CriticSociety- film reviews

Review

The Kite Runner

Director

Marc Forster

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, August 28, 2008

The Kite Runner is the film that finally made it clear to me that I should not watch a movie adaptation of a book right after reading it. I had experimented before but this was the definite example against it. It took me a good amount of effort to separate one from the other and to stop thinking about all that was left out or translated “insufficiently” (notice the quotation, it means I’m not actually saying so, but rather mentioning what I thought at the moment). After a few weeks, I have finally achieved full appreciation and the realization that including everything from the book would’ve resulted in something like Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001). I’d much rather have a film like this, which works, instead of a longish and rather boring piece that would then be completely different from its source, because if there’s something Khaled Hosseini’s book is, is entertaining.

There’s something else that the book is: shattering. The film is no different, only its impact lies in different places. Overall, it’s the same though: In 1970s Afghanistan, a young boy, belonging to the Pashtun people, has a close friendship with the son of his family’s servant, belonging to the Hazara people, widely considered racially and socially inferior. This friendship defines the protagonist’s life as Afghanistan goes through the Russian invasion and a traumatic personal event takes place. The boy grows up to become a successful fiction writer in the United States, but he never forgets his childhood, his friend, and his faults. Haunted by these ghosts, he’s given the opportunity to revisit his land, and his infancy, and as he does, he begins to redeem himself.

Filming this story must’ve been a colossal task. They had to reproduce different phases of Afghanistan on location in China. The casting and the use of language were also obviously complex jobs, especially because every actor does a good job. Most remarkable are the two children, Zekeria Ebrahimi as Amir, showing much darkness and the burden of having to behave in a way that society dictates, as well as having to please his towering father, and Ahmad Khan Mahmoodzada as Hassan, the unfortunate boy who was born to be in the service of his employers, at all costs.

Other members of the cast include Atossa Leoni as the lovely Soraya, Amir’s wife; Shaun Toub as the wise Rahim Khan; and of course Homayoun Ershadi as the enigmatic Baba, Amir’s father, a character that must have been scary to play since he was so powerful in the novel, but which Ershadi pulled off successfully.

Many sequences required a very special photography and camerawork, particularly the outstanding kite flying scenes; remarkable work by cinematographer Roberto Schaefer. Also quite noticeable, if not at all times, is Alberto Iglesias’s touching score.

Despite some talky chunks, the segment starring adult Amir (Khalid Abdalla) is quite straightforward and entertaining. The only problem I had was that I didn’t always feel that Amir was haunted by the specific memory that we know should be with him at all times. Even though we know it, we don’t always feel it, and that can be a problem, because everything that he does is connected to it. However, screenwriter David Benioff luckily doesn’t add a voice-over narration to explain Amir’s feelings or ghosts, but rather keeps the impact on hold, making the ending much more poignant than the rest of the film, and rather revealing, as we see Amir paying tribute to Hassan, in a way we never expected, because until then we hadn’t fully realized that his entire life was built on top of what happened, and that’s as shattering as can be.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Factory Girl

Director

George Hickenlooper

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, August 27, 2008

Factory Girl’s release was marked by clouds of controversy as director George Hickenlooper struggled with the Weinsteins about the final cut of the movie. He wanted a longer, more complete cut, and ultimately lost. Word is that those who saw both versions liked the director’s cut better, but that’s the movie business there, what can you do?

Edie Sedgwick (Sienna Miller) had a difficult upbringing which included being abused by her father and losing her loving brother. She eventually opted to move to New York where, at a high society party, artist Andy Warhol (Guy Pearce) set his eye on her. He invited her to form part of the Factory, the place where he and his friends created art, and also to put her in his movies. She eventually became famous, then drugs followed and a fling with musician Billy Quinn (Hayden Christensen, unofficially channeling Bob Dylan) changed everything.

Hickenlooper directed from a screenplay by Captain Mauzker. There’s really nothing terribly wrong with the movie but on the other hand there’s nothing terribly great about it either. As with most biopics, there’s a lot to be covered and very little identification with the main character. And, yes, Edie was quite a woman, but I don’t get what was so extraordinary about her. Perhaps it’s because she died before I was even born, but to someone who hadn’t heard about her before there’s not enough meat here except for the usual usual: sex, drugs and an early death.

What’s more interesting is getting into the mindset and environment of Andy Warhol, a peculiar creature if there ever was one, and a fascinating individual in his own right. I would rather see a movie about him with Edie in the background as opposed to the other way around. When Andy and Edie appear together the flick soars, everything else is filler. And the Factory was quite a place, it seems; one where fantasies came to life and plenty of debauchery took place.

Period recreation is impeccable and cinematographer Michael Grady is able to capture the essence and atmosphere of the era with ease, helped all way by the production design, costumes and make-up.

Sienna Miller received plenty of buzz for her performance which ultimately led to nothing despite it being very strong; people in the know claim she perfectly nailed Edie. Guy Pearce is frustratingly good as Warhol, the man really was like that! Hayden Christensen is solid, albeit forgettable. Jimmy Fallon, Mena Suvari, Shawn Hatosy and Ileana Douglas also appear.

“Lady, you don’t know shit about shit.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Lady from Shanghai

Director

Orson Welles

Year

1947

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, August 26, 2008

The enigmatic Orson Welles film The Lady from Shanghai is mostly famous for its unforgettable final sequence in a funhouse, as well as some behind-the-scenes facts: Orson Welles’ deal to write, direct and star in it in exchange for funding for his stage musical of “Around the World in 80 Days”; his controversial decision to have his star and estranged wife Rita Hayworth cut her famous red hair and bleach it blonde; and his ever-famous loss of control over the final cut which probably caused (though I’m not sure this is the reason) his discredit as director.

It is interesting to watch this film and to notice how despite his intention not being primarily to make a quality film to be proud of, but rather to get money for something else in which his mind was set more firmly, his quality as director didn’t diminish but, in fact, augmented to an extent that surpassed the material, made it look more interesting that it really is, and gave the film a twisted touch that makes it irresistible not as a valuable piece in all, but as a bizarre experiment. Rarely did Welles, before or after this film, communicate so well with his photographer (in this case, Charles Lawton Jr.) and his cameramen. The result is far from memorable, but it’s still hard to think back and not reminisce the fascination that the movie causes as an instantaneous reaction, at least visually.

The characters are cardboard, the dialogue is wooden, the performances are obligatory and the story could be told in a minute, but still, somehow, we’re hooked. The cheat might be that it’s Welles behind all this, and we know it must be worth the while, and people back then must’ve known it even more, Welles being the enfant terrible that he was.

Then the story goes on and we don’t understand precisely what’s so bad about the mysterious woman that Welles’ character, Michael O’Hara, met and stated that she would get him into trouble. As if we were meant to simply understand how problematic she potentially is, and how influential she can be with everyone around, we see her husband Arthur Bannister (Everett Sloane) hiring O’Hara as a seaman for his yacht without even knowing him, no questions asked, just like that. Then we see that Arthur isn’t such a fool after all, and can’t see what’s going on between O’Hara and his wife, or is it? Even that sounds like a more interesting premise than it finally is at the pay-off.

Adding the only intensity there is, is Lawyer George Grisby (Glenn Anders), a friend of Mr. Bannister’s who proposes a wicked deal to O’Hara and doesn’t seem too honest about his part of it. Anders is wonderful, the one actor who stands out, since all the others are either routine or only barely above mediocre. Grisby’s thread comes late enough to save the whole but not too late to catch on, so we grab to that, and finish up somewhat satisfied. But the fact that this is not enough must not be overlooked: the film is an overall failure.

The final scene, in some people’s opinion, deserves a review of its own. It is indeed intriguing, but too much has been made of it, and I don’t think that should be the case, because it’s not a saving grace, and it’s also not substantial enough to claim any independence from the film it belongs to. Besides, directing-wise, it’s as powerful as the rest, if only a bit more suspenseful. I think the impact of this scene responds to its finally claiming some awe from the audience, which the previous long chunks of the film failed to achieve.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Dogville

Director

Lars von Trier

Year

2003

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, August 25, 2008

The ever controversial Lars von Trier took Cannes by storm in 2003. His Dogville was widely considered the favorite to take the Palm d’Or, but Gus Van Sant’s little-seen Elephant (2003) took it. It doesn’t matter; after all he doesn’t care and keeps making very interesting and provocative movies. And actors know that. The ensembles he’s able to put together are dreamy despite the tough subjects he’s known to tackle and his unusual directing ways. Dogville proved to be the love-it-or-hate-it movie of said year, confirming the old adage that when your work provokes strong reactions then you must’ve done something good.

It is 30’s Dogville, a small and quiet Colorado town with about 15 citizens up in the mountains. Tom (Paul Bettany) is their leader, an idealistic writer who welcomes Grace (Nicole Kidman) when she arrives while escaping from gangsters. Tom manages to convince the townspeople to cover up for her so she ends up staying. In return she tries to help each citizen in every way she can, thus changing the place in unexpected ways.

Lars von Trier directed Dogville from his own screenplay. I don’t always love the way he shoots his movies; whether using too much hand-held cameras, shitty photography or mainly improvised dialogue, he always has a peculiar way of putting his message across. In this case, there’s none of the aforementioned devices, but he came up with a new one which certainly alienated some people: the entire movie takes place in an almost empty soundstage in which there are chalk signals drawn on the floor indicating where the different houses and streets are. Besides that, there are only basic props that are needed for the story to be understood. The gimmick is surprising at first, but I instantly got used to it and loved it. It’s strikingly original, effective and different; it also demands something extra from the audience.

Then again, the story taking place in front of our eyes is so strong that it’s easy to forget about everything else. Von Trier has been very critical of the American society for years, and this is his definite insult movie towards the country. What’s funny to me is that I didn’t feel like the movie belonged to America if it were not because it takes place there, for the themes he touches are mostly about humanity in general.

Von Trier does an almost unbearable study on the human condition, which at one point he compares to that of the animal nature. It’s difficult to say what we would do in the situations these characters are faced with, but one thing is for sure: perhaps the movie is not that far away from reality. And that’s scary. I was especially intrigued by the way Von Trier shows that a good, innocent person can almost never survive uncorrupted in a world like ours. No matter how good your intentions are, there’s always going to be something that will come your way and either you are strong enough or you end up joining the enemy. The ending is such a shocker; I still marvel at how far it goes; just brilliant.

Dogville clocks at around three hours and is divided into nine delineated chapters. It also has a well-written (and delivered) John Hurt narration that is nicely complemented by the use of music.

As performances go, it’s really hard to go wrong with a cast like this. Every single performer is extraordinary. And it also helps that every character is given enough time to become three-dimensional. Nicole Kidman, leading them all, is astounding; she’s luminous, credible and very talented. Paul Bettany also does a fine job and the supporting cast, which includes Chloe Sevigny, Stellan Skarsgard, Lauren Bacall, James Caan, Patricia Clarkson, Jeremy Davies, Phillip Baker Hall and many more is top-notch.

“Some things you have to do yourself.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Wanted

Director

Timur Bekmambetov

Year

2008

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, August 21, 2008

I want to become a fiction writer. It’s been my dream since I can remember and I regret not following that dream from the get-go, but instead going for a profitable career which has proved quite so indeed, yet leaving me little to no time to achieve what is still my greatest desire. Recently I decided that I would go for it. After years of thinking thoroughly about a story, I sat down and wrote the first chapter of my story. While words were flowing like running water I started thinking of the possibility of becoming a published author, a successful artist who needs not a day job, though I love my job, but the prospect of not having to keep it because what I love pays enough is so good that there’s no possibly better motivation.

What happened next was chapter 2, and so on, up to chapter 5, and then I joined a writers workshop where each participant reads a chapter of his or her work and the rest give feedback. I read the first chapter and everyone loved the story, but they trashed the form, the pretense, the dull wording, the cacophonies, the order of events, and even the names I gave to the characters. My grandfather was a famous Mexican musician, sensibility runs in the family and it’s hereditary, and still, I think I’ll need years before I can accomplish a decent piece of fiction prose. That’s the way life is; no one inherits so much of anything that their skills need only to be awaken under pressure; we all need practice. That Wanted wants to convince us that a typical office joe (like myself) is, inside, unbeknownst by himself, a perfectly skilled assassin who needs not any lessons but only to follow his instincts, insults my intelligence. This is not the kind of movie that relies upon logic, that’s perfectly obvious, but still, a little bit of it would have been welcome. That’s the beginning of the story, and there was no way I would buy the rest. I dropped the need for logic for the sake of my enjoyment, but was unsuccessful.

The guy is James McAvoy, who’s perfect for the role, the kind of guy who can convince as a nobody and can also prove quite mature when confronted by stress. He’s done that kind of role before and he does it again here, and he leads all right. The girl is Angelina Jolie, who, as has been the case before, has such good looks that it matters little what else she can do for the story. The veteran actor gracing the screen is Morgan Freeman, who is of course quite wasted, but at least plays a character with an atypical twist that gives us a chance to see Morgan not necessarily right and wise at all times. Terence Stamp, whom I admire greatly, shows once again that while relegated to small roles, he still has what it takes to command.

The story, I forgot: McAvoy is approached by Jolie who tells him that he’s an assassin at heart and must avenge his father, who was killed by a bad guy who left the club she belongs to, a millennium-old organization comprised of assassins who prevent really bad guys from committing odious crimes. It’s all incomprehensible in the sort of way that, when attempting an explanation, it comes off ludicrous, and when not attempting any, it comes off ridiculous. Anyway, things go pretty straightforward as McAvoy’s heaven-sent skills emerge and he becomes more dangerous than most of his new peers, and with a body to match—I guess instinct and pressure pump out muscles too, in just a couple of months.

It’s all surrounded by extreme and unnecessary violence, clichéd action pieces and some really bad humor. The script by Michael Brandt, Derek Haas and Chris Morgan is based upon the comic book series by Mark Millar and J.G. Jones. I can imagine that it worked out better in that media, but I wouldn’t go so far as to bet that that is the case.

There are two benefits to the story though, neither of which is Danny Elfman’s score, Mitchell Amundsen’s photography or the innovative special effects that I found blown-up to an unnecessary extent; instead, they are: a delightful plot twist that wakes up the interest of the bored (me included) towards the end, making way to a pretty good denouement; and the fact that it moves so quickly that it turns out painless… or at least a little less painful.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of Wanted (2008): Morris

Review

Hancock

Director

Peter Berg

Year

2008

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, August 20, 2008

I expected a lot from this movie, I can’t deny it. Will Smith is in such a hot streak that the idea of him accepting to star in a mediocre movie seemed out of the question. The concept was great, the actors top-notch and the trailers funny. Unfortunately, the execution… not so good. Didn’t matter though, the flick still made loads of cash and entertained millions of people. I just secretly wish it had come out better; it certainly had the potential to.

John Hancock (Will Smith) is a homeless drunk who happens to have superpowers. Problem is, anytime he uses them the city turns into chaos and thus his public image is despiteful. Enter public relations professional Ray Embrey (Jason Bateman), who wants to turn this around and welcomes him into his home even though his wife Mary (Charlize Theron) does not agree.

Peter Berg directed from a screenplay by Vincent Ngo and Vince Gilligan. All the problems the movie has, and there are many, I blame on them. There is specifically one issue that needed to be resolved way before the movie was greenlighted: it doesn’t know what it wants to be. The tone is so uneven that it keeps catching you off-guard and wondering what it is you must feel: is this funny, seriocomic, a parody, slapstick? Or is it really meant to be dramatic, are we supposed to cry?

The movie’s first third is by far its most solid. There’s an opening sequence, with Hancock going after runaway criminals, which is big and clever. We then get to know the man and the shenanigans he gets into. The way he uses his powers and “fixes” situations is amusing; a wildly different take on what it is to be a superhero. But then his whole image-change thing sets in and he is sent to jail. To be fair, there are some bits here and there that keep the spirits high. But then, oh boy, a third act twist comes into play which brings all sorts of pandemonium. From then on, the script is truly a mess, the movie goes crazy, the special effects explode and what can be considered credible human interaction goes down the toilet. I hadn’t a problem with the twist itself, but with everything that happened after it, including ridiculous explanations and a big, almost laughable, climax.

And yes, there’s even a supposed “villain” thrown in there that should’ve been cut out of the movie entirely. If it wasn’t going to be a stronger, more menacing presence then why even include it?

I’ve read that the script for Hancock, which was initially titled Tonight, He Comes, had been going around Hollywood for many years now, with plenty of big names attached to it at one time or the other. I can see the appeal, but this baby needed a lot more work before finally being made. I’d recommend watching the trailers instead; they have all the best scenes and are way funnier than the whole product.

Will Smith is a very talented, charismatic actor and he almost always elevates the material he’s given. Hancock is no exception and he’s actually very good in it. Charlize Theron is ok, as is Jason Bateman, although I wish we could see him play someone with a stronger personality soon. The supporting cast is fine, nothing memorable.

“That’s because I’ve been drinking, bitch!”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Splendor in the Grass

Director

Elia Kazan

Year

1961

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, August 19, 2008

When the very first scene of a seemingly romantic movie shows its two stars making out, you know the story will be rather decadent, because if we’re at the top, it can only go downhill. That a story of ruin can be well-loved is quite unconventional, and very interesting. Such is the case of Splendor in the Grass, which begins with a generous smooch quickly followed by the girl’s reluctance and the guy’s disgust about it. This seems to be the case every time this scenario is reproduced, which appears to be quite frequent. The girl, Deanie, is as eager as her boyfriend, Bud, to do what they never actually get to do. Her mother teaches her that no nice girl has such desires or allows a guy to get near her, unless they’re married, and even then, she won’t enjoy it, because a woman is not supposed to.

The story is as simple as this: set in an uptight society in 1928 Kansas, it shows the consequences of the maddening gap between education and desire, pretense and feeling, custom and attraction, etc. It’s also the story of “how a cute guy can drive you crazy”, I read a fan saying in an Internet board, and quite right: the guy is Warren Beatty, the legendary heartthrob, in his film debut, and it’s all about him, though the spotlight is on Deanie, masterfully played by Natalie Wood, who lives a personal hell as she can’t by far realize her dreams since every time she attempts to, she finds the threat of losing her own identity, of losing herself.

On his own, Bud has enough problems: he isn’t very bright, but his dad has the biggest expectations about him, and won’t even consider a different option. Bud only wants to be a farmer, which he can’t even consider. About Deanie, his feelings are also mixed: he loves her, but he wants her, and after a while, he gets on the wagon of pretense, understands that wanting her devaluates her, and seeks pleasure elsewhere. The consequences are disastrous.

One of the greatest peculiarities of this drama, scripted by William Inge, is that it’s still happening everywhere around the world. I grew up in a big city and even there I was surrounded by an uptight society that created such awkwardness among their youths, not allowing them to develop naturally, feeding them poison about their own desires, condemning them if they were to realize them, that it caused either their perpetual frustration or their haunting guilt, one never to be confessed in fear of the irremovable stigma that would ensue.

I found much truth in this story, particularly in its treatment of the options of a way out: rebellion and madness. The first option is represented by Ginny, Bud’s sister, who broke the mold and decided that it wouldn’t matter to live life the way she wanted, despite society’s pressure; this proves false, as she’s still tied to her parents and can’t help falling victim to everyone’s mocking, which eventually turns her parents’ warnings into the truth. The second option, madness, brings the film to its denouement.

Talking about Ginny, she’s performed most splendidly by Barbara Loden. The other standout is Pat Hingle as her father and Bud’s, an aggressive man who has no clue of what anyone around him is feeling. Following closely (not that it’s a competition) is Audrey Christie as Mrs. Loomis, Deanie’s mother, who is not to blame for what’s going on, even if she is, though it differs from her intentions.

Elia Kazan sure knows how to present this kind of drama. In my case, since I have seen many cases like this in real life, and I’m no stranger to such societies, it was important to see it presented without much pretense, though it does fall into the melodrama category at times, but overall it succeeds. David Amram’s music helps a lot, Boris Kaufman’s cinematography works appropriately, and that legendary scene of Deanie in the bath is so powerful it shatters the viewer, making it clear that a teenager’s mind doesn’t work like an adult’s, that there aren’t small tragedies for them, and that Natalie Wood is one of the gifted actresses ever to show it so clearly.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Wanted

Director

Timur Bekmambetov

Year

2008

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, August 18, 2008

Even though it’s hard to say when Angelina Jolie has not done good, 2008 seems to be a peak for the actress, with the birth of her twins amidst the release of a summer hit, not to mention the great reviews she got at Cannes for Clint Eastwood’s Changeling. I’ve always liked her; she’s got a hypnotizing effect that is difficult not to succumb to. Wanted takes advantage of that and provides a lot of fun in the way.

Wesley Gibson (James McAvoy) has a dull existence, working for a big corporation and being cheated by his girlfriend. Everything changes when Fox (Angelina Jolie) appears and saves him from being killed by Cross (Thomas Kretschmann), the greatest assassin in the world after he disposed of his father (David O’Hara). She then takes him to Sloan (Morgan Freeman), head of an old corporation known as “The Fraternity”, a group of assassins who kill people before they commit crimes against humanity. Wesley eventually decides to join in order to avenge his father, so he is trained and sent to action.

Russian director Timur Bekmambetov directed from a screenplay by Michael Brandt, Derek Haas and Chris Morgan, based on the comic book series by Mark Millar and J.G. Jones. That’s certainly a lot of names for such a simple story; for yes, Wanted is a very simple movie. This actually took me off-guard. The repercussions of what the main characters in the movie do could give way to countless moral dilemmas and a thorough examination of the consequences. As it is, Wanted is mere popcorn, an effects-extravaganza about a loser who becomes trained and faces his ultimate nemesis, nothing more or less.

To be fair, the movie does get more interesting towards the end, but it touches these fascinating themes with such superficiality that one can’t but wonder about the possibilities. For what it is, it works. It moves very fast, the big denouement arrives so quickly you’re surprised how much time has gone by. Character identification is there, we empathize with Wesley from the get-go; his arc is pretty predictable, albeit satisfying and well-handled.

And then there are the visuals. I had a slight problem with Mitchell Amundsen’s photography; it didn’t look as high-def as most Hollywood movies do. But the camerawork and special effects are top-notch, with Beckmambetov bringing the kinetic style he’s become famous for to the table in spades. Highlights include the opening sequence, a one-of-a-kind car chase and the big climax on top of the train.

James McAvoy carries the movie on his shoulders and he’s more than apt; his next-door-neighbor looks help, but he’s a very good actor and he delivers. Angelina does not have much to do expect for look dashing and tough; mind you, she’s an expert at that. Morgan Freeman could play this kind of role in his sleep, but he’s always a welcomed presence. So is Terrence Stamp in a pivotal role, although he’s barely in the movie. Thomas Kretschmann also leaves a strong impression.

“What the fuck have you done lately?”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of Wanted (2008): Groucho

Review

Guess Who's Coming to Dinner

Director

Stanley Kramer

Year

1967

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, August 14, 2008

Call me narrow-minded and you’ll be unfair to me, but still, at the beginning of Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner, after Joey (Katharine Houghton) and John (Sidney Poitier) have arrived to San Francisco together, clearly an interracial couple, one of them about to introduce the other to his or her family, as can be induced from the title, and have stepped out of the airport and into a taxi, and lip-lock in it, much to the amazement and reprobation of the cabby, I myself was shocked. The reason: I had already been drawn into the reality of the movie, the time and place it’s set on, with all the difficulties that could clearly come forth in a relationship like the one that impresses a cab driver, not to mention perhaps the white girl’s parents, or, of course, the black guy’s.

It’s the girl’s parents who are about to receive a shock, in this case. They’re not right-wing pricks who can’t contemplate the possibility of their daughter being in love with an African-American, but still – you know – it’s the kind of thing you wouldn’t expect for your daughter, you wouldn’t have expected from your daughter, ah, what the heck, one has to face reality… The point I’m trying to reach is that this movie’s greatest truth and triumph is that it deals with that unspeakable issue: the fact that you don’t like your son or daughter to step out of the wagon and break the mold; to be with a black man, to be gay, whatnot, you name it; the kind of things that happen to other people, never to you, but wait a second, we’re all other people to other people, and if we didn’t have problems sometimes, no one would be able to talk about those problems as other people’s at all, and to dread them… We just never think it’s gonna be us, and when it is, we’re forced to face the demons, and there’s not one of us who likes it.

I grew up hearing this film was a big classic. I didn’t do a wide research but the few reviews I read, spanning four decades, are by people from all over the world talking about this piece as one of tolerance; claiming that the parents are wrong initially to reject the couple as a reaction; that they’re even worse off when they start finding reasons to reject it officially; and (this is my favorite) finding the black guy’s parents’ reaction a relief, because if they reject “us” so badly, don’t we have a right to do the same? As I said, my research wasn’t very extensive, I probably didn’t read any review written by an African-American, but the result from the microcosm I found was uniform: the people who wrote them are the parents from the film, people who wouldn’t like to be in the parents’ shoes but who claim they wouldn’t mind, people who are racist at heart but live a life denying it because it’s so wrong, people they can’t face themselves and thus can’t deal with the rest of humanity.

If I claim I’m different, I’ll be the same, and that’s the paradox. I have had my share of racism and rejection but I guess it’ll never be comparable. I can’t tell how I would react if something like that happened to me, and hey, this is the twenty-first century, and I’m a young bohemian fellow, and still, truth be told, confrontation is hard, unexpectedness is always difficult to deal with, and there will always be things we expect which, when replaced by something completely different, produce a shock. The only weapon I can use to prevent the shock is to open my mind to a wider expectation, to expect the unexpected, not to wish it, but to know that it exists, and only then will I be able to deal with stuff, no matter how hard it is for me, but without looking like a damn fool.

That the girl’s family is portrayed as pitch-perfect, to the point of having taught tolerance to their daughter so emphatically that they are the very cause why she has now chosen a man from a different race as her life partner, is what makes this such an interesting piece, as an examination of contradiction. In the end, what it is, albeit disguised as a pro-tolerance story, is a tale of self-redemption, of conversion, of life forcing a person to become what he or she has claimed they are, because otherwise they won’t be coherent, and the balance of their life will jeopardized.

Such an inspired piece, scripted by William Rose, unveils like a play, and every line of dialogue is intriguing. There’s light comedy sprinkled throughout, but most of it is quite dramatic if never tragic. It’s a pleasant ride.

The stars aren’t the couple, but the girl’s parents, played by the long-time if unofficial couple of Katharine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy. The latter, the film’s top credit, played this as his last role, and it’s a haunting tribute to his work. Both are wonderful though. No one is to fault, in fact: when the guy’s parents join the bunch, played by Beah Richards and Roy Glenn, these actors show their own chops. Yet another, Cecil Kellaway, plays Monsignor Ryan in an effortless appearance that’s surely anything but, both for the actor and for the character. As the house aide, Tillie, Isabel Sanford has a few things to say, and we are there to listen. Poitier is respectful to his seniors, and his onscreen partner, Katharine Houghton, lovely as can be, and perfectly credible, is the real-life niece of the actress playing her mother.

I have wondered at the title. It was picked up from a line of dialogue, it describes the film perfectly, it talks about a character or perhaps more than one, and it’s suspenseful enough to attract the audience even if they don’t know anything about the film. Furthermore, it’s a universal question that we as the audience ask ourselves. Are you ready to face whatever fate dictates for you? Well… Guess who’s coming to dinner.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Bad and the Beautiful

Director

Vincente Minnelli

Year

1952

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Wednesday, August 13, 2008

I should start at the beginning: I watched this film thinking it was something else, thanks to its title. It talks of how important titles are, because it served its purpose: it sold me a movie for what it was not, and it later revealed itself as a fake, when it came through that it hadn’t much to do with the plot, but I had seen it anyway. No, that’s unfair. In the film, there is a bad and there is a beautiful, but I don’t see what the beautiful is doing in the title. I see what the bad is doing there, he’s the main character, but the beautiful, if at all they’re referring to the one I think they’re referring to (which they are, Lana Turner, the reason why that word is in the title, because she was such a big star), is only one amongst three characters that are equally important to the script and have equal weight in the story. Oh, well, enough complaints. Who cares that they took out the other two, after all, they’re guys, one a director and another a writer, and God knows no one thinks of those people as often or as highly as they do of stars, particularly female and glamorous ones, in Hollywood. Hey…! After all, I think the title makes sense.

The bad is the star, as I said, and I’m told the title was supposed to be something like “Tribute to a Bad Man”. Now that makes sense. That guy is played by Kirk Douglas. I saw posters of this movie showing him and Lana Turner in passionate scenes and I thought again of the bad and the beautiful—help me skip the next, it’s repetitious. Let us proceed with what it is: a story that tells of this man, a failed Hollywood producer, climbing to the top again thanks to his ambition and his recklessness, caring about quality but not giving a damn about people, and knowing that, in the end, he’ll be all alone, but not being concerned by it because that’s what he is, essentially, and he knows it: an individual. He’s a villain, of course, but he’s also impossible to dislike. He’s quite a great character, and the way this film is shot, it really pays tribute.

That’s one of the main reasons to dislike this film, if you will: Robert Surtees’ camera makes the scenes look dream-like, ideal, perfect, while the argument is far from it, it’s hellish at times, and it doesn’t shy away from it. We’re not supposed to like this man, or so seems to indicate the script, but rather to judge him for what he is: a bastard who teaches the people around him that there is no sentiment that matters when it comes to making money in the movies, and that as long as you reach the top, who cares what you had to go through. The people who complain about him, who hate him, and whose points of view are shared with us in order to retell this man’s story, à la Citizen Kane (1941), have all come off pretty well, each of their lives improved, and yet they can’t but hate the “monster” responsible. Is he really a monster? they’re asked. Yes, they say unhesitatingly. Yet, they’re still drawn to him, because he’s got the ambition and the guts that most people lack.

Now that a comparison to Orson Welles’ debut has been brought to the table, I should perhaps declare what difference is greatest between the two, which keeps The Bad and the Beautiful in quite a lower standard: the latter is nowhere near metaphysical, rarely attempts psychological analysis and never delves into the star’s persona, his fears, his motivations, or his traumas. What it does is to show him as a cardboard, a smile attached to a person (sometimes with a moustache on top), and only do we see him break a couple of times, and even then it seems to be a reaction by definition, not quite a deep revelation or an unexpected side to the man we thought we knew; in fact, the audience is never let out from his ambition, is never led to believe that he’s a good man, and is never fooled like the people around him, albeit quite naïvely, are.

These people: director Fred Amiel (Barry Sullivan), writer James Lee Bartlow (Dick Powell) and actress Georgia Lorrison (Lana Turner), are in for quite a ride as their careers are turned upside down, admittedly upwards though, for Jonathan Shields’ benefit. They’re quick to complain about him but they can’t see that this is the way of their industry, and that they’re playing that game now willingly. Shields comes off as a sort of terrifying teacher whose alumni swear they’ll hate him forever and years later think back and secretly thank him but shall never admit it!

As the story isn’t always as intense as the photography, aided by the potent music by David Raksin, this comes off melodramatic. The performances are so fine, though, that one can’t but appreciate the whole. Back to the misleading title, it’s curious that the two characters in it are the best performed among the main ensemble: Kirk Douglas is awesome and terribly likeable, while Turner is forceful both as the decadent heir and as the hopeful actress; some consider this to be her best performance. As haunting performances go, however, Gloria Grahame is most unforgettable, as Bartlow’s glamour-hungry wife.

Extra fun is to draw comparisons between these people and real Hollywood personages. I never thought it quite like that while watching it but it makes a lot of sense afterwards. There are similarities with such people as David O. Selznick, Orson Welles, Jennifer Jones, Herman J. Mankiewicz and Alfred Hitchcock, among many others. If anything, for a shiny-looking recreation of their times of glory, The Bad and the Beautiful is quite a success.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Age of Innocence

Director

Martin Scorsese

Year

1993

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, August 12, 2008

Martin Scorsese, a life-long fan of New York City, couldn’t have missed on directing a film set on his beloved town during the 19th century. What better choice than “The Age of Innocence”, an adaptation of Edith Wharton’s Pulitzer Price novel about pretense, suppressed feelings and passion? It’s quite frankly a good idea. Through it, Scorsese documents the way things were back then, as a largely European society settled in town, struggled to keep the old customs and found that much was for naught, since this is a new world, and a different one, and things simply are not the same.

The particular story told here, unfortunately, is so cold it can hardly be dealt with on cinema. I suppose, because the novel was extensively celebrated, that it presents some more depth into the characters’ psychologies and not just through an impersonal narration, in this case in the voice of Joanne Woodward. I have reasons to doubt that the novel would be successful nowadays anyhow. Back in its day, early 20th century, the novel was immeasurably daring, as it presented for once the way society was so hypocritical and pretentious and how it invested so much on trying to be what it was not. I doubt that it would prove fresh nowadays, and my reasons to doubt it are in this film, which looks nothing different from a typical period piece, but with a weaker story.

I’ll do the dreadful thing: a comparison. A year earlier, Howards End (1992) was released. Of course it’s a Merchant-Ivory, but that shouldn’t mean anything if these people weren’t so talented in presenting their characters’ angst so clearly despite their obligatory coldness that in some cases can’t be broken unless they were taken to the extreme. Compare how both films dealt with pretense and aloofness and deep, forbidden feelings and how the stories dealt with those subjects so differently, and while one flourished, the other swallowed. For Edith Wharton’s sake, I hope I’m wrong about the novel having the same problems; as they stand through these two films, I’d take E.M. Forster any day of the week.

Newland Archer is the character who unbearably doesn’t deal with his feelings fully, only waltzing around the fact that he’s in love with a woman who’s not his fiancée. The woman in question is Countess Olenska, who has a pretty bad image as it is, and is the aunt of Archer’s future wife, May. Since it’s a coward’s love, it’s hard to feel the passion shared by Archer and Ellen Olenska, especially because the actress playing her, Michelle Pfeiffer, had proved by then that she was capable of quite some passion, none of which we find here. She would be perfectly cast if her character wasn’t in fact so self-restricted, it’s frustrating! Daniel Day-Lewis, as Archer, is even worse: he never even shows the feeling, and when he does, he only suggests, he’s not riveted by it, not torn apart. “Coward!” was all I could think about. What a waste of talent… Winona Ryder is much luckier; now she does correspond to her character’s behavior, and while concealed, she shows her struggle with only a glance, and a broken voice, and she’s perfect.

The film is packed with all the necessary requisites: production design, costumes, etc. Nothing quite pops up, except perhaps the fine music by Elmer Bernstein. It all seems obligatory. Even Thelma Schoonmaker’s editing work seems restrained. It’s mostly thanks to the screenplay by Jay Cocks and Martin Scorsese, and the latter’s direction. I was bored out of my senses. Wait a minute… Come to think of it, boredom was quite common two centuries ago. I guess in the end this is a truthful glance into 19th century New York. Bravo!

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian

Director

Andrew Adamson

Year

2008

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, August 11, 2008

When The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe came out in 2005 I was impressed; loved the story and the characters, was not fond of the production design. I wrote back then that since the world of Narnia had already been established in this first installment the following movies had the potential to be better, since no introductions needed be made. I was, unfortunately, wrong, as the sequel just didn’t live up to (at least my) expectations despite being a solid movie on its own.

Peter Pevensie (William Moseley) and his siblings Susan (Anna Popplewell), Edmund (Skandar Keynes) and Lucy (Georgie Henley) find themselves back in Narnia, albeit a thousand years later than when they left. They find their old home now ruled by evil King Miraz (Sergio Castellitto), uncle to the true heir, Prince Caspian (Ben Barnes), who is now in exile. So they all join forces to form a solid enough army to defeat the King’s, led by Lord Sopespian (Damián Alcázar), and reclaim the throne to the one who truthfully owns it.

Andrew Adamson is back at the director’s chair, working with a screenplay he wrote along with Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely, based on the C.S. Lewis novel. It’s difficult for me to pinpoint why this second chapter is not as thrilling or enchanting as its predecessor when there really is nothing major to fault. There is, though, one word that comes to mind when describing it, one that is certainly hurtful and unapologetic: forgettable.

While watching the movie I was enthralled, got into the story. But it didn’t stay with me afterwards. I think it might have to do with the extreme simplicity of the story. Good guys have to join forces to battle evil guys. The entire movie is about forming an army for a battle, then forming it again for a second battle. The personal relationships play second fiddle to the supposed spectacle. And even in those instances of human interaction the story plays like one cliché after another, such as the sexual tension between Caspian and Susan or the rivalry between him and Peter. I’ve heard both of these storylines didn’t play as such in the novel, where Caspian was much younger and not the dashing figure he plays here.

But it’s all fun and good-natured. Once again the younger siblings get much of the most interesting material, as both are complex individuals who always go against the flow. The next installment has only both of them returning, so hopefully it shall make for a more interesting ride. And yes, the addition of all sorts of creatures proves a highlight, especially with amusing mouse Reepicheep (voice of Eddie Izzard), but they don’t provide the same surprising factor inherent in the original flick. The villains are ok, nothing memorable, and a small appearance by the White Witch (Tilda Swinton) makes you long for her to be back doing all sorts of wicked evil. Technical-wise this sequel is almost identical to its predecessor, which means that the production design is still so-so, the special effects good and Harry Gregson-Williams’s score as beautiful and delightful as ever.

Ditto for the acting, with all four main actors, William Moseley, Anna Popplewell, Skandar Heynes and Georgie Henley, doing a fine job, especially the last two. Ben Barnes seems to have what it takes to be a commanding leading presence, although he sports an accent that bothered me throughout the whole thing (word is he based it on Mandy Patinkin’s work in The Princess Bride (1987)). Italian Sergio Castellitto and Mexican Damián Alcázar do what they’re required of as the villains, while voice work from Liam Neeson and Eddie Izzard is first-rate. Peter Dinklage also appears and leaves a strong impression.

“I was hoping for something a little more original.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Amélie

Director

Jean-Pierre Jeunet

Year

2001

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, August 07, 2008

Back in its day, I didn’t like Le Fabuleux Destin d’Amélie Poulain because I felt it betrayed its original line by first making the lead character, naïve, concealed Amélie Poulain, a selfless anonymous hero, and then switching her to a selfish person, making everything she had built take second place to her own happiness, thus losing the film’s focus. Let me just say I was one doomed little bastard back then, but it wasn’t my fault. I was lost in a whirlpool of heartbreak and fear and didn’t dare live life fully, spoiled every opportunity I had and blamed it on the world instead of on myself. Now I know that I was much like Amélie Poulain, because after all, my cheer was always up and my dreams were constant, but I kept forgetting what was most important: my own happiness.

Now I have reevaluated what I have found to be a gem, much as the rest of the world did back then. Amélie does dream of a perfect world and does become an anonymous hero, but she soon enough embarks on a quest for her own happiness and simply finds herself unable to complete it. In frustration, she focuses on other people, and by way of doing so discovers herself. What she does for others is not nearly good enough, but it has the value of helping her find a meaning for her life.

Believed ill of the heart by her father, she was isolated during most of her life, she lost her mother early enough and spent an existence of imaginary friends and farfetched dreams. The story, beautifully shot by Bruno Delbonnel, presents Paris the way she sees it: fantastic, ideal, with pretty colors all around, neatness everywhere, smiling people and happy children. It’s not that the movie’s world is like that, it’s that Amélie’s world is.

Audrey Tautou doesn’t struggle to enamor the viewer in the title role, she simply does, as simply as she smiles, as easily as she floats around seamlessly, perfectly integrated to the fantasy world she introduces us to. André Dussollier narrates her story like a writer would narrate the adventures of his or her favorite character, which is exactly what he’s doing, channeling the voices of director Jeunet and Guillaume Laurant, who clearly put much love into the mix, and particularly into the conflicted character of Amélie.

Her story is amazing and we follow it with mighty will: we want her to be happy but we realize her whims will probably be over when she does, thus, we’re fine with flowing along in her colorful world as she does everything in her hands to give people a key to happiness, which sometimes falls into the category of dishonesty (a problem shared with another favorite, Life is Beautiful (1997)) but which is an undeniable triumph of the human spirit, and a welcome present.

Her match is a man she never speaks to in the entire film: Nino (Mathieu Kassovitz), another dreamer. I won’t get into their story, which is vast despite their lack of dialogue exchange (I’m not complaining, but on the contrary, I applaud that decision); I’ll only say that Nino is the same kind of dreamer, and the way they dream is fantastic: they notice the little details, they make up their own, and they combine everything to bring balance to the world, not ignoring the chaos, but rather diminishing its impact by emphasizing the beauty of the smaller stuff, that which mostly goes unnoticed, but which shouldn’t since its universal importance is incalculable.

During her quest, Amélie meets many people and affects many lives; these people also affect her. Undoubtedly the most important is a neighbor who has no choice but to stay home: Raymond Dufayel (Serge Merlin), who soon becomes a confident if never openly. His relationship with Amélie is beautiful, and I love the way that subplot ends.

Mostly I enjoy the film’s truthful core despite its dreamlike attire. Just take a look around. Think about how everything Amélie notices, the sum of all little details, is real, it happens and is all around us. Think about how the change achieved in people thanks to her can happen in all of us, with small triggers like childhood memories, unexpected love or a lost letter. Consider my favorite: the ghost of the photographic booth. How often does something like that happen, how wonderful is it to think of it as something else, not just give it the most mundane explanation, but let imagination fly, and then find that the objective explanation, which no doubt always existed, is the surprise, is the climax.

The real world doesn’t necessarily look like Aline Bonetto designed it, in the colors with which Bruno Delbonnel photographs it and set to the sweet and wonderful music of Yann Tiersen… But why not? Is it not our decision to make it so?

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Irreversible

Director

Gaspar Noé

Year

2002

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, August 06, 2008

When Irreversible premiered at the Cannes Film Festival it created a stir. There were people who appreciated it and others who couldn’t stand it. There was talk that a lot of attendees actually walked out of the screening, which is saying a lot when dealing with a festival audience. Yet I don’t blame them, I almost did so myself but hung in there cause I don’t like to walk out of movies. But leaving the shock factor aside, you have to hand it over to a movie that is able to incite such a reaction while also having something to say.

One cold night in Paris, Marcus (Vincent Cassel) and his friend Pierre (Albert Dupontel) end up in a hardcore gay club looking for a man known as Le Tenia (Jo Prestia) in order to seek revenge, as this man hurt Marcus’s girlfriend Alex (Monica Bellucci) earlier that day.

Gaspar Noé directed from his own screenplay. If it looks like the premise is too simple it’s because it is. The process of discovery is essential for the enjoyment and understanding of a movie like this, the catch being that it moves backwards in time. It all takes place in one day and we start with the ending and gradually move back to the beginning. There are twelve sequences that were shot in continuous takes, giving the story a palpable sense of crude realism.

The opening scene is almost unbearable to watch. It takes place in the aforementioned club and after a lot of rumbling something happens that will test your endurance to violence. But that’s not the most controversial scene in the movie; that would belong to an 8-or-9 minute sequence in which a woman is horribly raped and beaten. It is a difficult scene to watch because we as the audience feel the need to intervene yet we can only stand there as witnesses; it is brutal and appalling.

After being presented with these instances of graphic violence it’s impossible not to think that the real star of the movie is not one of the actors but director Noé himself. From the beginning his camera movements (which do become annoying after a while) call too much attention to themselves. Then the story moves on and I started to wonder if it wasn’t all too pretentious, just too much. That’s when I opted to shut up and keep watching. Eventually the movie itself gave me the answer; Noé actually needs to be that explicit to make his point. As the sequences eventually become lighter, we start to notice the drastic change and realize there’s a point behind the way he shot what had preceded them. Risky, yes, but mainly brave.

To be honest, while I was watching the movie I didn’t really know what I felt about it. But after the next hours and days I started to feel more strongly about it. To this day the more I think about it the more I like it. Noé took an interesting concept about how time kills everything and threw it out there employing en effective gimmick that leads to a shocking finale in the most unconventional of ways. This is the kind of movie where it’s impossible not to have a strong reaction, and that’s never a bad thing when dealing with an artistic expression.

The main actors, who are married in real life, deliver incredibly affecting performances. Drop-dead gorgeous Monica Bellucci commits bravely to her character and gives it her all; it is work of amazing courage and she’s equally good in intense or more intimate scenes. Vincent Cassel also leaves a strong impression as a man who sees his life crumble in an instant and feels the need to canalize that anger in the most savage of ways. Supporting performers are all strong.

“You’re behaving like an animal. Even animals don’t seek revenge.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Bedazzled

Director

Harold Ramis

Year

2000

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, August 05, 2008

Though quite popular, Harold Ramis’ remake of the British little gem Bedazzled (1967) doesn’t hold a candle to it, not by far, but benefits greatly from two factors: Brendan Fraser’s goofiness and the inspired casting of Elizabeth Hurley as The Devil. The latter is the most important: Hurley is perfect as the extravagant, cynical and gorgeous Prince(ss) of Darkness, her command of the screen undeniable whether she’s sharing it with Fraser or not. She’s a delight to look at, impossibly gorgeous scene by scene, and having her guiding the ride is a treat to behold.

Other than that, this is just an episodic film that doesn’t gel together, makes little sense, comes to a rather predictable finale (disguised as an unpredictable one) and doesn’t even teach a moral, and if it tries to, it gets stuck in the attempt.

The story is, again, that of “Faust”: a man selling his soul to achieve his dream, in this case, to conquer the workmate who steals his breath: Alison (Frances O’Connor). It doesn’t help that she wouldn’t notice Elliot, he being such a dork, but they also work at a huge company, in different departments, and their interaction is null. Quite frankly, I felt that despite his geek status Elliot was pretty much in control, so being enrolled by The Devil never seemed quite credible, especially because despite her hotness he didn’t appear to be charmed. Also, such a nerd is usually such in great part because he wants to. Anyway, going along with the ride, she grants him a handful of wishes, seven ideal scenarios where he can become anything he wants and, hopefully, get the girl.

The scenarios are unexpected and usually hilarious. Elliot becomes what he wishes albeit in a twisted way that makes it riotous. Alison is dragged into the fantasy and gets a role in the scenario herself, usually not what Elliot would expect, or not the way he would. Every time there’s something in his wish that The Devil takes advantage from, a hole in his phrasing that allows her to play a prank on him and make the ideal fantasy rather nightmarish. Realizing how things go awry is the best from this film, the same as in the original.

There are a few problems though: the scenarios don’t always go wrong for the same reasons, making it clear that it’s out of Elliot’s hands; Alison’s personality swings without reason, not always according to Elliot’s wishes; The Devil’s place inside and out of the wishes isn’t quite clear; after all is said and done, there’s no real change in the characters, the ending is a cheat, and all was for naught. Also, I never fell for Alison, Hurley fatally eclipsing the quite pretty O’Connor; bummer.

There’s one thing in particular that bothered me: at the beginning, Elliot’s workmates (Miriam Shor, Orlando Jones, Paul Adelstein and Toby Huss) ridicule him. The actors pop up in the fantasies impersonating some of the people who usually complicate matters. We hate these people. At the end, after Elliot has presumably achieved a significant change, there’s no comeback. They never learn a lesson, nothing! They began as jerks and end up as jerks without any punishment. Ah well… I guess this movie teaches us that even if you sell your soul to the devil, you’ll never get rid of the assholes at work.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Into the Wild

Director

Sean Penn

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, August 04, 2008

Sean Penn’s few ventures as a director had not been as critically-acclaimed as Into the Wild except, perhaps, for his short segment in 11'09''01 (2002). But with this movie he found more than a few admirers and even some accolades came its way. I was able to see it after almost half a year later and even though I liked it I don’t think it was worthy of as much praise as it initially got. Doesn’t matter, it is what it is and that’s just as fine.

Chris McCandless (Emile Hirsch) decided to leave his home and give his savings to charity once he graduated in the early 90’s. He had had enough of his cold father (William Hurt) and overbearing mother (Marcia Gay Harden) as well as all things material despite getting along real well with his sister Carine (Jena Malone). He then embarked on a trip to Alaska that took him through different places where he met all sorts of people.

Sean Penn directed from his own screenplay, based on Jon Krakauer’s book which was born out of McCandless’ own writings and stories from people he met. His story is definitely interesting and worth telling. I was enthralled by how much I identified with him regarding his initial motivations; there are times when so much materialism can be enslaving, and a difficult situation at home only makes matters worse. Into the Wild touches upon these themes while trying to make us understand Chris, especially as the story moves along and his acts become more selfish by the minute.

I’ve heard complaints about people not really loving the movie because of what Chris did and his whole attitude towards life. Me? I didn’t really care, after all it’s based on a true story and if the guy was a prick then so be it, I wouldn’t have it any other way. At least I understood what took him to that place and yes, he had plenty of flaws but they all seemed pretty real to me. He never ceased to be an interesting and unpredictable man, reasons enough to be moved by his quest at the end of the day.

If there are faults to consider I’d say they have to do with the script and execution. Being a road movie of sorts it is awfully episodic, with some encounters more interesting than others. The most moving bit is a friendship Chris forms with old lonely Ron (Hal Holbrook), a segment that contains more poignancy than anything else in the entire movie. That leads me to another complaint, which is that it is way overlong and slower than it needed be.

Eric Gautier’s photography is beautiful, although I get the impression that a lot more could’ve been done with such breath-taking vistas. Eddie Vedder contributed many fitting songs while also working on the score along with Michael Brook and Kaki King.

Emile Hirsch carries the movie on his shoulders and he seems to have really matured with this role, acting-wise. His transformation is pretty harsh, but most importantly, he gets the man. Hal Holbrook leaves the strongest impression with his small supporting role, a very affecting one. Marcia Gay Harden, William Hurt, Jena Malone, Catherine Keener, Vince Vaughn and Kristen Stewart are all excellent.

“Happiness only real when shared.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter