CriticSociety- film reviews

Review

Man on Fire

Director

Tony Scott

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

Jorge Castillo a.k.a. Mithrandir

Review date

Thursday, September 30, 2004

Man on Fire deceived me. From the trailers, I thought it would be an action-packed movie, with lots of fire (no pun intended) and explosions. I was pleasantly deceived.

The movie starts with a very concerning statistic: “There is one kidnapping every 60 minutes in Latin America. 70% of the victims do not survive.” The opening of the movie alone, right as the credits are running, foreshadows part of what’s to come in the movie. We see the kidnapping of a young man and the call to his father with specific instructions on where and how to leave the money if he ever wants to see his son again. It’s a very powerful opening. As things move along, the real movie starts.

It takes place in Mexico City, where an African-American named John W. Creasy (Denzel Washington) arrives to visit a friend named Rayburn (Christopher Walken). Although not directly told (or shown), the director lets the viewer know that Creasy and Rayburn share a common past, a violent past, one which Rayburn seems to have moved on from which is obviously not Creasy’s case. Rayburn finds a job for Creasy as a bodyguard for the Ramos family, composed of Samuel, Lisa, and Pita Ramos. He then becomes Pita’s bodyguard, and takes her to school everyday. At the beginning, Creasy is cold towards Pita (Dakotta Fanning), who wants a friend above everything else. As days pass, he warms up with her and a sort of friendship develops between the two. As Pita’s parents Samuel (Marc Anthony) and Lisa (Radha Mitchell) travel a lot, Pita is often left alone. This struck me the most during a swimming championship of Pita, where Creasy accompanies her. Once there, one of the teachers tells him, in a very direct way, that he was, due to her parent’s absence, Pita’s father for the day.

This introduction of the characters, their ways of life and their specific qualities develop for the first hour or so of the movie. After that, the real plot comes through. One day, while Creasy takes Pita to her piano lessons, they are ambushed by a few civilians (and also policemen) who finally kidnap Pita. Although Creasy shoots most of the attackers, he himself is shot and it’s when he’s unconscious that Pita is abducted.

Telling more would be telling the full plot, but the movie is one that should be watched. Director Scott delivers an almost perfect portrayal of the Mexican corrupt political environment of today, where even criminal cops are able to shove off the law their way to their satisfaction. The way the movie is shot is not the most traditional, as the director flashes through scenes with perfect mastery to get the desired effect. There is also a lot of captions due the movie's half English-half Spanish dialogues, although the director sometimes uses the caption even when characters speak English, just to accentuate certain parts.

The cast could not have been better chosen. The supporting actors are great. Marc Anthony as Samuel Ramos is perfect and Radha Mitchell, in the role of the suffering woman (on her every right to suffer), is also great. The main characters, on the other hand, are nothing short of amazing. Denzel Washington and Dakotta Fanning play their characters to perfection. Denzel demonstrates that he can do no wrong when it comes to acting, as every film that he’s done so far has been delivered with a strong performance. Dakotta Fanning once again demonstrates how amazing she is and how she is one of the best actresses to have debuted in a while even at her short age. We have yet to see a lot of this girl and she will go far. Mark my words.

Overall, the movie is nothing short of outstanding, and everything will keep you with your eyes glued to the screen, from the great dialogue to the beautiful score. It is a movie worth seeing and one of Denzel Washington’s best performances. If not interested however, watch it just for Dakotta. She will win you over.

“A man can be an artist, in anything -- food, whatever. It depends on how good he is at it. Creasy’s art is death. He’s about to paint his masterpiece.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Ghost and the Darkness

Director

Stephen Hopkins

Year

1996

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, September 29, 2004

I was 15 years old when I watched this movie. I liked it so much that I saw it several times before it got the boot from movie screens. The movie hasn’t stood that well over the years (notice how hardly anyone remembers it), but for this guy, that movie will always have a special place. I guess that’s called a guilty pleasure.

In the 19th century, England, France and Germany united to build a railroad across Africa. Colonel John Patterson (Val Kilmer) is the engineer assigned to the task, but he soon finds himself in trouble when a pair of lions start stalking his workers. Having failed to put them down, he recruits the aid of an expert hunter, Charles Remington (Michael Douglas) to do the job.

The Ghost and The Darkness is first and foremost an adventure flick. It has enough chills to qualify as a thriller, which in part it is. But the reason I love it so much is because of its high dose of adventure, danger and old-fashioned entertainment. It is everything a 15-year old wants when he sees a movie, and this one delivers in spades.

The dialogue may not be great, the situations may not be that real, but who cares? Director Stephen Hopkins uses the less-is-more approach to enthrall the audience and completely hook them. We don’t get to see the lions until almost halfway through the movie. But we’re terrorized! And the attacks are well-staged and effectively traumatic. There’s at least one of them (involving a woman) that left the audience gasping in awe and terror.

Back in 1996 technology wasn’t as advanced as it is today, but still the lions looked very real to me. I didn’t have any quibble about the special effects work. And I loved the cat-and-mouse game between the lions and their hunters.

Also interesting is the backdrop in which the movie takes place. Even though it isn’t a historical movie, you can get a sense of how it was to build a railroad in the middle of the desert. Not especially inviting!

The actors all do a fine job, but Michael Douglas stands out by embodying his character with gusto. He’s crazy, he’s over-the-top, and he’s a lot of fun. When he finally appears the movie boasts with energy, and it’s a great ride from then on. Kilmer, Tom Wilkinson and Emily Mortimer show good support.

Beautiful locations, a wondrous score by Jerry Goldsmith and an effective use of suspense make of this a solid movie in its own way.

“I used my hands.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

A Cinderella Story

Director

Mark Rosman

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, September 28, 2004

I went to the movies on a Sunday morning with my mom expecting to watch The Bourne Supremacy, and found out we’d been misled by the newspaper, as there wasn’t a show for that movie until hours later. We then chose A Cinderella Story, the only option at hand, which didn’t sound like such a bad idea since I’m something of a nut for Hilary Duff, but still, didn’t seem like the kind of film I would go to the movies to watch. Indeed, it shouldn’t be a film anyone aside from preteen girls should go to the movies to watch. And yet, I had a great time watching it.

The story is indeed that of Cinderella, only updated, and acknowledging the existence of the aforementioned fairytale. It tells the tale of Sam (Duff), an orphan, whose dead father didn’t leave a will, so now her stepmother inherited everything he owned. Now Sam is treated as a near-servant while her two step-sisters, Brianna (Madeline Zima) and Gabriella (Andrea Avery), live the good life. It’s not that bad for Sam though, except it doesn’t really look like she’ll be able to go to Princeton, which is her dream, and besides, being a “diner girl” sucks every bit of possible popularity out of her.

Soon it turns out Sam’s got a pen pal she met at a Princeton chat room, who studies, coincidentally, at the same High School, and also fears his college dreams won’t be fulfilled. This is Austin (Chad Michael Murray), the most popular guy in school. Both Austin and Sam want to meet, though they don’t know each other’s identities, so they setup their encounter at the Halloween homecoming dance. Things go askew as she has to run at midnight (to prevent her step-mother’s anger) and he never finds out who she really is, though he falls hopelessly in love with her. Finding her cell phone which she accidentally left behind, he begins a quest to find his Cinderella. But she soon wonders if he’ll accept her if he finds out who she really is.

To some, the fact that this film mingles the well-known fairytale storyline with the average teen film formula is unforgivable. I’m not sure I think the same way. It’s decidedly not a great film, and certainly not a very original one, but it’s clever enough to make the farfetched premise believable, and is filled with earnest performances that make it work. The real problem is the characters aren’t too deep, in fact most are caricatures, and the film soon takes a self-parody path that’s not exactly convenient for it. When we finally get some real drama, it doesn’t really work, because it’s been played so safe so far. But still, there are elements that make us smile, and laugh, and walk out of the theater having had a good time. I think that’s what counts in this case.

As I said, the performances are earnest, and also quite funny. Duff is good at playing slapstick mixed with drama, and Coolidge, as her step-mother, excels at that as well. Dan Byrd as Sam’s best friend, Julie Gonzalo as Austin’s bitchy girlfriend, and Regina King as a sort of fairy godmother, are all good. But the standout for me was Zima, whom I hadn’t seen since “The Nanny”: She’s perfectly credible and funny in her white-trash role as one of the step-sisters.

If to some it counts, the underage members of the audience in my theater spent the whole film laughing out loud and even crying in the end. That must mean something. Don’t go to watch this one... But don’t run away from it either.

“Don’t let the fear of striking out keep you from playing the game.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Bad Education

Director

Pedro Almodóvar

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, September 27, 2004

Pedro Almodóvar needs no introduction. His movies speak for themselves. His work is unique, there’s just absolutely no one like him. Not even close. His movies take place in a different world, in a different stratosphere. He is also one of the most consistent directors in cinema history, always proposing, always changing, always surprising.

Enrique Goded (Fele Martínez) is in the process of choosing a script to direct his latest movie when child crush Ignacio (Gael García Bernal) stumbles into his office with a script called “La Visita”, based partly on their own story when they studied together and Father Manolo (Daniel Giménez Cacho) abused one of them. The script then goes on to tell the story of those children when grown-ups, as Ignacio, now called Zahara, became a transvestite trying to plot revenge against his abuser.

If you think the plot is a little bit confusing you’re right, this is not a simple movie. I went into La Mala Educación expecting an intense drama attacking the Church, but instead got something I just didn’t expect: a film noir. Almodóvar returns to his Laws of Desire roots with this movie and the result is just wacky and funny and exciting and dramatic and surprising and suspenseful. I didn’t expect less…

There’s at least three parallel story threads being told at the same time. I can’t reveal anything more about the plot than I just did because it would ruin the experience. I just want to note the masterful job Almodóvar did in blending these stories together, making sense out of them, and mixing reality with fiction in such flawless fashion. The movie boasts great editing, but something tells me it was structured that way right from the pen.

Only Almodóvar could’ve created the spectacle that this movie is. I don’t recall any straight character in the entire movie. Perhaps background extras, but every main character in the movie is either gay or even further, a transvestite. It’s just such a fun mixture, creating a gay film noir. In a way Zahara is Almodóvar’s homage to Barbara Stanwyck… and Sara Montiel. There’s lies, revenge, backstabbing, twists and turns galore.

After all is said and done there’s no message or profound attack against anyone. It is only Almodóvar telling an exciting story and giving it a different edge. There’s intensity and drama as in all of his movies, but there’s also a lot of color and music.

Mexican actor Gael García Bernal gives a performance so good I don’t know where to start. I could say this is his best work yet, but since he has always been excellent in everything he’s done I don’t think that would be accurate. Here he plays different characters (or variations of them) and never loses ground, changing with ease from a flamboyant transvestite to a shy writer/actor. He also sports an excellent Spanish accent. But it is the emotions and depth of his work that ultimately blossoms.

Giménez Cacho, Martínez and Javier Cámara (in an all-too-brief, hilarious appearance) are extraordinary as well.

“Quizás, quizás, quizás…”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Village

Director

M. Night Shyamalan

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Thursday, September 23, 2004

M. Night Shyamalan is, for me, one of the best and most consistent modern directors out there. Many people don’t like him; others enjoy his early work a lot more. Truth is, everyone knows and remembers his last four movies. Love them or hate them, Shyamalan always provokes debate, throws ideas out there, and enjoys himself. And in the way, he makes amazing movies. I just love his work and The Village is no exception.

In the 1880’s we find a small village whose people live terrorized by some strange creatures that own the woods that surrender their place. The arrangement is that humans do not cross the border that divides them, and they leave them alone in return. But suddenly weird events start to happen, such as the appearance of dead animals or red markings in everyone’s doors. Amidst the chaos there’s Ivy (Bryce Dallas Howard), the only one who can control slow-witted Noah (Adrien Brody). Ivy is the blind beautiful daughter of the village’s leader, Edward (William Hurt), who feels some affection for Alice (Sigourney Weaver), the mother of timid Lucius (Joaquin Phoenix).

The Village presents itself as a thriller. And it is one for sure, albeit a bit more than that. There’s tension throughout the entire movie. Shyamalan knows what’s scary and what’s not, and he certainly knows the old Hitchcock saying of ‘less is more’. There are enough unexpected chills to keep you awake, and the level of suspense remains on a high note from start to finish.

As usual, Shyamalan introduces us to a wide array of peculiar characters. You can sense from the get-go that none of the movie’s characters is normal. And that’s deeply fascinating. The atmosphere keeps hinting at hidden secrets and, layer-by-layer, we keep discovering more and more about each one of the main village’s residents. There’s also a love story thrown in there between Ivy and Lucius that I found to be breathtaking. Each scene with them together is pitch-perfect, from dialogue to acting to staging to feeling.

After certain happenings and one almost-tragic event, the movie gives a drastic turn. This is where some people felt alienated (it usually happens with Shyamalan movies at some point), but I just loved every single story thread. It is very difficult to speak about the real meat regarding The Village without going into spoiler territory. That’s why the next two paragraphs should only be read by those who have seen the movie. If you haven’t just skip them.

Spoilers begin

I was a bit skeptical about some of the actions regarding some of the characters before the truth started to be revealed. Some people might have guessed beforehand (or tried to) some of the plot developments, such as the fact that those strange creatures do not actually exist, but when we find out that the village is actually a fake place built upon the idea of getting as far away as possible from the actual civilization is not only provoking, it is disturbing.

The fact that Shyamalan had the balls to tell such a story is astounding to me. It is, after all, an art film disguised as a commercial one. But don’t be confused: Shyamalan is not saying that what the elders did was all right. The way I see it, he paints a pretty fascinating picture of how far a group of deranged people was capable to go in order to escape from the horrors of real life and protect their families in the way. Sure, it is a far-fetched idea, almost an impossible one, but not quite. And the way there’s a happy ending to all this, and how things will be back to normal after Ivy returns, is even more mind-blowing. It is a fearless portrait of what a culture of fear is, and it is more resonant now than ever. It makes you think and it makes you angry. I loved it!

Spoiler end

As performances go, Bryce Dallas Howard (daughter of director Ron Howard although I don’t know why that would be relevant) steals the movie and emerges as an actress to watch closely. She brings so much to her role. Never mind the fact that she plays a blind woman, but her inner self, the feelings she brings to her character, the fearless commitment to play such a strong-willed woman… that’s what ultimately matters. And she is brilliant.

Joaquin Phoenix reunites once again with Shyamalan and the results are just as extraordinary. Adrien Brody turns his character into a bit more than he could actually have been. And William Hurt and Sigourney Weaver bring dignity and talent to the table in equal shares. The whole ensemble is excellent.

And may I not forget James Newton Howard’s brilliant score.

A thought-provoking, intense movie.

“Sometimes we don’t do what we want to do because we’re afraid that other people will know that we want to do them.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of The Village (2004): Groucho

Review

The Village

Director

M. Night Shyamalan

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Wednesday, September 22, 2004

The action of M. Night Shyamalan’s The Village takes place mostly in the title place, a small, claustrophobic, 19th century village, inhabited by a limited colony of people who once migrated there from the evil of the external “towns”. Now they can’t leave the place due to horrific creatures who allegedly live in the woods that surround their hometown. And while the elders respect the understanding with “Those We Don’t Speak Of” (the creatures) to not enter their woods if they don’t enter the village, the young start itching to cross the boundaries and see the supposedly more civilized towns.

The central story inside The Village is actually a romance, that between quiet Lucius (Joaquin Phoenix) and blind Ivy (Bryce Dallas Howard). Her father, Edward Walker (William Hurt), is the leader among the elders, a wise and inspirational man who rules the town in a peaceful manner. And while the truce has been respected for years, two things suddenly alter the peace: The town’s idiot, Noah Percy (Adrien Brody), who ventures into the woods, and finally love’s motivation, in the form of brave Ivy doing what no one has done for the sake of her loved one.

Maybe because we know who Shyamalan is, and what plot-twist-oriented films he has brought us, we look at his films as a great experience full of thrills and chills and finally a shocking revelation. I for one haven’t been convinced by his last couple of films, namely the disappointing Signs (2002), and I long for the real emotion and fear achieved by The Sixth Sense (1999). But, truth is, if we all suddenly forgot who Shyamalan is, and what he uses to do, I think we would objectively see The Village as a sad, highly deceitful thriller, whose pretensions are largely above its results, even though it’s so elegantly paced and put together that we get the feeling that we should enjoy the procedures.

Even though I walked into The Village expecting to at least have a good time before the major plot twist, I soon found myself laughing at the implausibility of the situations, the unnecessary weirdness of the characters, the over-the-top falseness of the dialogues, and the increasing moments of false suspense. I did wonder what was the explanation to what I was seeing, and certainly wanted to know the answer, but I soon predicted the ending (though not exactly as it was) and felt victim to an overly confident and pretentious filmmaker. I ended up hoping once again that Shyamalan uses his talents for a nice film of any sort (maybe not scripted by himself), instead of desperately building more scary stories around plot twists just for the sake of following his trademark. You know you’re in trouble when the director’s cameo (also a trademark) serves the purpose of absurdly covering a couple of plot holes.

The film’s score by Shyamalan’s usual collaborator James Newton Howard sounds as nicely as the film looks. The atmosphere is finely achieved and everyone involved in production and costume design deserves praise.

And while a good cast also includes Sigourney Weaver, Brendan Gleeson, and Judy Greer, the spotlight wholly belongs to Bryce Dallas Howard, the young daughter of Ron Howard whose first major role this is, and who constitutes the biggest asset of the movie. In a hard to enjoy film, she saves the day at least as much as she can.

All this assets, unfortunately, serve a bad film, which treats its audience with disrespect, and presents a plot twist that leaves an unwillingly bad aftertaste. It becomes more a waste of talent than a piece redeemed by its good elements. For all it’s worth, The Village is an awful cheat. But watch it and judge for yourself.

“They’re coming.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of The Village (2004): Morris

Review

Home on the Range

Director

Will Finn

John Sanford

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Tuesday, September 21, 2004

It’s no secret that I am a big fan of animated movies. I don’t necessarily watch them all, but when I set my sight on any given one, I won’t stop at anything to watch it. So what’s the big deal? Just go to the theater, you might say. Thing is, I don’t live in the U.S., and here in my home country animated movies are dubbed. Picky as I am, I just can’t stand the fact that I can’t watch a movie in its original language with its original dialogues. That’s how sometimes it becomes a crusade to get hold of the original version of this kind of movie. Luckily, I almost always get away with it!

Maggie the cow (voice of Roseanne) is forced to leave her farm and owner, so she joins an eclectic group of animals in a new farm and finds a new adventure there as her new owner is just about to lose the place due to lack of money. Maggie then convinces fellow cows Mrs. Calloway (voice of Judi Dench) and Grace (voice of Jennifer Tilly) to help her catch bounty hunter Rico (voice of Charles Dennis) so they can cash in on the reward. But they’re not alone out there, as a stallion, Buck (voice of Cuba Gooding Jr.) embarks on the same quest to attain the glory that has always eluded him.

I have a confession to make… I love cows. Not real-life ones, but animated creations of them. I don’t really know why. I guess they’re funny. So the moment I heard cows would be the basis for a new Disney movie I knew I wanted to see it. Sure, the movie is subdued Disney at its best. It isn’t one of their big releases or one that will be long remembered. It is, in a few words, a simple, funny, fast ride that does what it has to do.

That said, this movie is not really for adults. In the past years, animated fare has been given an extra dimension so that kids and adults can enjoy the same movies. Home on the Range, on the other hand, is clearly aimed at kids. Sure, it does have a few jokes only grown-ups will understand, but mostly the movie has all the characteristics to appeal to kids: it is fast paced, high on action, has cute characters and even bursts into sing-and-dance mode here and there. Ultimately the approach might be a bit tiring for people like me and you, but not as much as to deter you from watching it.

Ultimately it is the voice work that did it for me. Can you imagine Roseanne, Jennifer Tilly and Judi Dench all together? Only Disney can do it folks, and it pays off because they’re great together and the three of them provide exceptional talent and charisma. Their work here is splendid, and Roseanne’s character, above all, is a riot!

A perfectly fine diversion.

“Yeah, they’re real, quit staring!”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Poltergeist

Director

Tobe Hooper

Year

1982

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Monday, September 20, 2004

I hear Steven Spielberg really itched to film a ghost story, and Poltergeist was the one. Though he was not at the helm as director (though some say he did actually direct much of it), he wrote the story and worked on the screenplay with others, and the film does taste like Spielberg’s work. I think nowadays the movie and its sequels remind the audience mostly of the eerie death of young star Heather O'Rourke before the filming of the third and final installment was over, but indeed, the movie is lighthearted and sort of comical, and in ways I guess it can be categorized as “family fun”… It’s a strange mixture of horror and humor, but it works.

The movie tells the story of the Freeling family, a happy family indeed, whose tranquility vanishes overnight after some strange supernatural occurrences, such as objects moving by themselves around the house, and the younger daughter, five-year-old Carol Anne (O’Rourke) feeling a presence, or many, and referring to “them” as “TV people”. She famously communicates with these “people” through the TV in the opening scene and further ones, but what they really are is anyone’s guess. So on a fatidic night, what appear to be ghosts abduct the little girl, whose presence can still be felt around the house afterwards, though no one can find her.

So how does this movie work? I think nowadays people think of it as a modern horror classic (and its most memorable scene, which has chairs reordering themselves on a table offscreen during a continuous take, is certain to give the chills to anyone even years later), but I’m not so sure it was destined to be. The procedures clearly show this is one of Spielberg’s 80s projects that ventured into risky terrains, but managed to avoid the limits somehow, despite pushing them. Like a scene horrified me, but I was laughing a minute later about the awful idea they added, only to be horrified again the next minute. Mostly, though this is probably a realistic take on what the reaction of any American family would be to such strange occurrences, the refreshing sense of humor creates a sort of contradiction in the procedures that keep the frights away at times.

Nevertheless, that which keeps the frights away is also, as I said, an asset, as the Freeling family is very likable and easy to identify with. The parents, Diane (JoBeth Williams) and Steve (Craig T. Nelson), for instance, are far from perfect, but their reactions are very real and credible. Ditto for their older children, Dana (Dominique Dunne) and Robbie (Oliver Robins). Little Carol Anne is from the get-go not your average little girl, but she transcends the screen easily. The same thing happens with Dr. Lesh (Beatrice Straight), a female psychologist whose overwhelming interest in the paranormal drags her to the Freeling home; her performance is electric.

Jerry Goldsmith’s music score plays a very important role. It reminds us that we’re looking at a happy family in a tremendously strange situation. It can be cute, easy-going, and tense also. It suits the joys as much as the scares and plays with our feelings with surprising ease.

And though the special effects aid the procedures as well, I believe they are abused and overused, and mar the credibility. The climax, though memorable, is too hard to believe, and it’s sad to think that it would’ve worked much better had it been done more low-key.

In addition to O’Rourke’s famous early death, young Dunne was murdered by her boyfriend years before, shortly after Poltergeist was released. Talk about reasons to get goose bumps!

“They are here.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Fahrenheit 9/11

Director

Michael Moore

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Thursday, September 16, 2004

I’m going to be honest with you from the get-go. I am not afraid of speaking out about my political views even if I’m no politics expert. I wanted Bush to win over Gore when those elections took place. I’m not an American and I can’t be considered a Republican. I’d have to know a little bit more about the party to really be into it. But I can tell you this: Bush has definitely disappointed me as the years have gone by. My main criticism towards him has to do with the war. Sure, Hussein treated most of his country’s people like animals, but I am not someone who supports a war just like that. The suffering that goes into it is simply inhuman. And it takes the worst out of people. But enough about me. I just think I had to speak out a little about myself and my view of politics given that I’m about to review one very political movie that certainly asks you to take a stand. Whether you do it or not is another matter…

Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 is one piece of effective propaganda. It is disguised as a documentary for sure, but it just had to have a format, didn’t it? That said, your liking of his work will much likely depend on your political views. And yes, I do think it does have the power to change people’s minds and influence voters. Moore has the talent, initiative and charisma to turn his point of view into something entertaining, disturbing and provocative. His movie is extremely one-sided, but whatever your way of thinking is, you’re in for a treat. And it’s a funny one as well.

The main character is President George W. Bush. I swear Moore is one funny guy on his own, but the funniest character in the movie is definitely Bush. The things he says sometimes are so hypocrite, ridiculous or just plain stupid as to induce unstoppable laughter. And that’s not a good thing. At least for him.

As opposed to Moore’s earlier work, here he barely appears (when he does it’s quite compelling material), but his presence and voice are felt throughout the entire thing. That’s a good approach, because for the first time he does not take first chair and lets his material speak for itself. Sure, he does explain things in his very own personal way, but after all he is presenting facts, and the things he says are mostly a reflection of what you’ll be thinking while watching this or that sequence. To be completely fair, Moore only shows one side of things. It’d be interesting to hear about the other side. But the evidence is so mandatory and obvious that I feel, deep inside, there would be no point.

The attacks are mostly about Bush not being a competent President. Moore accuses him of having ties with the Saudis, something that influenced his decisions before and after the September 11 attacks. Moore also accuses him of being a lazy man, dedicating way too much time to vacationing instead of paying attention to what really matters to the nation. He also accuses him of being a hypocrite and ridicules him by showing a frustrating tape that has the President being told about the second plane hitting the World Trade Center and spending 7 minutes wondering what to do. Of course, I wouldn’t have wanted to be in his place and I wonder how I would’ve reacted, but it is condemning evidence all the same.

There are times during the movie when Moore focuses more on senators, laws and war itself, releasing bombs here and there to make different points. The approach is not entirely successful, but it does the job. His particular views of war are exceedingly disturbing and true to the bone.

Overall, it is an important movie, and one that should be seen. And I wish there were more people with Moore’s balls out there.

“I call upon all nations to do everything they can to stop these terrorist killers. Thank you. Now, watch this drive.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Parenthood

Director

Ron Howard

Year

1989

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Wednesday, September 15, 2004

If anything can be said about Parenthood without much possibility of being wrong is that any parent can identify with it. And no wonder: It was concocted by real-life parents Lowell Ganz, Babaloo Mandel (screenwriters), Brian Grazer (producer), and Ron Howard (director), and the result, as a collection of intertwined stories, is simply priceless. I firmly believe that this is one of the best ensemble movies ever made, completely achieving the difficult goal of quickly involving the audience in each and every one of its storylines, developing each sufficiently, and not becoming overlong. Plus, being truly winning.

The story is that of the Buckman family, four generations of parents and children and multiple families. Most characters in the film are both someone’s parent and someone’s child, so the views of family from so many generations add up to the diversity of interrelated themes. The patriarch of the family is Frank Buckman (Jason Robards), who’s hardly sympathetic or close to his children, wife (Eileen Ryan) or mother (Helen Shaw).

Frank’s children have different kinds of families:

Gil (Steve Martin) is obsessed with becoming a better father than his own was, so he and his wife Karen (Mary Steenburgen) have a hard time facing an emotional problem their eldest son, 8-year-old Kevin (Jasen Fisher) goes through, especially since it quite resembles the nervous breakdowns Gil had when he was a child himself.

Helen (Dianne Wiest) is a divorced mother who lives with her two children: Young Julie (Martha Plimpton) and even younger Garry (Joaquin Phoenix, then known as Leaf Phoenix). She has to cope with her ex-husband’s disregard for their children, as well as Julie’s free-spirited instincts (and her relationship with boyfriend Tod, played by Keanu Reeves), and Garry’s angst-ridden, distant existence.

Susan (Harley Jane Kozak) is married to intellectual Nathan (Rick Moranis), who insists on making their young daughter Patty (Ivyann Schwan) a genius, slowly forgetting the importance of family union and love. Susan begins to wonder if her marriage and her disposition to change herself for Nathan are all wrong.

And finally Larry (Tom Hulce) is a ne’er-do-well who returns after a long absence with his typical lack of money and bunch of problems. He brings with him his young African-American son Cool (yeah, Cool, played by Alex Burrall), and some new headaches for Frank.

Parenthood quickly introduces us to its countless characters but always makes us feel at home. We like these people, or some things about them, and we care about their happiness. We can also identify with their problems, and feel anguished about their constant absence of solutions. We know there’s nothing really uncommon about their situations, which sometimes match our own exactly, but still, we can’t help but hope with all our hearts that they get the better out of everything.

In the lead, you can’t get anyone better than Steve Martin for a role like this. He’s into Gil like we’re into ourselves, like he is Gil, and feels his problems like they are his own. His conflict is so real, he carries most of the movie on his shoulders, and handles it to perfection. Everyone else in the cast is amazing too, though. The next person to be most highly praised should be Wiest, since the script “grants” her the most difficult situations, and she’s always on top of her game, even as the character breaks down.

Randy Newman’s score is a perfect musical interpretation of what the script is about: A bittersweet, realistic observation of life. The script is masterful, and perfectly capable of making the audience laugh and cry at every turn. The result is a movie to have a good time with, but also one that’s sure to warm your heart and make you think. The ending is especially great and a very effective tearjerker on its own.

“I guess you’re interested in sex... or filmmaking.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Capturing the Friedmans

Director

Andrew Jarecki

Year

2003

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Tuesday, September 14, 2004

I don’t watch many documentaries. I, as many people in the world, have only become really aware of them in the last couple of years. You could say this is the time of the documentary, and that’s great because there are really good ones out there. It can be an interesting and enthralling medium to tell a story when done right. And Capturing the Friedmans does just about that.

The movie tells the story of the Friedmans, a suburban common family who found their lives turned upside down when Arnold (the father) and Jesse (his second son) were arrested on countless charges of sodomy and sexual molestation towards many children who took computer lessons in their home. They maintained their innocence until they had no other choice, but Elaine (the mother) never really supported her husband and became extremely alienated with their oldest son David. A third son, Seth, did not want to participate in the doc and is barely mentioned.

So what is it about the documentary that makes it so good? It is, after all, a pretty disturbing testimony of a pretty disturbing theme. As a close friend told me after seeing it: why would we want to pay to witness this kind of story when there are thousands out there which do not get this kind of exposition? What is the point? And in a way, he’s absolutely right. I guess what makes it special is the way in which it is told, and the underlying themes about justice and innocence that permeate the documentary.

Director Andrew Jarecki does an exceptional job not only at choosing the best material amongst hours of reels he had at his service, but mostly at the way he put it all together. The most interesting part of the documentary is that nobody knows for sure whether the accusations made against the Freidmans were real or not. Did it really happen? Jarecki doesn’t take a stand and presents us with all kinds of information and points of view. But he does it in a way that makes it more theatrical and interesting. Once we are starting to completely trust this or that person’s testimony, we’re shown a different side of them that makes us wonder what their real intentions are and the veracity behind their statements. Besides, he crafts his movie in a way in which he keeps adding layer after layer after layer. Once we think we have everything sorted out there’s something around the corner to take us by surprise. Real life my friends, that’s how it’s called.

But besides being an interesting piece of entertainment, I was enthralled by the sub-themes, by the real meat. It is impressive to watch a pretty common family fall apart in such a way, and find out that after all they weren’t really all that common… or normal (whatever that means). I guess we all have a little of that in ourselves. We are a bit dysfunctional in a way, but you have to dig beneath the core to find that out and deal with it.

The documentary also presents an interesting picture of the justice system and how efficient or inefficient it really is. I know it’s difficult sometimes to judge people and find the truth just like that, but are detectives always honest? Doesn’t the media influence judges? Is the jury certain to give a known verdict even before a trial begins?

After all it is a pretty distressing movie to sit through, but it can tell you more than it initially meets the eye.

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

El Mariachi

Director

Robert Rodriguez

Year

1992

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Monday, September 13, 2004

Robert Rodriguez is an example to follow. He raised $7,000 mostly by subjecting himself to experimental drug studies, and used that money to fulfill his dream: To produce his own movie. That budget, it should be said though it’s pretty obvious, is almost inexistent, so consequently his film could be expected to be either awful or awful-looking, or both, or worse than both. Yet, he managed to create an original, striking piece, which benefits from every possible artistic or technical cinematographic artifice to effectively tell its story and entertain, without costing much.

The result is definitely cheap-looking, but not by far awful, but on the contrary, quite stylish. I think Rodriguez even used his lack of budget as a benefit, and El Mariachi not only became a hit, but it’s now a cult classic, and it propelled its creator’s career beyond his wildest dreams.

The story has a Mexican mariachi (Carlos Gallardo) arriving in a town, expecting to find work through his voice and his guitar. At the same time, a crime boss who’s just escaped from prison, known as Azul (Reinol Martinez), comes to the same town seeking revenge against the American kingpin who put him there, who goes by the name of Moco (Peter Marquardt). Azul carries his weapons around in a guitar suitcase, much like the mariachi’s. So the latter gets into “some” trouble when he’s confused with the bad guy and must defend himself no matter what.

The premise sounds like an excuse for gunfights, and in ways it is, but the story, scripted by Rodriguez, goes far beyond… The mariachi gets into a romantic liaison with Dominó (Consuelo Gómez), a bar owner who also happens to be Moco’s lover. There are as many gunfights as there are quiet, tender scenes between these two, and an unforgettable singing scene where the mariachi plays a song he wrote. The mixture of genres is effective to say the least, but the movie never loses momentum, but instead, is absolutely energetic from start to finish.

The performances, though inexperienced, are earnest and convincing, even though the dialogue in Spanish is at times ludicrous, and it’s pretty obvious for Spanish-speakers that most of these actors don’t speak Spanish as their first language. Nevertheless, they all convince in the end. Gallardo, whose voice and performance turned me off in the beginning, little by little embodied his character admirably, and by the end was a fully-fledged hero, while also a victim of circumstance. Great work by the star and co-producer.

Rodriguez also shot, edited (both film and sound), worked on the special effects, and co-produced. There was no stopping this guy from doing the movie, and I’m damn glad.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Thunderball

Director

Terence Young

Year

1965

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, September 09, 2004

Following Goldfinger (1964), the third and to some definitive Bond film, must not have been easy. There were enough tools that were both obligatory and reliable, such as the Bond girls, the gimmicks, and the larger-than-life villains. But topping the fine humor and action of the aforementioned film was certainly a challenge.

So this time around, maybe to make it a sure bet, they returned to the international intrigue, as opposed to the light-hearted cat-and-mouse games from Goldfinger, which would be harder to pull off again. They went back to the well-known SPECTRE organization, now into an extortion scheme after stealing two atomic bombs and threatening to attack unless they’re paid many millions.

The plan, though commanded by Number One (that faceless, cat-stroking villain from From Russia with Love (1963)), is consummated by Number Two, a one-eyed man by the name of Emilio Largo (Adolfo Celi). All the “double-o” agents from Britain are sent to different locations in the world to investigate, but one of them, James Bond (Sean Connery), requests to be sent to a particular place, as he coincidentally has a lead; he spent a while in a clinic where he met one Count Lippe (Guy Doleman), whose attitude led Bond to believe he had something to do with the bomb hijacking. He’s right, and at following the lead, he gets to the very place where the bombs are stored.

As expected from Bond, his interaction with Largo is nothing short of social. Though more on the unmemorable side, Largo is one hell of a gentleman, and isn’t going for Bond the cheap way. In the meantime, 007 befriends and charms Largo’s mistress, Domino (Claudine Auger), and is charmed by Number Two’s ally, deadly Fiona (Luciana Paluzzi). Bond’s American friend, Felix Leiter, is also present, this time played by Rik Van Nutter.

But it’s not all fun and games… As we’re in a tropical setting, and the bombs are actually stored inside a ship, there are quite a few submarine scenes, most prominently of scuba diving… These scenes, though impeccably photographed, are slow, boring, and repetitious. They do move the story forward, but do so at an awful pace that only makes us long for more scenes with suave Bond interacting with any of his friends or foes.

Nevertheless, this is usually regarded as one of the most classic Bond films. One of the reasons is probably that this was going to be the first Bond, and was finally made as the fourth after a long wait; plus, it was a hit. It’s also said to be Connery’s favorite Bond film (or maybe the one he loathes less), and it indeed features him in one of his most natural Bond performances; though he was never bad a it before, this time he certainly seems to be enjoying himself. Another asset is John Barry’s score, again magnificent, this time featuring the “007 theme” (not to be confused with Monty Norman’s classic “Bond theme”) more prominently than ever (it was first featured in From Russia with Love (1963)). On the other hand, the “Thunderball” theme, sung by Tom Jones (with lyrics by Don Black), is in my opinion a disappointment.

To wrap up, I’ll say this is a worthwhile piece with many assets, but overall it’s just not in the league of the best of Bond.

Followed by You Only Live Twice (1967).

“Do you mind if my friend sits this one out? She's just dead.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Legend of 1900

Director

Giuseppe Tornatore

Year

1998

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Wednesday, September 08, 2004

As opposed to Giuseppe Tornatore’s Cinema Paradiso (1988), which is the favorite film of most people I know, his first English-language film is an unsuccessful, hardly moving fable, despite its tireless attempts to manipulate the audience. That’s not to say it’s not successful in its manipulation, however; I’m sure most people are moved by the story of a man who never sets foot outside the ship where he was born. But, truth be told, it’s an easily forgettable story, and there’s no way anyone can care about it as most people do about Cinema Paradiso.

The story, as I said, concerns a man on a ship. Supposedly born on board of “The Virginian”, and found by an engine room worker (Bill Nunn), the boy is named Danny Boodmann T.D. Lemon Nineteen Hundred, after the man who found him and the year when he was born. 1900 for short, the kid grows up on board, and never sets foot outside. He also discovers an innate gift to play the piano, and he quickly becomes the ship’s pianist (his grown-up self is played by Tim Roth).

Told from the perspective of a friend and colleague band member, Max Tooney (Pruitt Taylor Vince), the story is given a tragic outlook from the get-go. As it seems, Max talks about a story that has been, which he’s willing to let go, but can’t. However, in flashback, we get a cheerful story of a man whose view of life is inspirational, despite his tendency toward the tragic, like a time when he falls hopelessly in love with a beautiful girl (Mélanie Thierry) but is unable to follow her once she sets foot on land.

Accompanied by a pretty good score by Ennio Morricone, The Legend of 1900 quickly prepares the viewer for many sad moments. But when sadness comes in the form of 1900 standing in the rain with a sad face, instead of a real sad event, the audience can feel cheated. What’s worse – no real tragic event ever comes, except a final resolution by our hero that really made me lose what little respect he had earned from me. I truly didn’t connect with the story maybe, but I even hated Taylor’s character for the way he narrated the story, like it was so incredibly tragic, which to my eyes didn’t seem to be at all.

There are moments to behold throughout the movie though, which save it from being a complete waste of time. The most gorgeous is the scene where 1900 and Max meet, during an agitated night, where they “let go” on board of a piano the former is playing. And the most notable is a piano contest between 1900 and real-life jazz player Jelly Roll Morton (Clarence Williams III), who boards the ship specifically to dare 1900 to play better than him.

The whole thing, beautifully photographed by Lajos Koltai, and leaded earnestly by Tim Roth, looks like a moving piece, but isn’t really. You be judge!

“I can’t help it. Music makes me cry.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Stepmom

Director

Chris Columbus

Year

1998

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Tuesday, September 07, 2004

I remember when I was 17 years old and I first saw this movie. This kind of dramatic adult drama was not precisely what a 17-year-old boy would be interested in, but surprisingly I loved it. I remember being angry with critics who called it manipulative. I don’t have any problem with a movie that makes you cry. Of course, sometimes it becomes ridiculous, but others the connection with the characters is so strong that crying is definitely worth anyone’s time.

Jackie Harrison (Susan Sarandon) is dying of cancer and she cannot stand the fact that her husband Luke (Ed Harris) has a girlfriend (Julia Roberts) who will then become their children’s stepmother. It soon becomes a war between Jackie and this woman Isabel, but the relationship they share makes them realize that each one is just trying to do their best and look after the children’s interests.

I don’t precisely cherish Chris Columbus as a director. I see him as being good at what he does, but he barely reaches excellence. Mostly his movies are of the it-could-have-been-better kind. But there are always exceptions, and Stepmom is just one example, at least for me.

As I said at the beginning of this review, there’s something going for this movie that instantly makes it a winner: its characters. Sure, it isn’t a somber drama, it isn’t of the independent type, but for what it is, the movie works and has believable, likable, well-written characters.

I guess we can all identify with Jackie in how she is so protective of her children that she just can’t stand the fact that his ex-husband’s latest girlfriend will be the one to raise them. But we know, and she later finds out, that Isabel is not a bad woman, and is as willing as Jackie to make them happy. The relationship between these two women is the glue that holds this movie together. It’s a down-to-earth premise that presents itself in all honesty.

And yes, the ending may be a bit over-the-top, but we all knew it was going to get there, and at that point we’ve invested a lot of feelings on these people, so it just rings true.

Susan Sarandon and Julia Roberts are perfectly cast and put together. Their performances are top-notch, never showing a weak or false moment. They’re just good at what they do, really good. And Ed Harris provides excellent support.

A solid, sentimental movie.

“Mommy, if you want me to hate her I will.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Doctor Zhivago

Director

David Lean

Year

1965

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Monday, September 06, 2004

David Lean is one of the best filmmakers in history. However, truth be told, after the huge critical and commercial success of Lawrence of Arabia (1962), he went for big, sprawling, often overblown romantic dramas, whose epic values seemed excessive given their plot, or the way it was handled. Doctor Zhivago, his next film after Lawrence, is the first example of this, and sadly so, given its rich source of inspiration, the novel by Boris Pasternak. I’m not saying it doesn’t work, because it definitely does, but it could be a masterpiece, and it’s not.

The main problem of the film concerns the aloof treatment of the script. The characters are colder than originally conceived, and their motivations are hardly understandable. There’s no character with which we can connect, and I think the story required at least one.

Having taken that out of my chest, I proceed to praise this classic film for all it’s worth. Pasternak’s story follows orphan Yuri Zhivago (Omar Sharif) throughout his career as a physician and a poet. Married to aristocrat Tonya (Geraldine Chaplin), a childhood friend, he quickly falls in love with a fiery nurse during World War I, by the name of Lara Antipova (Julie Christie). Lara’s story is quite intriguing; as a young girl, she fell in love with her mother’s lover, Victor Komarovsky (Rod Steiger), a relationship that led to tragic consequences. Later married to a young revolutionary by the name of Pasha (Tom Courtenay), she adopted revolutionary principles herself.

Yuri and Lara’s relationship serves as backdrop for Russian history and vice versa. Immersed in the main characters’ passionate romance, we see decades pass, during which the course of that nation constantly and drastically changes. From the First World War to the Bolshevik revolution, we get to see the hardships some people went through, and the passion of others’ fight. Sure, we only get one point of view; but I don’t think there’s place in those pages of history for many more.

A vast production, gorgeously photographed by Freddie Young, with immortal music by Maurice Jarre (its main theme known as “Lara’s theme”), Doctor Zhivago is a true epic, and at that, a masterful one, with unforgettable sequences of angst-ridden crowds, and a powerful Exodus segment on a train, in the middle of which there is a shocking revelation. Like some epics, this one is overlong, but not exactly tiring.

Probably on account of the cold, distant treatment of characters in the script, few actors surprise. That’s not to say they’re bad or miscast, because they’re not (except maybe Steiger, who doesn’t seem quite right as Komarovsky). Sharif does his best and does manage to sympathize as Yuri, while Christie is less successful as the mysterious Lara; Chaplin and Ralph Richardson (as her father) are very effective; Alec Guinness is pretty good as Zhivago’s half-brother, who tells the story; and Courtenay is the most successful member of the cast, handling his character’s evolution perfectly well.

Not without its flaws, Doctor Zhivago is a gorgeous film, and an American classic.

“I give her to you, Yuri Andreavich. Wedding present.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Game

Director

David Fincher

Year

1997

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, September 02, 2004

I chose to watch The Game at home after an exhausting week. Having said no to any social plans on a Friday night, it seemed the best thing to do. And a wise decision it was… I had some mindless fun watching this film, and after doing it, I went to sleep with a smile.

However, despite the positive introduction, I must state I didn’t quite like the film. It does offer some entertainment (which is always a good thing), but it does so defying all possible logic, cheating the audience, and treating its characters (particularly the main one) like pieces of shit. I hated the core of the film despite the process being entertaining, and though I still appreciate having had fun with it, I resent its being so implausible and mean-spirited.

The plot has Nicholas Van Orton (Michael Douglas), a business tycoon, hitting 48 years of age, and finding himself alone. Divorced on account of his work, he has come to the same age when his father killed himself, an event that shattered him forever as a child and an adult. Is he reaching the same fate?

Nicholas’ younger brother Conrad (Sean Penn) is the opposite of him: A carefree man who enjoys life and living it. As a birthday present, he gives Nicholas a gift certificate for a game, provided by a company called “Consumer Recreation Services”, the nature of which no one can really explain, but that appears to be a sort of real-life enactment that knocks at the customers’ doors, proving to be an exhilarating and unprecedented experience for them (Conrad himself was a customer).

Vain Nicholas quickly snubs the idea, but soon, given his midlife crisis, he decides to go for it. Big mistake! The “game” turns out to be, inexplicably, a life or death deal, where our hero’s life is turned upside down overnight, without much he can do about it but run for safety. Soon after the game has begun, a certain waitress by the name of Christine (Deborah Kara Unger) joins Nicholas, and is sure to supply a few extra surprises.

Admittedly, I had lots of fun with The Game, especially in the beginning. I was intrigued by its premise and found myself wondering what the game was from the get-go. As a big fan of Sleuth (1972), I expected it to be in the same league. And while it does resemble the aforementioned film (or play) in that someone plays a practical but deadly joke on another, The Game is not by far as credible or logical. Here, we soon get the sense that this is beyond a practical joke, and that if it is a joke, the joker is a psychopath. Indeed, one of the two is the final resolution, and I was unsatisfied with it, to say the least. I won’t say anything else about the story to avoid spoiling it, but I’ll warn those who haven’t seen it to be prepared for a big cheat, that is, if you’re into logic.

On a positive note, David Fincher’s direction is remarkable. The dark tone of the script is perfectly understood by him, and he turns nighttime San Francisco into a nightmarish setting. Michael Douglas is a fine leading man, in a tailor-made role, and Penn, Unger, and James Rebhorn provide good support.

Overall, The Game is OK for a good time, but highly unsatisfactory afterwards.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story

Director

Rawson Marshall Thurber

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, September 01, 2004

When I first heard about this movie I couldn’t believe what I was hearing. All I could think was that it was sad how Hollywood was running out of ideas and the only sport left to exploit in the big screen was this arguably not-that-well-known one called dodgeball (I’m not an American, so I didn’t even know that they called it that). Anyway, I then stumbled at a piece from Premiere magazine about this young writer who was struggling to make it in the business and who was finally given a chance to direct from his own script, that is, once Ben Stiller got behind him. So, well, I’ve got to admit the behind-the-scenes sentimental story hooked me, and the trailers were certainly funny, so I really wanted to check out this one.

Peter LaFleur (Vince Vaughn) is just about to lose his little gym if he doesn’t get $50,000 to pay what he owes. If he fails, then the place would go to White Goodman (Ben Stiller), the chauvinistic owner of the huge, technologically advanced gym across the street. Peter then enlists his fervent band of loser-clients in order to compete in the national dodgeball tournament in Vegas, where the first prize is… you guessed it… $50,000!!! Kate (Christine Taylor), a beautiful bank counselor comes to the aid after failing to click with White and his manners.

There you have it. I don’t think premises in the sports genre could come as clichéd and unoriginal. But that’s precisely the point of the movie. Writer/director Rawson Marshall Thurber knows what he’s doing and instead of just going for straight laughs he crafts his movie as a satire, filling it with plenty of over-the-top situations and characters.

To be honest, I thought the movie would be better. It starts out dead and continues like this until the team starts to actually train. Then the hilarity level goes up and down and up and down with no particular order during the rest of the movie. There sure are plenty hilarious moments. Watching people get hit by balls is, I have to admit it, kind of fun. And there are some gags that will have you in stitches. Unfortunately that’s not consistent, and there are many times when the movie is flat-out stupid.

The movie also boasts plenty of cameos from people like Hank Azaria, David Hasselhoff, Lance Armstrong, Chuck Norris and William Shatner. Surprisingly, they all work! At least for me they did.

Ben Stiller switches places and this time embodies the movie’s villain. He usually plays the timid, common guy, but this time that role went to his pal Vince Vaughn (who, by the way, is horrible in the movie, and deserves an award for being so flat and uninteresting in his performance), so Stiller gets most of the spotlight and the laughs. His character is too much at times, but his attitude always has a funny gag around the corner to make us laugh. Then again, I though the best performance in the movie belongs to Rip Torn as the guys’ trainer. He gets the best lines and moments.

Funny, but nothing more.

“It’s like watching a bunch of retards trying to hump a doorknob!”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter