CriticSociety- film reviews

Review

Hard Candy

Director

David Slade

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, September 28, 2006

The Internet boom has brought us many things. Information is available to everyone everywhere for a very low price, which has simplified many things and complicated many others. Everything has changed since this tool became available to most everybody. Whole industries have been affected, as well as some people’s lifestyles.

One thing you hear a lot is that you should take care of the kids, since sexual predators are everywhere. Pedophiles have spread like a bad epidemic, even making people wonder if they’re multiplying because of the Internet; my guess is they’re not, only now they have more access to what they like. Some consider it paranoia, but there are some people looking to seduce underage girls and boys, and using the Internet as a way to achieve that. Hard Candy is the story of one such guy, and the latest girl he has met.

The film is quite simple in its presentation. Everything happens between these two people mostly, first in a chat room, then in a cafeteria, and finally in the guy’s house. The guy is 32-year-old Jeff (Patrick Wilson), a professional photographer who’s way more charming and apparently more decent in person than in that faceless media. The girl is 14-year-old Hayley (Ellen Page), a typically alienated teenager who dreams of modeling and becoming someone.

Honestly, I don’t think anything more should be known of the story, because it’s way hard not to spoil it at least one bit. I’ll try to stay as away from spoilers as I can, but you’ve been warned!

What happens is the story turns around. You’re expecting the guy to take advantage of the girl and that’s exactly the opposite of what happens. The way the girl does this, her motives and procedures, are what’s very interesting. It’s all interesting, in fact, because it’s good to see a child get back at a pedophile for once. Brian Nelson’s script dares to stick to these two characters and manages to make it intriguing, despite repetitiousness and some aspects that are hard to believe.

There’s a big flaw to the script, however. By making Hayley a sort of Kathy-Bates-in-Misery character, I can’t see how it expects us to sympathize with her. Furthermore, Jeff is way too charming, and never nasty, so why should we root for his torturer? We instantly root for the guy and we have to keep reminding ourselves what he’s really about to feel a little less bad about his luck. That’s no good. If anything, we should agree with the girl and everything she’s doing, but the story doesn’t give enough weight (at least at first) to his bad deeds to achieve that. Pretty soon, we feel like we hate the girl. Also, we don’t always believe the story, or the way Hayley manipulates Jeff, and the ending is hardly credible. I never for one second went for it.

David Slade’s direction is mostly tortuous. At first it gets in the way and turns out pretty disastrous. If it’s supposed to make us feel tense, it does, but only on account of how close the shots are to the characters, instead of how dangerous the situation onscreen is. Later on, in a powerful and excruciating maiming scene (the most intense torture scene I’ve seen in a while, and probably the most successful if controversial in the movie), the direction feels appropriate. It’s just a matter of where it’s applied, and sadly, most times it just doesn’t fit.

The performances are extraordinary. Page goes over-the-top more often than not, but it turns out believable because after all, she’s a teenager going over the top. Wilson is excellent at every step, and his character does go through a lot. I really enjoyed his performance. Sandra Oh makes a gratuitous appearance, and Odessa Rae and Gilbert John are the only other performers, who appear very briefly.

“I guess they… weren’t brass.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Snakes on a Plane

Director

David R. Ellis

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, September 27, 2006

Snakes on a Plane became an Internet phenomenon as soon as Samuel L. Jackson joined the production and the studio decided to keep the ridiculously silly (yet brilliant) original title. I am part of the so-called online community, so I followed its progress from scratch. The movie reached its peak, buzz-wise, before the summer even started, but then clips of the movie were shown at Comic-Con in San Diego and the balloon started to deflate. By the time it opened in August the novelty had worn off and it just didn’t click. Now that I’ve seen it all I can say is that I’m glad people didn’t respond to the hype. The movie is horrendous.

FBI agent Neville Flynn (Samuel L. Jackson) is put in charge of getting a witness, Sean Jones (Nathan Phillips), in protective custody from Hawaii to L.A. But the man he’s about to testify against manages to put hundreds of snakes in a cargo shipment so they will break loose when the plane is traveling over the sea. The plan works, and hell unravels.

The problems begin with the screenplay, which is credited to John Heffernan and Sebastian Gutierrez. But director David R. Ellis is unable to make much of it either. That’s a pity, since I really enjoyed his previous movie, Cellular (2004), and I think he is quite capable of doing a good directing job. Not here though. Most of the scenes feel clumsily directed and there was certainly a potential for more.

But the main reason why the movie doesn’t work is because it wants to be many things at the same time. One minute it’s a comedy, then it’s a drama, then it’s violent, then it’s plain gory, then it’s satiric; no one seems to make up their mind as to what they want it to be. My personal opinion is that you have to choose a tone and stick to it. If you’re going to do a dead-serious movie about snakes attacking people on a plane then go, write characters that feel real and play with the notion of what would really happen. But I think it would’ve been much more fun if it had been an over-the-top horror comedy. I know it’s a difficult genre to tackle, but it’s been done before and the material screams for it. Here you have a serious plot about a witness taken care of by this formal cop, and then you have a completely laughable ending in which one of many caricature-like supporting characters is able to land a plane because he’s a videogame expert. Ellis and company didn’t make a movie for the geeks, they mistakenly tried to make a movie for everybody and it turned out a disaster.

As for the snakes, they’re believable enough. Sometimes the CGI looks fake, but that’s not necessarily bad for this kind of flick. And there is a certain level of fun to be had with the many ways snakes are killed and disposed of. The snakes even make their first appearance in a clever way, first by eating a cat and then by killing a couple having sex in the bathroom. I wish it would’ve stayed that way, but then it turns insufferable. Even when Samuel L. Jackson utters his now-infamous line (“Enough is enough! I've had it with these motherfuckin' snakes on this motherfuckin' plane!”), the moment feels protracted, for the scene was shot long after principal photography had ended and inserted without caring that it didn’t ring true of the character to say something like that. What he does after this specific scene is quite unexpected and exciting though.

The cast, which is mostly comprised of unfamiliar faces, all do what they’re required to. Samuel L. Jackson plays it straight, just as Julianna Margulies and Bobby Cannavale, while most supporting characters go for broad comedy or uninspired satire. You can’t really blame any of them, since they’re stuck in a circus with no clear command.

“Somebody get this fucking snake off my ass!”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of Snakes on a Plane (2006): Groucho

Review

Elsa & Fred

Director

Marcos Carnevale

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, September 26, 2006

Elsa & Fred is the best example I have seen of a film that no one cared about, which started having impressive word-of-mouth and was propelled to a much wider distribution in my hometown. It’s a Spanish/Argentinean production about two old people who share a romantic encounter towards the end of their lifetimes. Quite frankly, neither the poster nor the name, much less the premise (I love old people as much as the next guy, but it’s always hard to publicize a film like this) were appealing, but people who chanced seeing it loved it immediately and recommended it to everyone around. I ended up feeling an absolute need to watch it, and the result was amazing: I just loved the goddamned thing.

The story presents Fred (Manuel Alexandre), an elderly man who moves into an apartment after the death of his beloved wife. His daughter Cuca (Blanca Portillo) and son-in-law Paco (José Ángel Egido) control the man, also ambitioning the money he made during decades of a stable career in the same company. Neighbor to Fred is Elsa (China Zorrilla), a lively old woman whose sense of humor is as valid today as it ever was. Fred, on the other hand, is, like Elsa puts it, opaque. Like the energy—the very life—has been drained from him through years of boredom and monotony. Elsa’s only loves are her sons, Gabriel (Roberto Carnaghi), who provides her with a living, and Alejo (Gonzalo Urtizberea), a penniless aspiring artist; but something in Fred wakes up an interest in her, a new excitement, a challenge to wake the man up, to bring life back into his existence.

Fred, a rather hypochondriac and certainly dull old man, sees Elsa as a nuisance, but he does notice her spark and appreciates it. After a while, he’s absorbed by her ways, and gets to meet her better: she’s seventeenish, constantly carefree and often careless, living in a world of dreams and fantasies, a pathologic liar even, but whose intentions are noble and simply perfect for that time of Fred’s life.

The film becomes a romantic comedy almost immediately, and stays that way despite its strongly dramatic moments. The threat of death and illness is constantly present, but the philosophy to prevent it through fun and laughter overcomes that. Elsa & Fred is a triumph of the human spirit.

Elsa’s character is central to the story and unforgettable, largely due to China Zorrilla’s performance. She’s funny, energetic and witty, her Argentinean accent often helping her comedic delivery among Spaniards. Manuel Alexandre’s Fred is perfect as the hopeless man who finds a new reason to live and sees his life changed rather late but soon enough to enjoy his existence more than ever.

Pivotal to the plot is Elsa’s admiration for Fellini’s La Dolce Vita, which is constantly referenced. This gimmick of modern filmmaking is sometimes panned by critics, but I don’t see any harm when it’s used as an element of nostalgia and disentangles an independent story that’s potent on its own right. This is the case of this film, and let me tell you, it adds poignancy to that classic Italian film.

Lito Vitale’s affecting music is one more element that makes the feelings explode from the experience of this surprising movie. Everyone who has loved their grandparents, or wishes that had been the case, will feel a mixture of joy and sadness that’s hard to explain. But on top of that, an injection of life will be provided. Whoever walks out of the movie theater without that extra boost, shouldn’t mind looking for other ways to find it; this is it.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

World Trade Center

Director

Oliver Stone

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, September 25, 2006

I belong to the group of people who one year ago or so thought that the idea of Hollywood making movies about the events that happened on September 11th, 2001, was terrible, almost disrespectful. I thought it was too soon, and I thought they would only try to profit from exploiting and exaggerating the stories of people who went through it face-to-face. I was wrong though. United 93, which opened earlier this year, took everyone by surprise and was immediately regarded as one of the best movies of the year, if not the best. Now comes a second feature, one telling a completely different story, and I was awed by how good it is as well. Maybe it wasn’t a bad idea after all.

Port Authority police officers John McLoughlin (Nicolas Cage) and Will Jimeno (Michael Peña) woke up and went to work like they usually did. But a couple of hours later they received orders to head to the World Trade Center buildings and evacuate Tower 1 after a plane, or something, crashed into it. The two of them, along with Dominick Pezzulo (Jay Hernandez) and Antonio Rodrigues (Armando Riesco), went inside to get some gear and as they were planning to go up, the tower collapsed on top of them. After Tower 2 gave up, McLoughlin and Jimeno started a battle for survival, stuck beneath the debris with deep injuries and without being able to move, while their wives Donna (Maria Bello) and Allison (Maggie Gyllenhaal) waited desperately for news on the outside.

The movie was written by Andrea Berloff who, along with director Oliver Stone, spent many hours with the real people on whom it is based. They all served as consultants, a task I can only imagine was extremely difficult. But the final result is extraordinary because of this. It is filled with little details that make it more human because they actually happened. Details that in a fictional screenplay would seem ridiculous here take a different dimension. From things people said to how they reacted, it is a faithful and affecting reenactment of the intimate story surrounding 2 of the 20 survivors of the collapses.

You would never think it is none other than Oliver Stone behind the cameras if you watched the movie without knowing. The director gets rid of any trait of political statements or weird camera movements and presents a straightforward telling that does exactly what it sets out to do. His work is subtle and doesn’t warrant attention to itself. He also faced the task of taking some harsh decisions regarding narrative issues. When John and Will are buried underneath in the middle portion he knows it doesn’t make for good entertainment, so he and Berloff opt to follow their families and what’s going on outside with an ex-marine, Dave Karnes (Michael Shannon), who feels it’s his mission in life to go help at Ground Zero. Their stories are well-handled and prove to be the emotional core of the movie. Stone does other things that don’t work so well, such as presenting flashbacks, an imaginary conversation and a sight of Jesus that can entice the wrong reaction. But the movie is almost flawless and by achieving the little things perfectly it pulls off the bigger things with ease.

There is one particular aspect of the movie that truly got me though: its approach. There is no arguing the fact that the world witnessed unbearable terror on that doomed day, but sometimes we forget that such tragic occasions also bring out the best in people. That day the world was one, and there’s nothing more powerful than that. I remember being glued to my TV for 2 or 3 days in a row and really, what I wanted to see were traces of hope beneath the rubble. I wanted to hear survival stories; I wanted to be told that everything would be all right. The stories of McLoughlin and Jimeno are precisely about that: hope, survival, clenching to life with all you’ve got, starting over. There’s a scene where one of them is finally taken out in which there are literally hundreds of people outside risking their lives for the two of them and they can’t but burst into applause even though they’re surrounded by massive destruction. They were desperate to know that there was still some good in the world... we all were. And that’s what this movie is about, the celebration of the human spirit.

Needless to say, it is also fascinating to witness this story from the point of view of people who were actually inside the buildings when they collapsed. It is something that had not been done before, and it is excruciating beyond words.

Stone gathered a team of pros that did justice to the story. Seamus McGarvey’s photography is first-rate, Jan Roelfs production design is exemplary and Craig Armstrong’s score is delicate and affecting. There was no need to go over-the-top, for the story itself is able to shock and distress even the strongest among us.

You’d think that going with Nicolas Cage for the leading role would be distracting given his superstar status. But it’s a compliment to his talent that he’s able to stay grounded and come off as an everyman. He’s paired with the excellent Michael Peña, who I believe gives the strongest performance as a man who keeps putting a good face to adversity even in the bleakest of situations. Maria Bello is all dignity and strength as John’s wife (even though her blue contacts are distracting at first) while Maggie Gyllenhaal is simply heart-breaking as Will’s wife. Supporting players, all of whom are exceptional, include Stephen Dorff, Viola Davis and Stoney Westmoreland.

World Trade Center is one of the most difficult, powerful and emotional movies I have ever seen, and for that I am grateful; I wouldn’t have it any other way.

“We prepared for everything. Not for this. Not for something this size. There’s no plan.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of World Trade Center (2006): Groucho

Review

Jaws

Director

Steven Spielberg

Year

1975

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, September 21, 2006

Jaws was Steven Spielberg’s second feature film and first hit, a fine movie highly regarded by both critics and audiences, despite being based on a trashy if bestselling novel by Peter Benchley. The story, with references to Herman Melville’s 1851 masterpiece “Moby-Dick”, makes a perfect action movie, and one that went on to permanently influence cinema, spawning countless sequels and imitators. Many things from Jaws went on to become classic, most notably John Williams’ ominous, suspenseful score whose chilling two-note cello and bass chords forever announced the arrival of one of the screen’s scariest monsters.

But the film is much more than its score and some scary moments. It’s a masterpiece of the horror / disaster movie genre. By directing in a tight, tense fashion, Spielberg proved the world what a talented filmmaker he was, and how capable his skills were of having the audience on the edge of their seats. Teamed with editor Verna Fields, he achieved the unthinkable; rarely had audiences experienced such genuine fear in the movie theater – or developed a long-lasting phobia (comparable to the massive fear of showers after Psycho (1960)). Sharks had never been as scary as the white beast presented in Jaws—an antagonist that doesn’t show up clearly on the screen during the first half of the movie, but which is as present as the most vivid villain in film history.

The story has police Chief Martin Brody (Roy Scheider), a New Yorker afraid of the water, facing the apparent threat of a white shark loose in Amity Island. After the death of a young woman, the town’s Mayor (Murray Hamilton) strongly denies the presence of a shark, afraid the bad publicity will hurt tourism on the fourth of July. However, the continued attacks force Brody to gather a couple of experts: young Ichthyologist Matt Hooper (Richard Dreyfuss) and WWII veteran Quint (Robert Shaw), a fisherman obsessed with eradicating killer sharks (an obsession reminiscent of Captain Ahab’s own to destroy the white whale, Moby Dick).

The trio couldn’t be more disparate, but their hunt is very clear. Yet, neither has calculated the true danger they’re facing. This shark is certainly not easy matter.

The key to Jaws’ success is the way it handles the excitement. There’s some very welcome comedy throughout, as well as strongly poignant moments, notably the reproach of a dead boy’s mother (Lee Fierro), and especially an unexpected WWII anecdote that changed Quint’s life for good and defined his shark-hunting personality. The superior screenplay by Benchley and Carl Gottlieb (with several uncredited contributors) wisely counterpoints the action and adventure with key moments of pure human emotion, making the overall story much more effective than if it simply involved a shark threatening vacationers.

The performances of the three main characters are outstanding, emphasizing the clearly delineated personalities of each. Lorraine Gary is a delight as Brody’s wife, and Hamilton makes an impression as the stubborn Mayor.

The shark also performs amazingly. It’s a robotic shark though, but remarkably realized by a talented crew that gave us the creeps in the right moment and made us agree heartily with Chief Brody when he unforgettably stated in petrified mode:

“You’re gonna need a bigger boat.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Thank You for Smoking

Director

Jason Reitman

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, September 20, 2006

Thank You for Smoking, the directorial debut of Jason Reitman (Ivan’s son), played at the 2005 Toronto Film Festival and at the 2006 Sundance Film Festival. It got such an uproarious response that it prompted a bidding war between rival movie studios. Fox prevailed, got the impressive cast to help promote it and ultimately released it with moderate success. I had to see what all the fuzz was about…

Nick Naylor (Aaron Eckhart) is a lobbyist for the Academy of Tobacco Studies, which means he speaks in their behalf mostly to refute arguments against smoking. An old tobacco baron, ‘The Captain’ (Robert Duvall), wants him to convince the original Marlboro Man (Sam Elliot) against denouncing them; he also sends him to Hollywood to meet up with an exec, Jeff Megall (Rob Lowe), and see what he can do to get big stars smoking on-screen again; meanwhile a beautiful reporter, Heather Holloway (Katie Holmes), is doing an article about him but things eventually become more personal; and he has to deal with Senator Finistirre (William H. Macy), who wants to put a poison warning in every cigarette package. This all happens while Nick is trying to bond with his impressionable son Joey (Cameron Bright) by showing him what he does for a living.

The movie is based on a novel by Christopher Buckley. Many big names had been trying to bring it to the big screen for years, but no one could find the right tone to make the novel justice. Enter Jason Reitman, who wrote the screenplay himself and had good ideas to make it doable. He eventually got backing and a pretty good cast. The rest is history.

I don’t like to blame movies for what they aren’t, but it’s impossible for me not to bring it up when reviewing this one. It is clearly a satire, but its targets are so easy to hit that I was disappointed Reitman didn’t go the extra distance. It makes clever jabs and is a very entertaining movie, but it’s a project that screams to be taken to a higher level, go over-the-top, be fearless. As it is, it remains soft and occasionally uninvolving. It lacks the edginess it so required.

Having said that, it’s important you know that the movie is funny. I especially liked the scenes involving the MOD Squad (standing for “Merchants of Death”) which have Nick, an alcohol lobbyist (Maria Bello) and a firearms lobbyist (David Koechner) getting together every week for drinks and gossip. The scenes with the Hollywood producer are also a hoot, and Nick convincing the Marlboro Man to take the money is another highlight. The final hearing pays off in a big way and the ending is a treat.

Aaron Eckhart is excellent in a role that requires him to be both likeable and a moron. He threads the line with precision and we do root for him most of the time. He also finds a nice balance when dealing with his son. One moment you think he’s the worst parent ever and the next you can see he’s doing what he thinks is right and that maybe he’s got a point. The rest of the cast is uniformly good, although I’ve always thought of Cameron Bright as a kid who continually seems actor-ly. Macy, Bello and Lowe are standouts.

Great use of songs, by the way…

“That’s the beauty of argument, if you argue correctly you’re never wrong.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

World Trade Center

Director

Oliver Stone

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, September 19, 2006

Oliver Stone’s new film venture is a real daring one—a recount of the September 11, 2001 disaster in New York City as two hijacked commercial passenger jet airliners hit the twin towers of the World Trade Center in Manhattan, the greatest attack in a day of terror for the United States of America. The controversy over making movies about that day is inevitable, but since art is an obligatory form of catharsis for the human being, and since the scope of this film is to show that much more than evil was seen on that day, the effort can be deemed noble. Furthermore, it’s a fine motion picture.

The story focuses on the Port Authority police, alerted of the attack on the first tower and sent to aid survivors on that dreadful morning. Upon arrival, the men knew about the attack on the second tower, but only as a rumor. Then, before being able to help anybody, the tower collapsed on top of them and pinned them below the debris. Family dramas ensue as the excommunicated survivors struggle to stay alive.

Sgt. John McLoughlin (Nicolas Cage) and Officer Will Jimeno (Michael Peña) are the two real-life policemen who were stuck for several hours facing the terrifying possibility of not seeing daylight again. The three-act story first shows their inexplicably heroic impulse to help survivors, then their struggle and their family’s to go through the awful day, so full of uncertainty, and finally their rescue. All three parts pack a wallop in a way.

Some stories need to focus on a microcosm to reach universality without losing scope. World Trade Center attempts that, but falls short of capturing the whole essence of the tragedy. The result is a movie with a larger-than-life name and a much smaller story. Andrea Berloff’s screenplay can hardly be faulted, because these people’s stories are well-developed, but I’m not sure that the aftermath of that day is by far contained in Oliver Stone’s film.

Furthermore, after an intense introduction and a nearly unbearable first act (where the destruction is amazingly recreated), there’s a long time of McLoughlin and Jimeno trapped, which is a slowdown despite their highly emotional conversations and their obviously agonizing survival. The stories of their families, particularly of wives Donna McLoughlin (Maria Bello) and Allison Jimeno (Maggie Gyllenhaal), is way more powerful, as it shows the hard time the rest of the world had during the tragedy, especially those whose loved ones were missing.

An interesting point in the film is how the American family values are decaying, and how something bad is sometimes necessary to appreciate what we got. This is very clear in both families, particularly the McLoughlins, and something I appreciated greatly. The performances of everyone are admirable.

The final part, detailing their rescue, fails to portray the intensity and heroism of everyone involved, particularly focusing in religious fanatic marine Dave Karnes (Michael Shannon). I’m not against religion if it drives people to good deeds, but I didn’t like the way the character of Karnes was handled, especially since he’s the main hero of the film. Another use of religious symbolism (a rather in-your-face one, by the way) is also ineffective, at least half the time.

The point of the story is that while the world witnessed evil, these two men (and several more victims) saw the good that comes from everyone who’s willing to help, sometimes without any obligation, simply motivated by instinct and the goodness within. In that way, the film succeeds. In making justice to the victims or heroes from that unforgettable Tuesday, it doesn’t quite get there; United 93 (2006) is still the best film on the subject, which is also a great film regardless of the true-story factor (try imagining World Trade Center as fiction… would it work?).

Yet, World Trade Center is one cathartic time at the movies that many people will appreciate. I had a very intense time and the aftertaste was good.

“You kept me alive.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of World Trade Center (2006): Morris

Review

The Ringer

Director

Barry Blaustein

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, September 18, 2006

If I hear that a new comedy starring Johnny Knoxville is out, my first reaction would normally be to avoid it and maybe throw up a little. But when The Ringer came out critics were actually impressed, maybe because approaching it with low expectations. Nobody went to see it though, and when it came out in my city I wasn’t much into it. Blame it on a slow weekday in which there weren’t that many options to choose from, but I decided to give it a try. What the heck, right?

Steve Barker (Johnny Knoxville) needs money to pay for the operation in which his gardener will get his hand reconstructed. His uncle Gary (Brian Cox), on the other hand, needs the money to pay off a debt with the mob. Together they plan the ultimate scheme: Steve will participate in the Special Olympics faking a mental illness, then he’ll win and get the money from a bet they’d place on him. Problem is that when he gets to the camp he falls in love with a beautiful volunteer, Lynn (Katherine Heigl), and has difficulties with his roommates.

The movie was directed by Barry W. Blaustein and written by Ricky Blitt. Neither name rings a bell, but they managed to come up with a perfectly sweet movie despite all the things that could’ve gone wrong. When I saw the trailer I though the movie looked like a silly Farrelly-brothers-type thing in which mentally ill people would be the butt of offensive jokes with no redeeming quality. I guess I wasn’t alone there, but it’s important to say that this isn’t like that. Not at all.

The catch here is that when Steve starts to practice and compete he isn’t precisely the best athlete out there. Nor is he the smartest. He soon allies with some people in the competition who become his friends and the insight into their lives and way of thinking is what I liked the most about the movie. There definitely are some politically incorrect moments in which I didn’t know whether to laugh or feel offended. But they’re compensated by a constantly cheerful spirit and a clear message that hits you with a thud. Steve eventually changes, and the transformation is touching.

The other subplot involves Steve and Lynn, which makes for a more predictable time. Steve falls in love with her, she likes him, he lies to her, she has a horrible boyfriend, he wants to tell her the truth, cue in big emotional scene. But I'm being honest when I saw that despite the well-known path, I wanted them to end up together. And that big scene is a lot more restrained than it could be. I was preparing for this long, tearful speech and the scene played quite differently, something I’m grateful for.
After all is said and done, it is a movie with a heart; one that has something to say and does so in an entertaining way. It helps that Steve is essentially a good guy, so we can identify with him. It’s a fun ride. It’s not unforgettable or life-changing, but well-done and pretty decent.

Knoxville is Knoxville all the way, and I have to say that despite the qualms I may have about him, he’s not really that good. I can give him a chance, I will give anyone a chance. But I wasn’t convinced. Still, I went along with the ride. Cox is funny and Heigl is adorable. But the real stars are the guys who play the mentally ill people, some of whom really do have that condition. They include Edward Barbanell, Jed Rees, Bill Chott, Geoffrey Arend, John Taylor, Leonard Flowers and Leonard Earl Howze.

“I would definitely bring protection.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Duck Soup

Director

Leo McCarey

Year

1933

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, September 14, 2006

Duck Soup is arguably the Marx Brothers’ finest hour, but why leave it at that? It’s one of the best comedies ever to grace the screen, a completely carefree—and somewhat careless—time at the movies that exploits the advantages of genius comedic timing, witty writing, brilliant music and insane satire. It wasn’t very well received at its time, but now it’s hailed as a masterpiece, and no wonder.

At mocking war, dictatorship, fascism and totalitarian governments in general, the brothers spawn every possible visual and spoken gag imaginable. The script disrespects, destroys and creates, all the way packing a wallop. In a story of conflicts among countries, Chico and Harpo often change sides, Groucho cares only for his own humor, and Zeppo’s straight character goes with the wackiness.

In a completely incomprehensible act, wealthy Mrs. Teasdale (Margaret Dumont) declares that she will only contribute more money to the country of Freedonia if a new leader is assigned: Rufus T. Firefly (Groucho Marx). The decision is very controversial among notables and politicians, but only that way will she support the country anymore.

Firefly is received in a sumptuous party, where scheming Trentino (Louis Calhern), Ambassador of neighbor country Sylvania, plans to take over Freedonia by marrying Mrs. Teasdale, using gorgeous dancer Vera Marcal (Raquel Torres) to seduce Firefly so as to distract him from Mrs. Teasdale, who’s rather sweet on him. To their surprise, Firefly is not interested in politics, romance or any bit of coherence. He wisecracks his way through life and disrupts Trentino’s plans without even trying.

Chicolini (Chico Marx) and his partner Pinky (Harpo Marx) work for Trentino, trying to find something to use against Firefly. Why he would hire these men is beyond any logic, especially when they do nothing but insult and humiliate him. Oddly enough, Pinky also drives Firefly’s car: actually a motorcycle with a side car, the latter often left behind by the former, with Firefly staying on board.

So the film obviously is insane; there is a story to follow, but it’s not altogether important. Every step of the way, there’s a lunatic turn accompanied by great music and songs by Bert Kalmar and Harry Ruby, who also wrote the screenplay. Some of their songs include “When the Clock on the Wall Strikes Ten”, “Just Wait ‘Til I Get Through With It” and “The Country’s Going to War”. All are hilarious and musically rich, but the latter is especially notable as a brilliant spoof of Hollywood musicals, as well as the only musical number in the Marx Brothers history to feature all four brothers.

Zeppo Marx, whose straight roles were usually the least notable, said goodbye to the ensemble after this movie. Bob Roland, Firefly’s secretary, became his last movie role.

The Marxes do some of their best pantomimic and comedic routines here, including the classic mirror scene, the lemonade stand routine, the Paul Revere parody and others. The dialogue is constantly hilarious and the interaction with the brilliant Margaret Dumont was never funnier. This is, rather simply, a must-see.

“You know, you haven't stopped talking since I came here? You must have been vaccinated with a phonograph needle.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Lady in the Water

Director

M. Night Shyamalan

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, September 13, 2006

I am here to say I am a faithful M. Night Shyamalan follower and a true fan at heart. I just love his movies, what can I do? He has been criticized, insulted, ignored… you name it, but it is a fact that there are still a lot of people in the world who admire what he does. For me, the guy’s still got it, and you have to give it to him for trying to be different. Almost all of his movies are hard to categorize into a single genre, and that’s because he does things that no one has done before. He’s a true original and a man who is always trying to please himself and, above all, his audience. I say hail to that!

Cleveland Heep (Paul Giamatti) is a superintendent in an apartment building who is rescued by a young woman, Story (Bryce Dallas Howard), when he falls unconscious into the place’s pool. As it happens, the woman lives underwater, comes from the Blue World, and is there because she has to find a writer for whom she’ll be a source of inspiration. Cleveland and his tenants soon find out that they’re witnesses to an ancient tale come to life, and they realize they have to help Story get back to her world.

How crazy did that sound? I know, and that’s just the beginning. Shyamalan wrote the movie based on a bedtime story he used to tell his daughters. He wrote it as a mixture between reality and fantasy; and you have to be able to let go and believe in what you’re seeing to enjoy and understand the movie. Believe, that’s the keyword here, one that encompasses a lot of what you’ll take from this tale. Shyamalan also invents words. Story is a narf, she is being watched over by a scrunt, and the tartutic are supposed to stop it from making harm. What? Don’t worry, the movie begins with an animated prologue that sort of puts the pieces in the table and then we’re off to the adventure…

The movie’s first 20 to 30 minutes are uneven. I was intrigued by the events and characters, but the pace felt off and there were a lot of weird camera movements and out-of-focus takes that were distracting. After that the movie seems to find its stride and all’s well and done till the end. It only boasts one other out-of-place moment and that’s when Mr. Farber the critic (Bob Balaban) comes face to face with the scrunt. It’s funny, but it belongs somewhere else. And since we’re addressing the bad, I also have to say that there’s way too much exposition regarding the ancient tale that Young Soon (Cindy Cheung) and her mother (June Kyoto Lu) tell Cleveland. The mother-daughter interaction is hilarious and their scenes are some of my favorites, but ironically, I also think Shyamalan should’ve found a more seamless way for Cleveland to hear about the tale. It feels as if every now and then Young Soon comes into the frame to explain what’s going to happen next and it proves to be too talky.

Those quibbles are put aside by what’s really important. Shyamalan is doing an epic movie that doesn’t feel like one. He’s also doing a mainstream flick that feels arty. And he’s trying to say a lot of things while also making an entertaining experience out of it. I specifically loved three aspects of the journey we take. First, there’s the fascinating way in which we watch a fairy tale come to life in front of our eyes. We’re not only hearing about it, but the movie itself becomes a fairy tale as the characters start to believe and get involved in it. That’s where the next important issue comes in. The director loves faith as a theme for his movies, and here it comes loud and clear in a beautiful way. Everybody could’ve just given up, but they want to believe, they need to believe, they need to feel that they’re part of something bigger, that life has a meaning. Cleveland in particular is desperate to let go, to confront his fears. And his journey culminates in a very emotional way. And finally there’s my favorite thing about the movie: how it shows that every human being is destined for something. You may think you know what it is, but you might be wrong and find about it the hard way; you may find about it at an early age or maybe when you’re old. Truth is, everybody has a purpose and a place in the bigger picture, and when you realize it you’ll see life through a brand new spectrum.

It also helps that the movie is very funny. Shyamalan has a weird sense of humor, and his characters are all unique individuals, which makes the ride more unpredictable but also a lot more fun. Sure, there are some pretentious snippets here and there, but they didn’t bother me. I laughed, I cried, I was involved. It really is a rousing experience.

Paul Giamatti proves he can be a leading man as much as any superstar out there. He’s excellent and embodies his character with panache. Bryce Dallas Howard is required to look scared and be quiet most of the time, something that she does well enough. Supporting players include Bob Balaban, Jeffrey Wright, Freddy Rodriguez, Cindy Cheung, Sarita Choudhury, Bill Irwin, Mary Beth Hurt, Noah Gray-Cabey and M. Night himself. They all do outstanding work, especially Chung and Choudhury.

Chris Doyle’s exquisite cinematography and James Newton Howard’s inspiring score only add to the high level of quality all around.

“Mr. Heep, it’s time we show them that some stories are real!”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Snakes on a Plane

Director

David R. Ellis

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, September 12, 2006

Snakes on a Plane seems to “bravely” tackle a new approach at moviemaking: the filmmakers couldn’t have thought of it as a quality film, but it relies on incredible excesses, a popular star, an overblown Internet hype that lasted a whole year, and an awesome title. Nobody ever thought a movie with this title could be good, but nobody could resist watching it. You just know what to expect, you go ahead, you watch it, you get what you expected, and then you complain? No. What you gotta do is take it as lightly as it should be taken. Nothing more, or less.

To be honest, the film is entertaining. It’s a sort of modern-day B-movie / millionaire disaster film that goes too far every two seconds but still goes on and on like nothing happened. In that way, it’s pretty hilarious. The feeling of laughing a minute after a kid has been violently bitten by a cobra is rather eerie, but that’s the inevitable reaction. The fact that everyone around is laughing too is a sign that you’re not all that unethical. After a few minutes you just sit back and relax, expecting lots of scares and lots of laughs, and that’s what you get.

But even in that frequency, the film goes too far. I would’ve loved it to be scary enough and funny enough, but why make it gory and often disgusting? It’s that belief (incorrect, I hope) that modern audiences need all-too-graphical action to get what’s going on. Isn’t subtlety powerful anymore? All those decades of masterful filmmakers creating suspense more from the unseen than from what was on the screen have gone to the trashcan? I refuse to believe it. It’s a cheap, stupid approach that underestimates viewers, turns out more expensive but quite lazier, and reduces the filmmaking standards when the movie becomes a blockbuster. I can accept a story where passengers are horribly killed by reptiles, but why show us every bit of carnage that comes from that premise?

Samuel L. Jackson stars as Hawaii detective Flynn, who protects a young eyewitness, Sean (Nathan Phillips), from the mobster he can testify against, Eddie Kim (Byron Lawson). In the attempt to transport Sean to LA in order to get his testimony, they face Kim’s new mischief: he has filled the plane with venomous snakes that are furious and willing to kill about everyone who crosses their path. In the way there’s action, drama, willing and unwilling comedy, and some true scares.

Most performances are one-note or routine, but some actually surprised me: Flex Alexander as an obsessive-compulsive superstar, Lin Shaye as a stewardess who could’ve retired before the flight, and Todd Louiso as a snake expert.

I understand this movie is already a cult classic. That’s all right. Since I saw it last weekend, I have recommended it a couple of times. It’s rather fun, you know, for a good, mindless time. I don’t regret at all seeing it, but I wouldn’t mind it if it didn’t exist altogether.

“Enough is enough! I have had it with these motherfucking snakes on this motherfucking plane!”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of Snakes on a Plane (2006): Morris

Review

Click

Director

Frank Coraci

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, September 11, 2006

I tried to avoid this movie like the plague. I don’t hate Adam Sandler like many people do, but I don’t love his infantile humor when in silly-comedy-mood and from what I could see in the trailers of this thing it seemed like a one-joke premise that would surely not stand up to its entire running length. When you watch so many movies sometimes you develop a sixth sense about what you won’t like, and I could smell the stink of this one from a mile. So what happened? Don’t ask, but I saw it and it wasn’t that bad!

Michael Newman (Adam Sandler) is an architect with pretty much a perfect life: he has a lovely wife, Donna (Kate Beckinsale); two healthy children, Ben (Joseph Castanon) and Samantha (Tatum McCann); loving parents Ted (Henry Winkler) and Trudy (Julie Kavner); and a cute dog who likes to hump a puppet duck. But he wants more, professional-wise, and is determined to achieve it even though his boss (David Hasselhoff) is a jerk. His life takes a drastic turn when he goes to buy a universal remote control and a goofy man, Morty (Cristopher Walken), gives him one that can manipulate his life with such common features as the fast-forward button or any other.

Click was directed by frequent Sandler collaborator Frank Coraci, who hadn’t done anything decent since The Wedding Singer almost a decade ago. That’s not to say that his latest is revolutionary, but at least it’s ok and accomplishes what it sets out to do. By that I mean that it provokes some laughs and puts its message across loud and clear.

For the first hour or so, the movie is comprised of a series of sitcom-y gags that work or not depending on your level of endurance. I thought the movie missed more than it hit during this span, and I wasn’t really that happy. There are clever jokes here and there, such as when Michael gets inside the DVD-like features of his life (watching what happened when he added a commentary track or when he clicked on the making-of featurette was quite amusing). But then there is the silly and gross-out humor, not to mention scenes that seem to drag more than they need to (sadly, I can say that of most of Walken’s appearances). I can tolerate and even enjoy this kind of comedy, but it isn’t that well-done here. Just ok.

And then, in the last 30 to 40 minutes, there is a radical change in tone that took me completely off guard. It wasn’t advertised in the promotion, and I certainly didn’t know Sandler and Coraci would be brave enough to let it all play as dramatically and honestly as possible. It happens (and this isn’t a spoiler) that the remote control has a memory, so every time Michael skipped a fight with his wife or fast-forwarded his life until his next job promotion, the device stored it so it could do the same whenever the next episode of this sort took place. That means that the remote started to control Michael’s life to the point where he was missing on everything. And here’s where the It's a Wonderful Life-element of the story kicks in. I won’t say what happens, but it’s pretty intense and easily the best thing about the movie. I even gave it half a star more than I originally intended to because of the superb last act.

I do have to credit the people responsible for the production design and make-up for pulling off the futuristic settings in an original and credible way. Very good job there.

Sandler, as it is, delivers the kind of performance he can do in his sleep, although he goes to some dark places at the end and does it well. Kate Beckinsale is not only drop-dead-gorgeous, but she’s adorable. Christopher Walken is as quirky as only he can be, but most of his scenes are ho-hum. David Hasselhoff pokes fun at himself as he’s been doing a lot lately. And it works. The children’s performances feel a bit actor-ly, especially the girl’s, but nothing serious. And Sean Astin and Jennifer Cooldige appear briefly in welcomed stints.

“Forever and ever babe.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Hud

Director

Martin Ritt

Year

1963

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, September 07, 2006

Hud is a film based on Larry McMurtry’s novel “Horseman, Pass By” which is, as much as the book, an exemplary portrait of the clash between the Old West and the Contemporary West, with a whole array of well-cemented values being snubbed by the young, whose materialism quickly overcomes tradition.

The story observes Hud Bannon (Paul Newman), a reckless young anti-hero who has worked his whole life ranching for his father Homer (Melvyn Douglas), with whom he maintains a less than tender relationship. Despite his hard work, Hud irresponsibly rides a Pink Cadillac around town and cynically parks it outside married women’s houses. He’s infamous in town but still reliable at the ranch, despite his differing ideas with his boss and father, Homer.

Homer is an idealist, a proud rancher whose cattle means everything to him. He’s an old man who lives among ghosts and shadows from the past, but still believes his existence is worthwhile if he can die a happy rancher. His whole family is comprised by Hud and Lon (Brandon De Wilde), his grandson, the son of Hud’s dead brother. Living with them is Alma (Patricia Neal), their attractive and headstrong housekeeper.

Lon is in a way the central character, who admires both Hud’s hedonism and Homer’s strength of character. Despite Hud’s obstinacy, sometimes it’s evident that his progressive ideas are not altogether reckless, but rather seen as such by old-fashioned Homer. Hud never cares about tradition and is sometimes willing to stump over ethics for his own convenience, but he also has some practical thoughts that could never be accepted by his father.

The novel that stunned the West became a remarkably realist and somewhat crude film that constitutes a histrionic powerhouse and a particular triumph for director Martin Ritt. The black-and-white cinematography by James Wong Howe is quite gripping.

A classic clash of titans living in unforgiving, opposite worlds raises Hud to epic, almost biblical proportions. It’s beautiful how understated the movie is, and how significant; Elmer Bernstein’s score is another illustration of that.

Every character is a very important piece in the story and every actor excels. Newman, Douglas and Neal are completely beyond words in performances that had to be perfect and certainly were. De Wilde, whose role as a child in Shane a decade before made him famous, proves once again what a great actor he was intended to become.

“It don’t take long to kill things, not like it takes to grow.”

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Gladiator

Director

Ridley Scott

Year

2000

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, September 06, 2006

When Russell Crowe signed on to do Gladiator there wasn’t a final script. For most of the duration of filming many scenes were constantly re-written. You wouldn’t know that from the final product, which went on to become a huge blockbuster and ultimately won the Best Picture Oscar. I was with it from the second the movie started to unravel before my eyes. It was one of those times in which I couldn’t stop going to see it while it was still in theaters. It instantly became a favorite of mine.

Maximus (Russel Crowe), general of the Roman Army and personal friend of Emperor Marcus Aurelius (Richard Harris), is forced to become a slave once the latter dies and his power-hungry son Commodus (Joaquin Phoenix) takes his place. After his family is killed he opts to make the full out of becoming a gladiator in order to reach his enemy and fight for revenge with the help of Lucilla (Connie Nielsen), Commodus’s sister, and his friend Juba (Djimon Hounsou).

The screenplay is credited to three writers: David Franzoni, John Logan and William Nicholson. Their work, aided by director Ridley Scott’s at his prime, becomes an epic filled with passion, intrigue, romance, suspense and a lot of violence. It is a movie so big and rich in detail that it reminds us of classics from the past. But besides its aggressive content and all the action in it, Gladiator is essentially about a wounded man in search of peace; a man who knew what love is and what it is to be loved, only to have it taken away from him. Maximus represents courage, dignity and hope in a world where blood was the solution to everything, whether it’d be war or pure diversion. You long for a sense of redemption, and the movie delivers.

The movie starts with a huge battle where Scott and his cinematographer John Mathieson equally show us its full scope while also getting inside the carnage. There are plenty other moments such as this, but the focus always remains on the characters. At the end of the day, it is a simple story the one being told, and it is also entirely character-driven. That’s what makes it work beyond the spectacle, its keen eye on human relationships. But there’s action galore, and every battle and every fight keep raising the stakes, leading to a rousing climax that is expertly handled and full of heart.

Every single technical aspect of the movie is flawless, from the aforementioned cinematography to the production design to the costumes to the make-up to the impressive special-effects that serve to recreate ancient Rome among other things. And then there’s Hans Zimmer’s score, which is hands down one of the best musical compositions ever put on film. I can honestly say the music elevates the movie in great measures and that’s how it should always be.

Russel Crowe won an Oscar for playing the titular character. He also cemented his place as one of the most talented actors in the world. He’s not only completely credible in all the action scenes, but just as good in quieter scenes. When he is mad, you want to stay away from him; when he is crying, you can feel his pain. The depth and spirituality with which he plays Maximus is just one of many pleasures the movie has to offer. Joaquin Phoenix, as the villain, transcends the character and brings him alive without a false move. It’s a difficult role but he is splendid in it. Connie Nielsen also tackles a difficult part in which she has to come off strong but show her vulnerable side with all its fragility. When her father tells her about what a great Ceasar she would have made if she only had been a man, you really believe it. The supporting cast is good all over the place and it includes Richard Harris, Djimon Honsou, Derek Jacobi and Oliver Reed, whose last scenes had to be computer-generated because of his unexpected death.

It is a feast for the senses.

"The general who became a slave; the slave who became a gladiator; the gladiator who defied an empire..."

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter