CriticSociety- film reviews

Review

Tom Jones

Director

Tony Richardson

Year

1963

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Monday, September 30, 2002

Irresistible story of Jones (Albert Finney), an illegitimate child raised in luxury by the Squire Allworthy (George Devine) of Western England, eventually becoming an implacable womanizer who seeks for true love but succumbs to temptation. His antics and misadventures caused by such behavior and the jealousy of others in interest of the richness he might make his own, take him to different roads and an uncertain fate. Through his way, he becomes our friend, and at times shares with us his experiences and thoughts, as do other characters talking and/or looking straight at the camera.

Exquisite British comedy based on the 18th century novel by Henry Fielding (scripted by John Osborne), with hilarious moments and sexy scenes that are hot as fire. The direction and writing reach perfection, making this a fine piece of entertainment for most tastes. The score by John Addison adds just the right touch, both respecting the atmosphere and suiting the hilarity of the overall mood.

From the introductory scene, played as a silent film and showcasing the hilarious score, and the culmination of it in the opening credits, you know you’re in for a fun and pleasant ride.

Finney became a star overnight thanks to this role and it’s easy to see why. The supporting cast is excellent, with Hugh Griffith sensational as the uneducated Squire Western (Allworthy’s neighbor), and a bunch of brilliant actresses in great roles: Edith Evans as Western’s educated sister, Diane Cilento as a passionate girl, Joyce Redman as a lady with a secret, Joan Greenwood as a femme fatale, and Susannah York as Western’s daughter and Tom’s object of affection. Other men and women from the cast shine as well.

The stunningly realistic hunting sequence, the sexiest meal ever put on film, the riotous night at the Upton Inn (featuring Lynn Redgrave in her film debut), all memorable scenes.

A remarkable film in all aspects; unforgivable to miss it.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Signs

Director

M. Night Shyamalan

Year

2002

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, September 25, 2002

Signs has, by now, become the most profitable movie starring Mel Gibson, one of the biggest stars in the world. What is it about it that makes it so special? I wasn’t going to let anyone tell me. I tried to stay as unattached as possible about this one. And it paid off…

The movie starts with a bang. Graham Hess (Mel Gibson) is a widower who used to be a reverend but lost his faith when his wife was accidentally killed. He has two kids (Rory Culkin and Abigail Breslin) and a brother (Joaquin Phoenix) who lives with them. One sunny morning they wake up to find that strange figures have been made in their crops. Thus starts the movie and I’m not saying one more word.

Signs is, so far, the most accomplished movie of the year. While I was watching it I couldn’t stop thinking that M. Night Shyamalan must be a genius. I went into the movie expecting a scary experience about aliens and nothing more. But nothing would have prepared me for what I actually got. I think this is just about the best amalgam of comedy, drama and suspense I have seen in my entire life. I’m not kidding. The movie has a macabre and dark sense of humor that had me in stitches. It also has scenes towards the end that had me crying. And it was the scariest experience in a theater I’ve had in a long time.

But wait a minute! The movie is also way more profound than it appears in the surface. It’s amazing how Shyamalan takes such old and silly subjects as ghosts, super-heroes and aliens and gives them a thoughtful and real spin. I love his last three movies, but I definitely think Signs is his best. And one of the reasons for that is that besides entertaining he also has something to say. The way he tackles the theme of faith is different yet absolutely poignant.

Both The Sixth Sense (1999) and Unbreakable (2000) had plot twists at the end. Signs does not boast one per se, but opts for a different kind of finale. It’s also about a revelation, but I sensed it was more about a moment of realization than about something that changes the whole perspective of what we’ve seen. I say, it is brilliant.

Kudos should also go to the people responsible for the marketing campaign of the movie. They revealed only the necessary and still managed to tease audiences.

James Newton Howard provides a Herrmann-esque score that is a revelation. Totally appropriate and expertly handled.

And last but not least the performances, which are all top-notch. Mel Gibson delivers a more restrained performance than usual in what is one of his best works yet. You can sense his pain and can see through his eyes. It’s the work of a great actor. And Joaquin Phoenix is outstanding as always. This guy is just immensely talented. Let the good roles keep coming for him!

At the end it all comes down to M. Night Shyamalan, director/writer/producer and even actor of Signs. Thanks man, thanks.

“There’s a monster outside my room, can I have a glass of water?”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

20,000 Leagues Under the Sea

Director

Richard Fleischer

Year

1954

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Monday, September 23, 2002

Halfway through the Nineteenth Century, rumors of a sea monster, which destroys ships, turn the eyes of the world to the seas where the incidents happen. One of the investigating ships has renowned Professor Aronnax (Paul Lukas) and his apprentice Conseil (Peter Lorre) searching for answers. Soon, the two end up discovering the true identity of the monster, along with Sailor Ned Land (Kirk Douglas): a miraculous submarine controlled by outcast Captain Nemo (James Mason). The fate of the machine and its men, as that of its visitors, changes drastically after this encounter.

Outstanding Disney adaptation of the Jules Verne classic has absolutely everything one can ask for: a genuine atmosphere of the time when it is set, a colorful depiction of the events, an all-star cast that works flawlessly, and a spirit of entertainment like few movies: in fact, this could be the most entertaining movie ever!

(One thing’s for sure: Verne would be delighted.)

Kirk Douglas is charming as ever as the outspoken Sailor, Mason irresistible as the mad scientist. Lorre and Lukas are great too, as expected.

Never a dull moment, but the giant squid sequence is an absolute blast.

A must-see.

“A strange twilight world opened up before me, and I felt as the first man to set foot on another planet, an intruder in this mystic garden of the deep.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Mr. Deeds Goes to Town

Director

Frank Capra

Year

1936

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Wednesday, September 18, 2002

Longfellow Deeds (Gary Cooper), a simple man who lives in the town of Mandrake Falls, writing postcard poems for a living and playing the tuba for relaxation, suddenly receives news from a remote and rich uncle who has died, inheriting him his fortune. He then moves to New York City, where all the eyes point at him, in an obsession to follow the life of a naïve and simple man who’s become a millionaire. A brilliant reporter, Babe Bennett (Jean Arthur), approaches him through lies and becomes the main informer of his weirdness, but when love comes, matters change.

Through quick dialogues and funny situations, the script makes us laugh throughout, though drama abounds towards the end, consolidating this film as a comedy with lots of morale and poignancy.

Successful Capra formula works to perfection. It is beautifully shot and acted, with Cooper sensitive and credible in the lead, Arthur also great as a woman with two faces. Other great members of the cast include Lionel Stander as Deeds’ counselor, Douglass Dumbrille as an ambitious lawyer, and many more.

One of the very best all-American films by Frank Capra.

“People here are funny. They work so hard at living they forget how to live.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

One Hour Photo

Director

Mark Romanek

Year

2002

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Tuesday, September 17, 2002

A hit at Sundance this year, One Hour Photo is a movie that claimed my attention since the moment it was conceived. There’s nothing too deep about that: the plot sounded intriguing and Robin Williams’s role seemed to be quite juicy. It’s as simple as that.

Sy Parrish (Robin Williams) is an employee of a one-hour photo lab. He has been developing pictures for the Yorkin family (Michael Vartan, Connie Nielsen and Dylan Smith) for so many years that he has become obsessed with them to the point in which he starts to feel like a part of it, and eventually having difficulty in differentiating dreams from reality.

Director Mark Romanek comes from a history of commercials and music videos. When you realize his latest movie is a thriller you expect quick-cuts, weird camera angles and all sorts of devices. Yet, except for a short frightening dream sequence, there’s nothing of the sort here. Romanek chooses to take his time, to develop his characters and to deliver each twist slowly and surprisingly as it comes.

The movie ends up being more of a character study. It’s fascinating to watch Sy and keep guessing what his next move will be. He’s not your typical villain. What’s more, he’s not even a villain per se. The guy just happens to be an old pathetic lonely person of whom we know nothing and whose life is so empty and monotonous that he just wishes it was different. When there’s a pivotal event in his life that hurts him deeply he starts to become active, and not passive to his situation as he had been for years. Whether he is now a dangerous man or not is something the audience will have to find out.

There’s an entire sequence almost at the end of the movie that involves a hotel and a suburban house that borders on the brilliant. It’s so well cut and works so well, both technically and emotionally, that I was left in awe and ready to digest the very last scene of the movie, which will certainly divide people.

I’ve always considered Robin Williams a good actor. There’s no denying that. I am a part of the club who hated some of his latest schmaltzy roles. There was a point in which I couldn’t even stand watching him again in a movie no matter what or how he was playing his role. He then opted for playing three disturbed characters in a row and it is paying off, because now people want to hand him awards. As for me, I think his performance here is definitely masterful, carefully molded and completely believable. The guy is simply an actor who knows his craft…

Great music, by the way!

“Nobody takes a picture of something they want to forget.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Triumph of the Will

Director

Leni Riefenstahl

Year

1934

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Monday, September 16, 2002

Before the Second World War, Adolf Hitler became world famous for his capacity of command and the prosperity of his Political Party. The key of his exponential success was his ability to manipulate his people through the resentment that recent events had planted in them. Hitler was, more than anything, a man who knew how to convince, and a big plan of propaganda made him accessible to the crowds…

All this can be clearly seen in Triumph des Willens, a masterpiece of cinema that serves both as a documentary on Hitler’s 1934 Nuremberg rallies, and as a piece of propaganda that transmits his message in a persuasive and accessible way.

Leni Riefenstahl used all of her genius in timing and editing to create this non-stop depiction of a growing leader, his followers, his ideas, and some of his actions (not all, of course). Some of the shots amazed me so much that I can say I have rarely seen anything as beautiful.

That indeed is the fascinating aspect of this film: It is something extremely beautiful about something extremely horrible. The fate of the Nazi Party and Hitler himself and the world because of them, cannot be forgotten while watching this, which makes the experience terrifying as well. The experience of watching this film is such a mixture of feelings (for most people, I guess) that it’s hardly equaled by anything else.

Striking, notorious, beautiful.

“It is our wish and will that this State and Reich will endure for a thousand years to come.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Talented Mr. Ripley

Director

Anthony Minghella

Year

1999

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Thursday, September 12, 2002

Anthony Minghella’s follow-up to his Oscar-winning movie The English Patient was one of the most anticipated movies of 1999. It starred some of the hottest Hollywood stars, was based on a highly acclaimed part-series novel and, to top it all, had what I consider one of the best trailers I’ve ever seen. When it finally hit theaters most people were disappointed because it wasn’t what they had expected. Me? I loved it…

Tom Ripley (Matt Damon) apparently is a responsible educated young man. That’s the reason why a man offers him a trip to Italy in order to convince his playboy son Dickie (Jude Law) to return home. When he’s there, Tom starts to form a friendship with Dickie and his girlfriend Marge (Gwyneth Paltrow). Soon it evolves into dangerous territory when Tom wants to take the situation a step forward: he wants to be Dickie.

Patricia Highsmith has written a lot of stories involving Tom Ripley. John Malkovich is even playing him in an upcoming movie and another version of this particular one already exists. It’s not difficult to understand the fascination with the character.

Minghella’s movie is an interesting psychological study about an intriguing and three-dimensional man whose acts are never predictable and who has more going for him than meets the eye. Ripley has homosexual tendencies, he appears to be a pretty confident man when his self-esteem is through the floor, he’s extremely intelligent when planning his life, yet he’s also very impulsive when the situation requires him to be. He is, after all, a charming man with some of the most despicable values and characteristics a human being can attain.

Dickie, on the other hand, is a man with no limits. He treats people the way he likes. He uses them and then lets them go. He is a very handsome man with a delightful personality. But he’s also a monster underneath, and it’s that relationship between these two monsters that holds the movie together. Are they responsible for their acts? Do they really deserve what they get? Is there more than a friendship going on? Do they deserve each other?

The movie is also a vision on its own. Itally has almost never been portrayed this beautiful. Every shot is carefully constructed and it shows. Breath-taking!

Matt Damon is brilliant as Tom Ripley. Every mannerism and line of dialogue is delivered the way you would expect from a man with all these peculiar characteristics. He’s entirely believable as both the charming man and the unforgiving killer. Jude Law is impressively good as well in an Oscar-nominated role that many thought stole the movie. He’s extraordinary. Gwyneth Paltrow, Philip Seymour Hoffman and Cate Blanchett give also wonderful performances in smaller roles.

A complex, difficult movie sparkled by great performances!

“I always thought it’d be better to be a fake somebody than a real nobody.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Brotherhood of the Wolf

Director

Christophe Gans

Year

2002

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Tuesday, September 10, 2002

The first time I noticed this movie was one day when I had nothing to do and I started to download trailers without even knowing most of those titles. This French film instantly hit a chord. Most French films are kind of artsy and pretentious, but here it was, a visually-impressive period-piece adventure that looked like nothing I had ever seen before…

The movie takes place in 18th century France. A strange creature, believed to be a wolf, is on a killing spree of women and children. After months of unsuccessful attempts at killing it, the King sends Grégoire de Fronsac (Samuel Le Bihan) and Mani (Mark Dacascos), two inseparable souls, to figure out the mystery and, once caught, bring the creature back to Paris. While there, Grégoire falls in love with Marianne de Morangias (Émilie Dequenne), sister of one-armed hunter of Jean-François (Vincent Cassel), but they’re always carefully watched by priest Henri Sardis (Jean-François Stévenin). Grégoire also befriends a gorgeous prostitute (Monica Bellucci), who might be more than she appears.

Well, that was a long premise! But then again, it is a long movie… and one that has as many subplots as genres it tackles. Director Christophe Gans creates a movie that is essentially an epic adventure filled with touches of horror, drama, suspense, romance and martial arts! You heard it right. It is a bizarre combination, but since I’ve always liked strange things I felt attracted to it.

Unfortunately, while the movie is thrilling and entertaining, there’s a sense in the end of things not having gelled together that nicely. There are some brilliant moments and transitions, but there are also a lot of dull moments that could’ve been tightened up a bit. The movie is also overlong. And then there’s the ending, which, as in most mystery movies, does not quite satisfy.

Still, there’s a very unexpectedly touchy scene a couple of minutes before the credits start rolling that I won’t easily forget. The way the scene is shot and what it represents made up for the quite standard 15-20 minutes that preceded it.

Gans shoots his movie with excess. Every image is exaggerated, every sound immensely amplified, every important shot is shown in slow-motion, every fight scene shot as over-the-top as possible (with at least one stand-out involving three men and a creature). It takes time to get used to the style, but once you do it’s easy to go for the ride.

And lets not forget the visuals. This movie is a feast for the eye! Gorgeous cinematography, spectacular vistas, amazing costume design and beautiful art direction make up for story lulls.

Performance-wise the movie also works quite well. A handful of talented French performers appear here, of whom Samuel Le Bihan makes the strongest impression. Then there’s Mark Dacascos, who turns a star-making performance. His Indian character is brilliantly conceived and Dacascos is just perfect in its skin. Vincent Cassel and wife Monica Bellucci also steal their scenes.

No matter how good or bad the movie is. After all I was quite entertained and it was a welcome feature from a country that isn’t known for this kind of movies. Keep them coming!

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Das Boot

Director

Wolfgang Petersen

Year

1981

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Monday, September 09, 2002

In the peak of WWII, many German U-boats go on mission to destroy English shipping in the so-called “Battle of the Atlantic.” Das Boot is the fascinating film about one of them, from the time when the crew members party before the mission begins, until a time when war has changed these men and their destinies.

The most fascinating aspect about this modern German film and the thing that should be mentioned first in any review of it, is the fact that it handles a sympathetic view of “the enemy,” so to call it. This of course caused controversy both in Germany and the rest of the world, but the artistry with which the movie is done simply cannot be denied; besides this, it shows the human side of these people, who besides, not necessarily had the same ideology of their Government, but even if they did, they were human beings and as so lived their lives. Through the process, there is no way to avoid an attachment to these people, and a conflict arises when the viewer even wishes they could accomplish their mission. However, the film doesn’t manipulate but it merely shows a side that is rarely —or never— shown on film or other media.

The cast ensemble is wonderful. Every member of the cast is passionate and unforgettable. The three main stars are Jürgen Prochnow, solid as the unbreakable Captain, Herbert Grönemeyer, sensitive as the Lieutenant who seems to be the center of this tale, and Klaus Wennemann just ideal as the Chief Engineer.

These characters are constantly presented with different situations that make them react very intensely due to their circumstances, while they still have to maintain a discipline in their behavior. The bittersweet taste of killing people who belong to the enemy, the joy of meeting comrades in the middle of nowhere, the longing of their home, the constant risk of dying in a very unpleasant way, and other such things are presented and handled in an amazing way.

Based on the autobiographic novel by Lothar G. Buchheim, this movie manages to show the claustrophobia and fear of the people inside a submarine like this one during war. The movie is realistic as can be and submerges us into its waters. The battle scenes are absolutely outstanding and incredibly realistic, making this film a true nail-biter. Bravo to people responsible for the visual effects!

The anti-war statement and the poignant finale wrap this up beautifully. I can’t recommend this classic more highly.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Frida

Director

Julie Taymor

Year

2002

Rating

Reviewed by

a.k.a. Jacinda

Review date

Thursday, September 05, 2002

Writing this review is a difficult task for me. Even though all my reviews have a personal touch – at least I hope so – I always try to be objective. This will be hard with Frida, a movie that is so close to my heart. I started a website on Mexican actress Salma Hayek about 3 years ago (http://www.hayekheaven.net). Even though she made it big time in Hollywood she never got a chance to show her true talent as an actress. After Wild Wild West in 1999, Salma started to change her image step by step. She focused on experimental indie films (Time Code (2000), Hotel) and produced her own movies (In the Time of the Butterflies) through her production company Ventanarosa. She created roles that suited her better than the ones she was offered in Hollywood. For many years, her dream project, however, has been Frida, a biopic about Mexican painter Frida Kahlo.

Frida led a tumultuous life: in her childhood, she suffered from polio leaving her with a limping leg. She was almost killed in a bus accident causing her physical pain for her whole life. She was married to Diego Rivera, the most important Mexican artist at the time, who betrayed her more than once - not to mention Frida’s numerous affairs with both men and women. Apart from being an artist, she also was a Communist who met such influential people as Leon Trotsky, Italian photographer Tina Modotti and Pablo Picasso. Despite her physical pain, Frida never gave up enjoying life to the fullest. This might be the most striking and fascinating aspect of her personality.

Frida’s art is certainly not accessible to everyone. At first, her paintings appear cruel and repelling. Once you get to know the circumstances that caused Frida to paint these scenarios, you start to love this woman and her art. Her paintings are certainly very personal and not everyone will fall for them. I guess you can apply this statement to the movie. If you see Frida as a martyr who suffered her whole life you won’t like the lively woman with the unbreakable will in Frida. But this is a general problem with biopics. Having a conception in mind leads to certain expectations. I wasn’t disappointed though – on the contrary.

I read Hayden Herrera’s biography about 2 years ago and fell in love with Frida’s art. Since then I’ve been following the production of the movie on my website FridaMovie.com. The project was destined to fail more than once. It was thanks to Salma’s passion that it was finally shot on location in her home country Mexico in April 2001. Friends like Ashley Judd, Antonio Banderas and Edward Norton supported her in the process. They all agreed on cameos to help Salma’s Frida. Her boyfriend Edward Norton even rewrote the script. As Salma said: “One of the wonderful things Frida taught me is that there are movies that are made with money and there are movies that are made with power. I made this movie with friends and hard work and inspiration and passion. I cannot tell you how much that means.”

Thus Frida is more than just another movie. It is a labor of love and certainly a turning point in Salma’s career. The filmmaking process has been incredibly inspiring for me personally. Even more so, since Miramax invited me to the world premiere of Frida at the opening gala of the Venice Film Festival. Dreams can come true after all. I did get to see the movie with the cast sitting only a few rows away from me. Salma was looking more gorgeous than ever.

When the film started I couldn’t believe it was truly happening, but soon enough I was so absorbed that I didn’t even realize I was sitting this close to Salma. I normally don’t like to give away too many details about the plot because I hate to spoil the experience for other people. With Frida I have to be more specific though.

When I saw the brilliantly directed slow-motion scene of the bus accident, I knew at once that Julie Taymor was just the right choice. The reflection of Frida’s face, the oranges, the blue bird and Frida lying on the ground covered in gold dust and blood – just breath-taking. Taymor’s surreal approach to Frida’s art draws us into her creative world. The much-talked-about paintings-come-alive scenes are not only visually striking, but also crucial for the storytelling. These scenes say more about Frida’s state of mind than words ever could. Her art is alive and breathing. The canvas is transformed into the movie screen. There are other impressive passages – for example the hallucination scene directed by the Brothers Quay, the New York and Paris scenarios. Even though I loved all of the above mentioned elements, my favorite scene of the movie is the one with Chavela Vargas. She’s a well-known singer in Mexico. Ironically enough, Chavela was once a lover of Frida Kahlo’s. In the movie, she is dressed in a black coat with a death mask on her face. She encounters Frida in a bar and sits down with her to sing a heart-breaking song. While Frida knows that her life is soon coming to an end, Taymor uses a montage technique that switches between the assassination of Leon Trotsky (Geoffrey Rush) and a real-life animation of Frida Kahlo’s painting “The Two Fridas”. This scene shook me to the core.

Even though Frida is most certainly visually striking, the performances are another crucial aspect of the movie. The supporting cast is excellent. I like the way Frida’s family is portrayed. I didn’t expect it to be too important, but it makes sense since these people were closest to her during her whole life. Roger Rees is a great choice as her father who can’t endure her pain. Mia Maestro surprises as Frida’s younger sister Cristina. She seems to have a special bond with Salma and it shows on screen. Another very positive surprise is Valeria Golino’s Lupe Marin, Rivera’s second wife. Valeria plays her as a throaty self-conscious woman who has learned her lesson in life. The chemistry between Lupe and Frida works perfectly. Their rivalry evolves beautifully into friendship.

The central characters of Frida are Frida and Diego - of course. The main problem that I saw when reading Frida’s biography was that Diego was not likeable. He was egoistic, he was constantly cheating and his way of dealing with Frida’s miscarriage was to treat her even worse. I knew the movie had to center on their relationship because Frida’s world evolved around Diego. Even though separated many times, they were together for almost 25 years. Frida accepted his behavior; they had a different approach to love than most people do. But how could you explain this to the audience? I think the kudos have to go to Edward Norton. I don’t know for sure that his work on the script is responsible for the Diego we get to see on screen, but there is a certain humor involved that I sensed could only come from Edward Norton. Diego is a womanizer whose attraction lies in his charms, his talent, his humor and his self-irony. Alfred Molina’s interpretation of this character is most impressive. He transforms himself into Diego. Apart from gaining weight for the role, he knows all the tricks to get the audience’s sympathy. I also feared that the chemistry between the “elephant” and the “dove” wouldn’t work. I was surprised how well Molina’s Diego and Hayek’s Frida fit together. Their relationship is based on mutual acceptance. There is certainly affection and love between them. Taymor handles their relationship with great empathy. One scene in particular touched me deeply. After Frida’s miscarriage, Diego is sitting in the hospital. He looks at one of Frida’s paintings and starts to cry.

The cameos add much to the all-in-all impression of the movie. Ashley Judd hits just the right marks with her lively interpretation of the free-spirited Tina Modotti. Her tango scene with Frida is most memorable due to the sexual tension between the two women. Antonio Banderas only appears in one scene. I am sure there was supposed to be another scene in which he tries to assassinate Leon Trotsky. This part was most likely cut out. I also have the feeling that parts of Rush’s Trotsky were cut. It makes perfect sense to me not to focus on the political surroundings too extensively. I know people will criticize Trotsky’s affair with Frida. They’ll say his politics were too important to only show the affair. You could certainly make 10 different movies about Frida Kahlo’s life and you would always tell a different story. This movie is not about her political entanglements though. If you wanted to concentrate on politics as well, the movie would have to run more than 3 hours. Showing these characters is important because it adds to Frida’s social background. Of course – Frida was a member of the Communist party, but I got the impression that it was where artists belonged at the time. Conflicts between Diego and the other Communists caused him to leave the party. This shows that their political beliefs were full of contradictions. In the end Frida and Diego followed their own ideas and principles. The dispute between Diego and Nelson Rockefeller (brilliant: Edward Norton) about the “transformation” of a worker’s face into Lenin is only one aspect of this conflict.

Salma Hayek is the dramatic force behind Frida. She brings Frida Kahlo to life with enormous energy that some people might not expect. You can’t help but fall in love with her. She transforms herself from the careless girl into the struggling artist. There are many other faces of Frida, Salma Hayek embodies them all. The audience gets to share the highs and lows in her life. In the end, you understand how all these events evolve most beautifully into her art. I can’t imagine anyone else to have played Frida Kahlo with such passion and lust for life. Salma Hayek is more radiant than ever. I am sure of one thing – her spectacular performance will earn her an Oscar nomination. Always present in Salma’s Frida is her longing for Mexico. Rodrigo Prieto’s (Amores Perros (2000)) cinematography captures the beauty of the country.

Julie Taymor and Salma Hayek have truly succeeded in capturing the essence of Frida Kahlo’s art - both visually and emotionally. Frida is not only celebrating the life of Frida Kahlo, it is also a celebration of Mexico.

The second the end credits started to roll the audience burst into applause. Frida received a standing ovation while the cast started to hug Salma. Mia Maestro was close to tears and so was I. I am overwhelmed that I was given the opportunity to share this special moment with Salma.

Viva la vida!

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Splash

Director

Ron Howard

Year

1984

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, September 04, 2002

I first watched this movie when I was really young. It was kind of a magical experience. The idea of a guy falling in love with a real mermaid was so out-of-this-world that you couldn’t resist falling for it. I even loved the TV sequel, although by now I don’t remember much about it. A couple of days ago I revisited Splash and it was as good as I remembered it.

Allen Bauer (Tom Hanks) is a regular hard-working guy with no luck in love. His brother (John Candy) is exactly the opposite of him and he’s always making fun of his drama. But everything changes when Allen meets “Madison” (Daryl Hannah), a beautiful mermaid who goes human as long as she’s dry. The thing is, she doesn’t tell him the truth, and while love grows, complications arise in the form of a scientist (Eugene Levy) who knows the truth and will do anything to prove his words right.

When I saw this movie as a kid I didn’t know anything about cinema. When I watched it again a few days ago I was shocked to find out that it is Ron Howard who directed it. I’ve always liked Howard’s work and it was a pleasant surprise. The movie is also surprisingly fit for a director known for making entertaining and fun stuff.

Because this movie is fun. It plays with its tongue firmly in its cheek and there’s nothing one can do to avoid getting immersed (no pun intended) in the story. Besides, we all love the notion of mermaids actually existing. It’s a fascinating idea and that fantasy comes true in Splash.

Then again, the movie is a juvenile romantic comedy, and a very strange one indeed. I was surprised at the humor because most 80’s movies simply fail in this arena and don’t age well. It comes to prove that the movie’s script is top-notch, and surprisingly enough it is the only aspect of the movie that was up for a lot of awards the year of its release.

Tom Hanks is excellent as always in the typical kind of role he played when he was younger and that was tailor-made for him. He’s funny, alive and completely believable. Daryl Hannah, on the other hand, is stunning and hypnotic, delivering just the right performance for a character like this.

A fun ride!

“What you looking at? You’ve never seen a guy who slept with a fish before?”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Third Man

Director

Carol Reed

Year

1949

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Monday, September 02, 2002

Holly Martins (Joseph Cotten), a writer of cheap western novelettes, goes to Vienna to visit his old friend Harry Lime, who invited him. Upon his arrival, he finds out that Lime has just died, and he’s even in time to go to the funeral. Right after this, he starts finding out that Lime’s death is quite mysterious and worthy of investigation. Major Calloway (Trevor Howard) brings to Martins’ attention how Lime was not what he seemed. When the death man’s girlfriend (Alida Valli) gets into the picture, things get even more personal.

This gorgeous film is a unique item of the Film Noir genre. Maybe it’s the most stylish of all. Set in post-war Vienna and shot on location, it looks exquisitely realistic. The photography by Robert Krasker orchestrated by Director Reed helps infinitely to the beauty of this film, which is multiplied even more by Anton Karas’ zither music, which becomes an infallible accompaniment for the process; this score is a strange choice that works.

The mystery is actually quite simple, but the twists and turns prove dramatic for the main characters, whose story is quite compelling.

Martins is, for me, Cotten’s role of a lifetime. I think he will always be remembered as Jed Leland, a character that lived under the shadow of Orson Welles in Citizen Kane (1941). In The Third Man, he turned this into a legendary showdown with unforgettable results. Welles, who plays Lime, makes a much stronger impression, while appearing onscreen only a few minutes; however, the story takes them both on a slightly different path than it happened before.

That wheel of fortune scene is a marvel. So is the chase in the sewer.

Two slightly different versions exist: The British, with an introduction by Reed, and the American, with an introduction by Cotten. Producer David O. Selznick did his cuts to the American version but to little effect; however, I do recommend more the British version, which is more personal of the Director.

A must!

“In Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter