic photography and Steve Jablonsky’s angelical score.

“Why is my insurance policy sitting in my fuckin' sofa?”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Sin City

Director

Frank Miller

Robert Rodriguez

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, August 18, 2005

Ah, comic book adaptations! How can I not love them? Especially when they’re respectful, faithful, and keep the original look and feel of their source? That’s the only way this movie could be done. Frank Miller, arguably today’s greatest comic book artist, wouldn’t allow any filmmaker to adapt his graphic novels for fear of them being chopped or changed, in sum losing their essence. Robert Rodriguez promised this wouldn’t happen and even filmed a sequence just to sell the idea to the author, then invited him to co-direct since he had already, according to Rodriguez, directed most of the movie by writing the comics.

That’s right: Rodriguez used the graphic novels as storyboards and filmed them almost frame by frame identical, using an emulating photography and identical “shots” and dialogue. If some scenes were left out, it was to trim down the running time a little, not because there was anything to be wasted. The result? Hmm… well, let’s say comic books and movies are different kinds of media and some translation is necessary, which wasn’t done here too well, but it’s still an entertaining movie.

Before I go on and after that half negative comment, I’ll state that “Sin City” is the single greatest series of comics (in this case graphic novels) that I’ve ever read. Frank Miller’s art is outstanding and completely effective, and the whole universe is mesmerizing in the way it depicts some inner depths of human beings and also puts together several things the author evidently likes, which also happen to add to the noirish feel of it all. The film takes three books from the series and intertwines them by using the elements they have in common. The stories are the original “Sin City” (later renamed “The Hard Good-bye”), “That Yellow Bastard” and “The Big Fat Kill”.

So we get to see these stories, in something of an episodic fashion. There’s the one starring psychotic but goodhearted Marv (Mickey Rourke), who goes against cops and mobs to track down the killer of a hooker who was nice to him (Jaime King) after he was set up to appear to be the killer. Then there’s the other of crazed Dwight (Clive Owen), who gets into trouble along with the town’s hookers when they kill a man way more powerful than they imagined. And there’s the one of good cop Hartigan (Bruce Willis), who stops a pedophile (Nick Stahl) before another crime, then has to take the blame and stay in jail for years to avoid any harm to the girl he saved (Makenzie Vega).

The stories are amazing and the performers astounding, and quite similar to their characters from the graphic novels. Great casting job there, imagine several familiar faces and all fitting their characters! Rosario Dawson, Devon Aoki, Alexis Bledel, Benicio Del Toro, Michael Clarke Duncan, Josh Hartnett, Michael Madsen, Brittany Murphy, Elijah Wood and many others do a fantastic job. The standout is Rourke however, in a hell of a comeback.

So what was my quibble? Oh yes. Firstly, I thought the dialogue from the books was great when you were admiring a picture that could say a million things at once, but here it seemed rather odd at times and talky at others, because all you’re seeing, like it or not, are images that were shot, not drawn. In general the same thing made the movie rather slow, and the stories seemed to never get to an end, and to me, only Hartigan’s was worth the while (good that it was the last one by the way). On the other hand, the way the stories were combined wasn’t too effective, because even though they share the same scenario they’re not really linked or similar, and not everyone is Quentin Tarantino (by the way, Tarantino’s guest direction of the car sequence with Clive Owen and Benicio del Toro seemed rather unnecessary and more a practice for him to shoot in digital video than anything else!).

The visuals are stunning, by the way, to end in a positive note. I understand it was all filmed with a green screen as background, and everything else was added later, and there’s no complaint there, but all the contrary. Also great photography all along. Rodriguez did most or all of it I believe. And he also co-wrote the music score, which isn’t so great (darn, I wanted to end in a positive note!).

OK, let’s say I do recommend this film. It’s not bad at all, just never as great as its source, but hey, enjoy!

“Modern cars - they all look like electric shavers.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of Sin City (2005): Morris

Review

Monster-in-Law

Director

Robert Luketic

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, August 17, 2005

To tell you the truth there’s just one thing that made me want to see this movie: Jane Fonda. I know that sounds clichéd, but what can I do? The movie was publicized all over the world as her big comeback, and I always fall prey to marketing, so it couldn’t hurt, could it?

Charlie (Jennifer Lopez) is a free-spirited woman with a lot of jobs, which include dog-walker, waitress and yoga teacher. One sunny day she has a cute encounter with Dr. Kevin Fields (Michael Vartan) at the beach, who she goes on to meet at a party later on. Destiny? Nah, movies. So they like each other and then decide to go see his TV-legend mom, Viola (Jane Fonda), who is not happy to let her son go and decides to make Charlie’s life impossible.

I have to be completely honest with you and right out tell you that I had a good time with the movie. Yeah, sometimes I also like Hollywood trash. As it happens, Monster-in-Law is a harmless, corny, predictable comedy in the way only harmless, corny, predictable comedies can work. That sounds like fake praise, and, uhm, it might be.

So what’s good about the movie? It’s easy-going, it’s got kind of a fresh vibe in which everything is kind of white or light-colored, and I’m not kidding, that helps to infuse a relaxed state-of-mind when you watch a movie. Everyone also looks great, the sets are comfortable-looking and I laughed.

Yes, I laughed. And by that I mean that I mostly laughed in scenes involving Jane Fonda. Oh, and also her wisecracking assistant Wanda Sykes. It’s not that weird that Fonda chose this as her return to the big screen. She owns the movie, she exudes charisma, and she has so many over-the-top scenes that I stopped counting. In a nutshell, she’s very funny in a guilty-pleasure kind of way. She plays a rich, larger-than-life character with perfect make-up and gorgeous looks who wants to make J.Lo suffer. Isn’t that just exquisite? I laughed, I had a good time and I enjoyed every second of Fonda on-screen.

But beware, for the movie does not really deserve her. It is so safe, so hackneyed… And the script can sometimes be clinch-inducing. The dialogue is ok at best, but the situations and the contrivances and the fakeness of it all are just hilarious… in a bad way of course. For starters: why would a guy wait weeks for the perfect moment to propose to his girlfriend only to find it when she meets his crazy mother for the first time? Well, because he’s a moron, that’s why. I can’t find any other explanation. And the movie is filled with stupid plot turns just like this.

So Fonda is the star of the show, but what about the rest? J.Lo is all cute and annoying and has absolutely nothing to do against such a legend, but I guess she’s fine. Michael Vartan is, no surprise there, invisible. And Wanda Sykes is so funny she threatens to steal some of Jane’s thunder. Elaine Stritch’s brief appearance as Viola’s ex mother-in-law is terrific.

“I think you dislocated my vagina.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Rules of the Game

Director

Jean Renoir

Year

1939

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, August 16, 2005

La Regle du Jeu is one of those great films with a bumpy trajectory… to put it mildly. Repudiated by critics and audiences alike at the time of its release, considered disrespectful by the French on the brink of war, hated and banned by occupying Nazis, chopped down several times, lost throughout the years…, it was finally rediscovered as a lost gem, one badly underappreciated, and still shining, more than ever in fact, to be further loved, admired and respected. I hadn’t heard much about it before, but I came to understand it’s considered by specialists one of the best motion pictures ever made. I watched it and I’m now proudly a member of the fan club. There are still several viewings I owe to the movie, and I’m sure I’ll go on uncovering countless pleasures it contains, but I’m already mesmerized by its greatness, and eager to talk about it.

At its core, the film is a simple country house comedy of contrasting societies, mainly focusing on the bourgeoisie but giving enough weight to their servants with a society of their own, forever imitating their masters though limited in resources. It’s a constant comedy with overtones of social satire and simple drama, so simple it’s a delight to sit through and hardly demanding in the way it extracts easy laughs here and there. However, not too far into the movie, it all starts to turn into something way deeper and passionate, an explosion of culture and feelings, and a satire of much bigger scale than meets the eye.

The story starts with French aviator and national hero André Jurieux (Roland Toutain), arriving to France after flying over the Atlantic all by himself (one of the first men to do so), and finding it pointless when he discovers that the woman he loves isn’t there to meet him, which he announces to the world by way of a radio interview. The woman in question is Christine (Nora Gregor), now married to Robert de la Cheyniest (Marcel Dalio), a Jewish aristocrat with an enchanting fondness for small mechanical devices, especially musical ones.

Christine is a complex woman if there ever was one, and though her love for Robert is as clear as pure water, she enjoys other men’s admiration. Octave (Jean Renoir), one of her closest friends, is also in love with her, but knows she’s unreachable and would rather help his friend Jurieux get close to her, though he’s also a friend of Robert’s, who has a relationship with Geneviève (Mila Parély).

Christine’s maid Lisette (lovely Paulette Dubost) is probably the most extroverted of the bunch, deliberately living in the city away from her husband and playing around with other men, namely Octave. Lisette’s husband is Edouard Schumacher (Gaston Modot), the gamekeeper at the country house, where they all go to spend a week in the company of other aristocrats and some of their servants. In the way of hunting down plaguing rabbits, Robert hires a poacher named Marceau (Julien Carette), who soon makes it his hobby to chase Lisette around, much to Edouard’s disgust.

The initial setup leads to a funny clash at the country house, but things have only warmed up for true brilliantness. It is there that every storyline goes wild and becomes as important as any other, becoming fully developed in no time and with amazing ease, intertwined with the others seamlessly regardless of tone or depth.

Renoir’s techniques with lenses and lighting allow the viewer to appreciate the action in both foreground and background in a revolutionary way that probably even inspired Orson Welles’ Citizen Kane (1941). The magic of Renoir’s film lies in how no subplot ever stops, and they all blend continuously, as the infidelities and jealousies lead to several encounters throughout the house and the camera is sure to follow all of them.

The camera movement is perhaps the film’s most admirable asset, and an incredible achievement considering the era’s limitations. I understand it’s still a mystery how Renoir managed to make it work in the way it appears to be so effortless yet gives the climactic scenes inside the house an extra something that has never again been seen. I couldn’t believe my eyes, it was an explosion of the senses, and so fun yet poignant.

Yeah, that’s right; the story turns bittersweet and even sad in many ways. The foreshadowing of war is everywhere, the emptiness of some people’s lives is evident, and everybody’s inner feelings flourish to the audience’s eyes in the saddest ways possible. Octave for instance, so wonderfully played by the director, is a man who hides his insecurities behind a masquerade of comedy and warmth; I identified with this character more than any other.

Towards the end, there’s murder, and even that hides behind a comic layer. That’s what the movie’s about: hiding, pretending, and being exposed at least to some, maybe to the most keen-eyed, or perhaps to those outsiders who see things differently. Maybe that’s why this film was initially a flop and is now a classic. I know I love it and want to spend the rest of my life watching it every now and then. How could I not?

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Dark Water

Director

Walter Salles

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, August 15, 2005

I don’t think anyone really believes that director Walter Salles, given his impeccable trajectory, opted to do Dark Water for artistic purposes. Sure, he might’ve found some meat in the Kôji Suzuki novel and decided it would be an interesting outing, but come on! Personally, when I heard about the project for the first time it seemed weird and unnecessary, but truth be told, I instantly thought that if this movie was going to be made at all, it might just as well be directed by a talented director that could turn it into an above-average spooky fest and not just an ordinary escapade. But, did he succeed?

Dahlia (Jennifer Connelly) has just come out of a bitter separation and is moving with his daughter Ceci (Ariel Gade) to Roosevelt Island in order to start a new life. She quickly finds an apartment which she agrees to rent after the incessant pressure of Mr. Murray (John C. Reilly), the rental agent. But unconventional turns of events prompt Dahlia to think that something is very wrong with her daughter… and the place itself.

I came into the movie thinking it would be a horror film. At least that’s what the trailers, no surprise there, tried to make it look like. But what I got was an entirely different movie. I was not disappointed, but on the other hand, I was surprised and excited to find that this wasn’t just a creepy movie, but that it had much more to give.

So what is that? As I see it, the movie is more of a character-driven drama with supernatural overtones thrown in there for good measure. The mystic aspects of the movie serve only as a catharsis of sorts for this family, and I was always compelled by the on-goings of every character. The pace is rather slow, but the movie asks for that. It is heavy on atmosphere (great work by Affonso Beato by the way) and the main characters are fully developed.

And then the bizarre chimes in. For the entire running length of the movie I actually found this aspect intriguing. Salles and writer Rafael Yglesias craft the movie in a way that things are revealed slowly and with care. Too bad the ending is a let-down in every sense of the word. No wonder the movie didn’t click with audiences: the lack of scares and a downbeat ending were enough to throw everyone away. I actually liked the former, but not the latter.

The cast is wonderful. Jennifer Connelly delivers yet another strong, intense, heart-breaking performance. Her young child, Ariel Gade, is also very good and barely registers a false note. John C. Reilly, Tim Roth, Dougray Scott, Camryn Manheim and Pete Postlethwaite round out the impressive cast, lured no doubt by Salles’ drawing power.

“If you ever need me, I’ll be right here.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

Director

Sergio Leone

Year

1966

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, August 11, 2005

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly is the third part in Sergio Leone’s classic “Dollars” trilogy, of which this is the most notable installment, and the clear peak, as well as a masterpiece. It’s also the most notable example of the spaghetti western genre. Compared to this film, the two previous outings, A Fistful of Dollars (1964) and For a Few Dollars More (1965) seem mere practices, a path to achieve greatness, and that’s a bold statement given how good both are.

This time around, Leone set out to do what he enjoyed to do without any possible limits in storytelling or character depth. He created a tale of historical significance, poignant human drama, powerful comedy and intense action like he never did before. The result is an unforgettable classic and an affecting piece, one that’s sure to stick to the mind for a great while, if not for good.

The story is quite simple. Leone recurs once again to his now-regular triangulation of elements and this time makes it obvious by the title of his film and the format of the movie. The initial 10 minutes or so are dedicated to introducing the three title characters: Tuco “the ugly” (Eli Wallach), a Mexican bandit who’s dangerous, funny and double-crossing, ‘Angel Eyes’ Sentenza “the bad” (Lee Van Cleef), who’s cold-blooded and ambitious, and ‘Blondie’ “the good” (Clint Eastwood), who’s straight only in appearance and self-conviction, but in fact selfish and corrupt.

The only existing alliance as the movie starts is that of Tuco and Blondie, whose relationship is based largely on betrayals. The ultimate one consists of Blondie dropping Tuco in the middle of the desert after their last hit which made Blondie doubt whether their association was convenient anymore. Tuco is left with a thirst for vengeance which he’ll get at any cost. In the meantime, Sentenza looks for a man by the name of Bill Carson, who knows the secret of a hidden fortune.

When luck and chance dictates, during Tuco’s vengeance, he and Blondie meet this man Carson (Antonio Casale), who then tells them the secret of the treasure’s location, only he tells each half of the secret, only valuable when together with the other half. This makes the men join forces again, which becomes a chance for hilarious “odd couple” moments as well as further betrayals. Angel Eyes, hot after the trail of the treasure and the secret to get to it, is sure to follow their behinds. The consequences are unforgettable.

The most important aspect of this film is that it’s set during the American Civil War. This means the main characters continuously encounter soldiers, camps and prisons, as well as some battles. Though it’s never the film’s intention to focus on these places and their eventual characters, it can’t help but do so from time to time, and every time it’s completely mesmerizing. The madness of war is made clear through a couple of vignettes that are nothing but a backdrop for the story that we actually care about.

There’s a scene where Tuco and Blondie get to a Mission where several wounded men are sheltered. You’d think that’s quite poignant, but it’s not so, since there’s a lot to laugh about thanks to Tuco. Oh, but beware; the man’s encounter with a Priest (Luigi Pistilli) becomes the single most heartbreaking scene in the movie and turns the character of Tuco from comic relief to most indelible. I’ll never forget the joy I felt when Leone turned things around in such an elegant way, yet didn’t allow his movie to change rhythm or tone on account of it. Blondie’s reaction to the situation is an expression of the director’s own stance, and it’s all an example of first-rate moviemaking.

There are also several more things that make the movie work like wonders. Overlength is rarely an asset, but here it works for the movie instead of against it. There are constantly long, tense scenes that seem to slow down as they approach their climaxes, with increasing close-ups and terrific music that grows in intensity as the seconds pass. Sweat-inducing to say the least. These scenes finally end in quick action pieces, creating an eye-opening contrast that was unheard of in cinema before this kind of western and especially this film.

The music is a constant element, undoubtedly a protagonist, and a welcome one at that, creating moments of tension, hilarity and poignancy, switching from one to the other seamlessly, following suit to every scene as required. You can thank Ennio Morricone for that in what could be considered his best music score, if it wasn’t so hard to choose. Also noteworthy is his incredibly beautiful song “Story of a Soldier” (lyrics by Tommy Connor), which is, why not, played during the most brutal scene of the movie.

Of course, as all good long trips, this one pays off. The climax has influenced countless filmmakers since and has been imitated several times, never as successfully.

Cinematography, editing, music, screenplay, direction, performances… All admirable, all working perfectly together, all worth praising endlessly. I love this movie; it’s one of my favorites.

“When you have to shoot, shoot, don't talk.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory

Director

Tim Burton

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, August 10, 2005

I have never watched Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. I hear it’s kind of a cult classic, even though a lot of people don’t really like it. Me? I’m not curious at all. Gene Wilder is not my cup of tea and I don’t know... I just don’t feel it. So why on Earth did I want to see this new version of the Roald Dahl book so much? The answer is simple: Tim Burton and Johnny Depp. What else would you need?

Charlie (Freddie Highmore) is a poor kid who lives in a small house with his parents (Noah Taylor and Helena Bonham Carter) and his grandparents (David Kelly, David Morris, Eileen Essell and Liz Smith). He has always been intrigued by the huge chocolate factory at the end of the block, so when its owner, Willy Wonka (Johnny Depp), sends a message saying that the kids who find five golden tickets hidden in five different chocolates will have the opportunity to attend a tour inside the factory along with a guardian, he dreams of being one of them. Soon the winning kids start appearing all over the world: fatty Augustus Loop (Philip Wiegratz), spoiled Veruca Salt (Julia Winter), competitive Violet Beauregarde (Annasophia Robb) and know-it-all Mike Teavee (Jordan Fry). But Charlie gets his wish granted, as he finds the fifth ticket. A day in the factory that would change it all...

The movie starts with a bang. I can honestly say that the first half hour is just perfect. If I had to rate that part I would give it four stars without thinking about it. The way we are introduced to Charlie and his family is priceless; the narration is spot-on; the scenes around the world show everything we need to know about each character in very little time; and the sheer lack of cynicism in the character of Charlie was enough to water my eyes more than once. In a nutshell, it is the perfect introduction.

And then comes Wonka… The movie shifts 180 degrees and becomes something else entirely: a bizarre tour-de-force inside a magical world. The rest of the movie is entirely disturbing, endlessly fascinating, and continuously enchanting, all at the same time. It is such a mixture of moods and set-pieces that you can just tell that Burton and Dahl were meant to join forces. I hear the movie is pretty faithful to the book it is based upon, and I can only say hooray for that, because both the source material and its adaptation are wondrous entertainment. Sure, the movie drags at times, but there’s always something around the corner to make up for it even if this or that set piece does not work that well (didn’t much like the laboratory and TV room sequences).

The movie is aimed at all ages, but Dahl intended it as a children’s story. I’m not quite sure if the movie is really that suitable for kids. It is too edgy and weird for them, but I guess that so much imagination must be wonderful for their minds, and that distressing bits might go over their heads. Then again, what do I know? I had a great time with it and thought the movie was fantastic.

While inside the factory, Wonka starts to get rid of each kid as they show some rather questionable behavior. The way he disposes of them is shocking to say the least (I was genuinely scared by the sequence involving Veruca), but the mood is always lightened by the Oompa Loompas (which are all played by Deep Roy), who manage the factory and burst into funny sing-and-dance numbers in which they cruelly describe the kid in question, with lyrics taken directly from the book and music composed by Danny Elfman. In that respect, even when delivered in strange ways, the movie has a positive message for kids, one that is highlighted even more as the movie approaches its end and Charlie, predictably, takes center stage.

And in the middle of all the mayhem and madness, there’s an intriguing character by the name of Willy Wonka that never ceases to surprise. People are too busy trying to find similarities between Johnny Depp’s performance and certain real-life individuals that they forget to look closer and realize what a rich, fascinating character Wonka is. He grew up with a dentist father (Christopher Lee) who always limited him and didn’t let him be. He then secluded himself inside the factory, which shows in the way he has zero abilities to treat people, to talk to children and to just plain be “normal”. He hates the concept of family and can only think about the genius of his creations. It is a sad character… sad, sad, sad. Yet he has been able to find his place and never come out of his shell. Until now, that is, and that day is as strong a life-changing experience as it is for every kid.

Johnny Depp is superb. He embodies his character with pizzazz to the point where we forget it’s him and only see the character in all its weirdness and peculiarities. Freddy Highmore is equally mesmerizing as Charlie. I’d call it perfect casting. And I also got a kick out of David Kelly as Grandpa Joe. The whole cast is uniformly good. It will also be difficult to forget Missy Pile’s Mrs. Beauregarde... whoa!

There’s even a great 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) homage thrown in there for good measure!

I’d say it is a fractured fairy tale... one that is created by genius minds and a team that works like wonders. The clever direction, the over-produced set designs, the haunting music, the excessive make-up, the imaginative costumes and the beautiful photography all blend together seamlessly, as it does only in dreams.

I love weirdness!

“Everything in this room is eatable. In fact, I'm eatable. But that, my dear children, is called cannibalism, which is in fact frowned upon in most societies.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Team America: World Police

Director

Trey Parker

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, August 09, 2005

“South Park” is one of my favorite TV shows and South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut (1999) a movie I really appreciated, so I’m in for anything Trey Parker and Matt Stone do. They’re smart fellows who find the humor in absolutely anything and know how to twist their plots so no one evades their satire yet the storyline is entertaining in itself.

Their latest feature film is a really fun concept per se. Inspired by the old TV show “Thunderbirds,” it features marionettes as characters, a funny device to begin with, especially if played like it’s serious stuff like that old show was. At first we’re presented a very peculiar group of law enforcers called “Team America”, who by way of stopping some terrorists in Paris creates such mayhem that the Eiffel tower and even the Louvre are destroyed, but that doesn’t matter ‘cause the terrorists have been stopped. This is the beginning of a very big satire on the anti-terrorist frenzy of the current U.S. Government, including the war in Iraq and all that, so one would probably think this is what it’s gonna be about, but is it?

No! From there these guys go on to satirize everything from Hollywood actors to the very terrorists, to the point where you’re not sure what side they’re on, even making you think that they don’t have any stance. This can be considered too easy and convenient for the filmmakers, but what the hell? They’re having fun making fun of the world, and this film is a piece of entertainment that can help you let go of everything and just see how there’s absurdness everywhere you look, and even where you stand.

The story goes on with the team recruiting a talented Broadway actor by the name of Gary Johnston (showcased in a uproarious yet chillingly disrespectful satire of the play “Rent”) to play the role of a terrorist so they can find out about their plans. He’s further taken for a real terrorist and almost killed by his friends while they destroy every pyramid of Egypt including the Sphinx. Misunderstandings apart, Gary has to decide whether to go on with the team and risk his life for the world’s wellbeing or stay away for his own sake. Other characters get in the way emotionally, namely Lisa, who has lost her boyfriend (and workmate) during the Paris operation and now falls for Gary; or Chris, who for some reason hates actors.

The leader, Spottswoode, is a half idealist half psycho with a twisted sense of humor and a chair that moves around a lot. Everyone in the team has something peculiar and most everyone has a hidden feeling or background, which eventually emerges in several funny subplots. My favorite scene (though it’s hard to choose) involves a massive discussion during a massive air attack. That’s the kind of thing that keeps the movie going. Of course there’s also a notable and infamous sex scene between marionettes, namely Gary and Lisa, which is unnecessary, exaggerated, and completely riotous.

There’s all kind of deliberately grotesque jokes, but it’s all part of the game. This film is intended to be grotesquely over-the-top and is designed to make many people mad. What becomes the main plot during the second half is the indignation of the Film Actors Guild (F.A.G.) and especially Alec Baldwin (“the best actor in the world” according to Gary) who, together with other actors (Helen Hunt, Janeane Garofalo, Samuel L. Jackson, Tim Robbins, George Clooney, an idiotic Matt Damon among others), joins forces with Korean dictator Kim Jong Il against Team America and, to his ignorance, against world peace!

The film is sprinkled with hilarious songs by Trey Parker including “America, F**k Yeah”, “Montage”, “End of an Act” (which makes fun of the movie Pearl Harbor (2001)) and “I’m So Ronery”, but what really makes it work is the way the characters move around and take themselves seriously (goddamnit they’re friggin’ marionettes!). Great voice work too, by Parker, Stone, and everyone else.

In the end I was a bit confused though. What had I just seen? How should I feel about the finale? What’s the morale, or isn’t there any morale? After watching dozens of “South Park” episodes and the South Park movie, I must say this is the first time I really don’t get these guys. But like I said, I had fun, and most importantly, I saw the first climatic scene in a movie where the more a guy pukes the more triumphant the tone gets, so I cheer!

“See, there's three kinds of people: dicks, pussies, and assholes.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Sin City

Director

Robert Rodriguez

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, August 08, 2005

When Robert Rodriguez refused to follow the Directors Guild Association rule in which a movie can have only one credited director (with few exceptions), I instantly took notice. “This guy has a lot of balls,” I remember thinking. And it was all because he wanted comic author Frank Miller to co-direct Sin City with him. As it happens, Rodriguez convinced Miller that he would do a movie which would be exactly like the graphic novels he wrote: word by word, image by image. Miller agreed and became involved. The result is a breakthrough movie when it comes to visuals and storytelling. Nothing, and I really do mean nothing, has ever been made that resembles this movie in the slightest.

The movie follows three storylines based on different stories from the comic saga. One of them has Marv (Mickey Rourke) avenging the death of the one woman who treated him nicely in the world: Goldie (Jaime King). He then uncovers a conspiracy that involves a cannibal (Elijah Wood), a corrupt priest (Rudge Hauer) and all sorts of cops and authorities. In the second one, Dwight (Clive Owen) goes after the boyfriend (Benicio del Toro) of his current flame (Brittany Murphy), which leads them into Old Town, where prostitutes, led by Gail (Rosario Dawson), are the law. In the third one, Hartigan (Bruce Willis), a cop who just saved a little girl’s life, is put into confinement by the aggressor (Nick Stahl), who happens to be the son of a Senator (Powers Boothe). That means he is falsely accused of crimes he didn’t commit, but his sole reason for living is that little girl who keeps writing him every single week.

Sin City was entirely shot in a set where only a green background and very few props were set. The actors had to imagine every surrounding and everything else was added digitally. It may sound like an over-the-top visual effects mess, but the result is nothing short of breathtaking, the perfect way to bring Miller’s drawings to life. Everything is in black & white except for few things like blood, red lips or blond hair. That gives the movie a special noirish feel that just adds to the heavily atmospheric storylines and dialogue. I especially dug how cars move in this imaginary world. The motion, the way they’re shot, everything about a character in a car is spectacular in the movie.

Such a visual orgy would not work the slightest bit if a good story wasn’t behind it, and fortunately, here we get the whole package. Miller wrote an extremely violent comic that is all about macho types and sexy women. It is all pulpy and old-fashioned. It is a world where crime takes center stage, in which we only get to see the back-alleys and the dirty swamps; a world with fractured characters trying to survive, no matter the cost; a caricature, even. And yet, it is brilliant.

It also helps that Miller wrote and drew the comic as if it were a movie storyboard. Not everything works about the translation though. The narration can get a bit dense at times; and the third story is not as interesting as the previous two, which makes the movie drag and feel overlong. Also, Quentin Tarantino serves as guest director for a scene in a car involving Clive Owen and Benicio del Toro. Impressively enough, it’s the scene I like the least in the movie, way too heavy-handed, if you ask me.

Rodriguez, who “shot and cut” the movie (among other things such as composing the terrific score with John Debney and Graeme Revell), also gets impressive performances out of most of his all-star cast. They are all up to the challenge of embodying characters that move and talk differently than real people do, but as they would on a film noir based on a comic. I happen to think that Mickey Rourke steals the movie. Perhaps because he’s also playing the best character, but he does it so well that he deserves praise. Josh Hartnett (a gentleman), Carla Gugino (very sexy!), Jaime King (magnetic), Benicio del Toro (looking rather odd and scary), Alexis Bledel (an angel), Clive Owen (intense), Rosario Dawson (fierce), Devon Aoki (extremely deadly), Brittany Murphy (tough yet vulnerable), Powers Boothe (blinded by power), Nick Stahl (sick), Bruce Willis (nostalgic), Michael Clarke Duncan (big), Rutger Hauer (disturbing), Elijah Wood (shit-your-pants creepy), Marley Shelton (classy) and Michael Madsen (asshole) are all impressive. Only rather weak link, albeit nothing too serious, is Jessica Alba, who is great while dancing, but kind of lame when talking.

A one-of-a-kind extravaganza…

“Would you hurry it up? I haven't got all night.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of Sin City (2005): Groucho

Review

Behind the Red Door

Director

Matia Karrell

Year

2002

Rating

Reviewed by

Jorge Castillo a.k.a. Mithrandir

Review date

Sunday, August 07, 2005

AIDS is a plague. It is a killing machine. It is a disease that takes the life of anyone, regardless of race, color of the skin, or sexual orientation. There are theories as to how it all began. Although most scientists agree that it came from Africa, there are still those among us (and by us I mean humanity), that declare it a disease sent by God to exterminate homosexuals. This isn’t a view that is widely shared, thankfully, but it is still one that shows the level of hate towards homosexuality, and those individuals who share that way of life.

Behind the red door does not deal with a threat from other people criticizing homosexuality. It isn’t a campaign for gay rights, nor is it trying to prove a point about fags. It is merely a film trying to raise awareness of a situation. It is merely a film trying to bring education to the uneducated about the subject. Its main purpose is to establish a human face on a rapidly growing epidemic. This isn’t the first film that attempts to do that, nor will it be the last. However, this film succeeds in aspects that other films may fail. The story isn’t the standard “fag infected with AIDS” story. It is, above all, a human drama. The fact that the character has the disease isn’t the main theme of the story. There aren’t scenes of him going to a gay club, or drinking, or partying, or having sex, or doing any of the things that gay men are portrayed doing in most films. It presents him as a business man, with a house, with wide business success, who happens to be gay and have a disease.

The main theme of the film isn’t necessarily AIDS, or a man’s struggle to survive it. It is a big part of it, but it takes the place of a subplot at times. You may ask yourself then, why the introduction? Why such a long exposé about AIDS? It’s very simple…

Behind the red door tells the story of two siblings: Natalie (Kyra Sedgwick) and Roy (Kiefer Sutherland). They both have separate lives: one lives in New York while the other lives in Boston. By the time that they eventually meet again, they haven’t seen each other for over ten years. Natalie is a photographer who is offered a job in Boston, one which she refuses at first because it would take her back to the place she so willingly escaped from after her mother’s death. Eventually, she decides to take it, seeing as both she and her agent Julia (Stockard Channing) need the money. Upon arriving to Boston, Natalie discovers that it was in fact her brother, the head of an Ad agency, who hired her. A few days pass, and by the time Natalie is ready to travel back to New York, Roy tells her his situation: he has AIDS and is dying. Although reluctant at first to stay, Natalie decides to do so and help out her brother, with whom she connects in ways she hadn’t done before. This is not to say that they don’t have problems, seeing as Roy is very temperamental, and has angered discussions with Natalie very often (he is still the only one having the discussion, though; it’s more of a monologue, one which clearly hurts Natalie) but she is willing to overlook this all the same.

Besides the central story of the brother dying with AIDS and the sister becoming his nurse for however long he has left to live, there’s the confrontation of personal demons for Natalie. The main reason she didn’t want to return to Boston in the first place was that she had blocked it from her mind ever since her mother had died. She has blocked the situation, as well as the person everyone believes to have committed the crime: her own father. Throughout the film, Natalie stumbles upon things that make her relive those disturbing, and long-suppressed memories of her past, and therein lies the beauty of the film. All of these scenes, all of the flashbacks, are done in beautiful black and white. Before the film is over, Natalie realizes the reasons behinds Roy’s imperious behavior, and she is able to come to terms with the events (as well as the perpetrator) that took her mother’s life.

The original purpose of this film (made for TV), was to raise awareness of the AIDS situation to the general public. Although this is a prominent theme throughout the film, it doesn’t accomplish it precisely. The story is more focused on the fronting of the characters with their very personal demons, as well as the spiritual growth that each character undertakes. When we first meet Natalie, she is a timid young woman who is somewhat intimidated by her brother and has blocked out all thoughts about her mother’s death. By the end of the movie, we are met by a strong woman who confronts her father, and ends victoriously. The fact that the film broadens to such different themes and doesn’t perhaps accomplish the original idea of raising awareness about AIDS does not make it bad. As a matter of fact, it’s one of the best films I’ve seen this year (it was filmed and released in 2002, though). It’s just a clarifying note as to its original purpose, and whether it managed to achieve it or not and on what degree, I will leave to the viewer to decide.

The cast is superb. I’m not, perhaps, the most appropriate person to discuss it, mainly because I’m VERY biased, but no matter what your thoughts on the actors may be prior to watching the film, you’d have to admit that they did a fantastic job. Kyra Sedgwick was an unknown actress to me up until a few months ago, when a TV show called The Closer began showing on TV. I instantly liked her. Then there’s Kiefer Sutherland, who is, in my opinion, one of the most underrated and at the same time, amazing actors we’ve had the pleasure of watching both on the big and small screen. His role as Jack Bauer in TV’s 24 is nothing short of astounding. Then there’s Stockard Channing, who really does not need any sort of introduction or discussion. My only complaint about the film is related to her, though: her role could have been (and should have been) much bigger.

The cinematography is beautiful, with all the flashback scenes happening in black and white in a much brighter environment. It is the first time that I’ve heard of this director, but I must praise him for doing such an outstanding job. This movie shines, and that’s always part of a director’s magic: capturing the film as if it was real life.

You may ask yourself then, why the introduction? Why such a long exposé about AIDS? It’s very simple: because it needs to be told. We live in a society that is full of hatred. We live in a society that has threatened the way of life of many people simply because of their sexual orientation. We live in a society where people are ignorant enough to say that AIDS can be transmitted through tears and saliva. It is because of all these reasons that the introduction was written. It is because of all these reasons that such a long backdrop about AIDS was written. It needs to be told. It needs to be discussed. It’s a disease that isn’t going away anytime soon, and as long as we don’t have antidotes or a way to stop it, people are still going to be infected by it, and many of them will die because of it. It is a serious disease: it has become an epidemic, and the story, no matter what or how, needs to be told. Awareness needs to be raised, and people need to understand that this isn’t a joke, or a comedy show: it is people’s life, your life, my life, and it can easily infect anyone’s lives. However, there’s always life and there’s always hope. Like Prior Walter said, right before the end: “This disease will be the end of many of us, but not nearly all. And the dead will be commemorated, and we'll struggle on with the living, and we are not going away. We won't die secret deaths anymore. The world only spins forward. We will be citizens. The time has come.”

Read up on AIDS. Get tested. Protect yourselves. Raising awareness is only the beginning.

“Have you ever seen it snow on the ocean? It's the sound of the snow, really. It's as if each individual flake has its own... voice. A hiss as it hits the water, and then this whisper as it tames the ocean's roar... peacefully.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Raging Bull

Director

Martin Scorsese

Year

1980

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, August 04, 2005

The reasons why this movie was made, I don’t understand. Why would anyone film the story of a man whose story isn’t really one of triumph, his career isn’t an example, his attitude leaves a lot to be desired, and he’s not even dead? Middleweight champ Jake LaMotta wrote an autobiography that was picked by Martin Scorsese for a biopic. I hear he and Robert De Niro had a hard time working on the treatment to make it a marketable project, one that would be both eligible for production and attractive for audiences. Even after watching the film and loving it, I can’t really figure out their motivation. Why were they so fixed on filming this? Who knows, but truth is, the result is absolutely fascinating. This is the quintessential anti-crowd pleaser, a film that couldn’t be less attractive on account of its premise, yet is hypnotic and one of the best films ever made, probably the best from the 80s, Scorsese’s masterpiece and De Niro’s tour-de-force.

The story is about the difficult and conflictive LaMotta, whose career was at times brilliant and at times bumpy, and whose personal life was mostly disastrous on account of his voluble personality. The scope of Paul Schrader and Mardik Martin’s script is very intimate, focusing on LaMotta’s personal conflicts more than in his career, yet giving the latter the deserved importance it should. As a matter of fact, Jake’s personal ways sort of paralleled those on the ring, as he seemed to be a bull (nicknamed “The Bronx Bull” in fact) that charged when least expected, filled with a blinding rage that turned uncontrollable just like that.

The result is surprising. The overall plot is difficult to swallow, but it’s refreshing since it’s sprinkled with awesome boxing scenes and poignant vignettes at every turn. The story spans some decades, yet it never becomes tiresome though the protagonist gets more self-destructive as the years pass. In the end, he’s a mess, but it’s never regretful that his story has been told, because of the way the filmmakers chose to do it.

It’s a combination of things, really. It’s not only the well-distributed script, but also the way it’s shot and edited. Both departments are completely admirable and certainly some of the best examples of each in cinema history. Michael Chapman’s cinematography is mostly black-and-white, except in some home movie sequences that are so poignant they easily bring tears to the eyes. Overall, it’s exquisitely photographed, with the look matching the mood and accentuating the passion of the procedures scene by scene. On the other hand, Thelma Schoonmaker’s editing work is nothing short of perfect, not only at the boxing matches but everywhere else; her choices are unsettling but highly effective, and the result is inventive and dynamic. Her work is probably the aspect of the film that I enjoyed most… but it’s so hard to choose. Pietro Mascagni’s classic Intermezzo from his opera “Cavalleria rusticana” completes the emotional wallop.

Headlining are Joe Pesci as Jake’s brother/manager Joey and Cathy Moriarty as LaMotta’s wife Vicki. Though Pesci is a particular standout, both are perfectly cast and completely unforgettable. De Niro however is simply beyond words: passionate, amiable and disgusting, all at once, and showing an amazing devotion to his work through a physical change that’s simply unbelievable and made history. They say he doesn’t like to talk about it and no wonder: it must have been the most draining effort an actor can make.

A difficult film if there ever was one, yet one that’s easy-going once the ride is bought, and completely addictive afterwards, Raging Bull is nearly a mystical experience, and though it’s needless to say, it’s a must-see.

“Come on, hit me. Harder. Harder.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Shape of Things

Director

Neil LaBute

Year

2003

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, August 03, 2005

With very few exceptions, when you go into a Neil LaBute movie you instantly know you’re in for a harsh, crude and honest dissemination of human nature. His vision is usually bleak, his movies hard to swallow, and yet he only shows what we usually don’t want to see in our lives. In the Company of Men (1997) is his best movie, one containing emotional scenes so cruel that even when dealing merely with dialogue they are almost unbearable to sit through. And I loved it! So what did LaBute had in store when he turned his play The Shape of Things into a motion picture?

Adam (Paul Rudd) is a nerdy, boring kind of guy who works in his campus museum. That’s where he meets Evelyn (Rachel Weisz) a free-spirited artist who is just about to spray-paint a penis in a Greek sculpture. From then on, Adam starts to go out with her, provoking some changes in his persona that go from a simple change in dressing style to a complete hair and face makeover and so on. That doesn’t suit well to his old pals Phillip (Fred Weller) and Jenny (Gretchen Mol), who are just about to marry, and they clash with Evelyn.

As the movie starts, it’s surprising just how light and good-natured the story seems to be. A girl changing a boy for the better, in Pygmalion fashion, and a sweet love story between two very different persons... But don’t you trust LaBute, cause gradually the movie starts to get darker, until it reaches its last two scenes which are absolutely shocking to say the least.

I actually loved how LaBute toys with us and how slowly he starts to change gears without it ever seeming too obvious. Adam doesn’t completely change overnight. You have to watch little details like his body movement, his clothes, how he reacts to things. He never ceases to be himself, all innocent and sort of silly, but underneath change comes gradually. The shape of things…

After all is said and done, LaBute does not disappoint with his insights, but on the contrary, he throws a lot of interesting ideas and asserts to the table. He leaves you with a lot to think about after the aftershock. And it definitely is not a pretty picture.

I have never been the biggest fan of Rachel Weisz even though I admit she’s a pretty good actress. But this might be the time I’ve liked her the most. She’s really good, embodying her character with her complete self. It also helps that the quartet of actors spent a year doing the play off-Broadway, so it doesn’t come as a surprise that they know the characters. Rudd, Weller and Mol are also very good.

A few long, chatty scenes here and there (like the one in the park) slow things down a bit, but that does not deter the movie from being constantly engaging, down to its final moments.

“Somewhat, yeah. But I'm nice-looking... which makes up for a lot.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

For a Few Dollars More

Director

Sergio Leone

Year

1965

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, August 02, 2005

The film starts with a title card that states, “Where life had no value, death, sometimes, had its price. That is why the bounty killers appeared.” The story then unfolds to present two different such bounty killers, both hot on the trail of outlaws with high prices on their heads, and both destined to conflict with each other as their targets are usually the same. This finally happens in a town where Monco (Clint Eastwood) spots Mortimer (Lee Van Cleef). The men are reasonable: right now they’re after bandit Indio (Gian Maria Volonté), whose gang is huge and dangerous, and filled with members whose death would be rewarded, so why not team up? For fear of treason, maybe?

Mortimer has been seen by Indio’s gang, so the plan is that Monco join them as volunteer for a bank robbery, naturally planning a double-cross. Mortimer follows closely, and everything goes according to planned at first. Soon however, both Monco and Mortimer find out that nothing in life is easy, especially when trying to cheat a mastermind like Indio. The consequences won’t be easy for either of them.

As expected from Sergio Leone, after his proved admiration for Akira Kurosawa and especially Yojimbo (1961), of which A Fistful of Dollars (1964) is a remake, the film plays in groups of three at every turn: Three conflicting main characters, three ways the plot could go, and three very clear acts. At first there’s the setup, then there’s the conflict (or should I say, torture), and finally there’s the twist. Right when you think what you’re watching is a crude, inhuman western filled with impersonal shootouts, Leone gives you a real shocker: the characters’ real intentions are not what they seemed, their backgrounds are incredibly dramatic, and a glimpse of their pasts is unbearable. Accompanied by Ennio Morricone’s trademark score, which turns from playful to poignant seamlessly, the plot brings out tears as easily as it brings out outbursts of laughter. A particular musical tune is central to the story, and both Leone and Morricone handle it with unique care and devotion.

This film is a very important contributor to the so-called spaghetti western genre. It kept defining the key elements of said sort of films, with such touches as the long shots and close-ups, the slow setups and quick resolutions, and the background sounds and music. Also present are the intense themes of honor, revenge and authenticity. Outstanding, how the film begins as an average action piece and turns out quite unforgettable after its development.

The performances also come to life as the story goes. Clint Eastwood’s cynical persona is as cool and smooth as expected, strongly contrasted by Van Cleef’s serene complexity and Volonté’s devilish sadness. Also worth noting is Klaus Kinski as one of Indio’s goons, who shares a scene with Van Cleef, where the latter turns on a match using his neck, which is the greatest example of the film’s blend of tension and humor.

Admittedly, this film works more as a bridge between what is usually regarded as the spaghetti western originator and the genre masterpiece, the three of which form the “Dollars” trilogy, but it’s still well worth a look and very important in itself.

“When the music ends, pick up your gun.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Ordinary People

Director

Robert Redford

Year

1980

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, August 01, 2005

Everybody knows Robert Redford’s directorial debut is a good movie, even though some resentful people don’t care to admit it, but it’s difficult to say why I like it so much and why it stuck with me from the first time I saw it. I guess I like family dynamics, well-rounded characters and complicated relationships. But sometimes a movie can bring all that together and create magic in the way. Such is the case with this wonderful movie.

Conrad (Timothy Hutton) is an adolescent who just came out of a mental hospital where he was interned after he tried to commit suicide. He blames himself for the accident that killed his only brother and has been traumatized since then. His parents, Calvin (Donald Sutherland) and Beth (Mary Tyler Moore), try to help him settle back into the world, but Conrad’s alienation just keeps growing and thus he goes see a psychologist, Dr. Tyrone C. Berger (Judd Hirsch). As it happens, Conrad’s family is breaking into pieces, as coping with a new reality has not come easy for any of them.

Ordinary People is based upon Judith Guest’s novel of the same name, adapted by Alvin Sargent, and brought to the screen with precise care and impressive skill by first-time director Redford. By putting all the emphasis on making every character and situation believable, Redford manages to infuse his movie with as much realism as possible. He carefully builds his movie with a lot of intimacy and little details that take us gradually from an apparently happy beginning into every character’s troubled psyche.

This could’ve easily been a movie about how a family copes with the death of one of its members and nothing more, but it has a much more complicated web of situations and relationships that tie it together. That event serves merely as a catharsis for a family to come to terms with its sole existence. I don’t mean to label this as a dysfunctional family, because in a way, I think all of them are, but families try to survive and stay together because there’s love underneath… until there isn’t. And this movie is about that. It’s about bonds, about facing difficulties, about forgiveness, about being true to one-self, about finding your way, and mostly about trying to be happy… by yourself and with those that surround you.

I also liked the way Redford paints a portrait of an apparently happy family that is anything but. And there’s Conrad, the only brave member who breaks the mold, who decides to do something about it, even if it means taking his own life. He goes to a psychologist, he befriends people at the hospital which are in the same conditions, he meets a beautiful woman (Elizabeth McGovern) who doesn’t seem to mind his quirkiness, and he opts for quitting the swimming team because he feels like it. It might sound like he is a rebel, while in truth he is just breaking simple conventions and finding his own identity amidst a crisis at home and with himself. Fascinating to watch this unravel…

As you can probably guess, this movie is mainly a character study, and there’s plenty to savor. Conrad’s relationship with his shrink is one of its many pleasures. It is not played as we usually get it in the movies, but more in a raw, harsh kind of way. There’s also Conrad and the girl he likes at school, and the poignant liking of each other. And there’s also the relationship between the three members of the family. There’s a scene between Conrad and his mother that involves barking, yes, barking, and that is truly the centerpiece of a complex movie dealing with complex situations.

By bringing this story to life, Redford surrounded himself with an overly talented cast headlined by young Timothy Hutton, who went on to win a very much deserved Oscar for his portrayal. He is absolutely impressive, with not a false note amidst all the angst he’s asked to irradiate. Sutherland and Tyler Moore are just about equally good in quite difficult roles, as is Judd Hirsch. McGovern, making her film debut, is radiant.

Also note-worthy: Marvin Hamlisch’s music arrangements. There’s barely any music in the movie, but when there is, poignancy takes center stage. It also helps that Redford chose Johann Pachelbel’s brilliant “Canon in D” as inspiration.

Intelligent scripts about the human condition are rare to find. But scripts that turn into gems are an even rarer breed. A masterpiece.

“Don't admire people too much, they might disappoint you.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter