CriticSociety- film reviews

Review

Thelma & Louise

Director

Ridley Scott

Year

1991

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, September 30, 2008

Oh my! Everything but a castration, I tell you, and that was probably left out in the editing room. Thelma & Louise must be the most prominent mainstream feminist motion picture, and no wonder: two abused women get caught in dreadful circumstances, find their catharsis against men, then continue to be abused by them, and get ever nastier against them every time, but it’s all justified!

If I were a bigot, I would condemn this film… But it’s actually an amazingly written and totally credible yarn about reaction, and that it’s women against men makes no difference for it. When the ending comes, we totally believe these people have transformed themselves to such extent, and it’s a merit that we have gone so far along with them. For its risky theme, its unabashed extents and its unforgettable (and highly controversial and talked about) finale, Thelma & Louise stands among the most notable of its decade.

Two characters, two actresses, and both top-notch in interpreting and embodying their parts in all their nuances and phases. Genna Davis plays Thelma, the one who doesn’t even dare ask her abusive husband permission to go out on a rod trip with her friend Louise, played by Susan Sarandon, who goes through the world with a feminist flag that seems rather exaggerated or paranoid—because she’s obviously afraid of men.

What these women have gone through and why they’re the way they are only comes up when, during their [if only symbolically at first] liberating trip they encounter real abuse, and deal with it quite impulsively, but unavoidably so given not only the circumstances but the background. The result: they’re fugitives, pursued by men, yeah, the same people who have driven them where they are. Giving in not only means, perhaps, the cease of freedom, but also the admittance of a universal wrong they’re forced to embody and they refuse to.

Louise is too much into this ideology at first, but she hasn’t processed it, she bought it without trying it first, and she’s scared; Thelma is open to the possibilities, she’s safe, she thinks, even after nearly falling victim to a rapist, but as she gets to know the road, the taste of freedom, and the nature of men, she becomes what Louise only dreamt she could be… Together they learn everything about each other and themselves, and it’s just artistic to see them unveil. These characters, created by Callie Khouri, are masterpieces, and the actresses playing them found, I’m sure, one of the biggest challenges in the career of each. Both pulled off their parts memorably, and now the title has nearly become a synonym of them, as we’ll always remember them for this film as much as, or even on top of, many others.

Khouri didn’t write the script as a feminist statement though, or if she did, she sure handled it with care, ensuring that her story was universally passionate and chill-inducing. The story grows in intensity scene by scene and is handled admirably by Ridley Scott, that great director who rarely misses. If you compare one of the earliest scenes to one of the latest, you’ll hardly believe you’re watching the same picture, but the experience of watching it makes that transition seamless. Compare, from first to last, the expressions on the actresses’ faces, the overall mood, even the movie’s genre. It’s a triumph all around well shared by the director, the screenwriter, the cinematographer (Adrian Biddle), the editor (Thom Noble), the composer (Hans Zimmer) and everyone else involved in the production.

Sharing the screen with the girls are some notable actors such as Harvey Keitel, Michael Madsen, Stephen Tobolowsky and Brad Pitt… Bastards! (pun intended).

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Other Boleyn Girl

Director

Justin Chadwick

Year

2008

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, September 29, 2008

I was eagerly anticipating The Other Boleyn Girl since it was announced that the movie would be made. I’ve confessed it before and am not afraid of saying it again but sometimes I get my history lessons from movies instead of books. I function the other way around, first watch the movie, then, if I’m interested, research more about its specific time and characters. The story of King Henry VIII is quite famous though, so I didn’t come in blank although I didn’t know the specifics.

Henry Tudor (Eric Bana) is not getting along with his wife Katherine of Aragon (Ana Torrent) and the pressure to conceive a male heir is getting on his nerves. His friend Thomas Howard (David Morrissey) seizes the opportunity and arranges for his niece Anne Boleyn (Natalie Portman) to catch the King’s attention; but it is her married sister Mary (Scarlett Johansson) that he likes and takes as his mistress.

Justin Chadwick directed from a screenplay by Peter Morgan, based on the celebrated Philippa Gregory novel. Chadwick’s previous experience was mostly in television and you can tell. He had all the necessary resources to make a great movie: Scott Rudin as executive producer, an amazing cast, solid source material and resources aplenty to recreate the era. But a combination of a so-so adaptation and the director’s inexperience make of the movie an entertaining romp that feels more soap-opera than big-screen epic.

Once you acknowledge what the movie actually is, it’s easier to go along with the ride, after all it is beautifully put-together and the yarn, melodrama aside, is fascinating. At the center there’s the story of two completely different sisters, one explosive and intense, the other faithful and naïve, who end up entangled in a web of intrigue in which there’s too much at stake, and who had a pivotal role in England’s history, not the least of which is that Anne eventually birthed Elizabeth. Yes, that Elizabeth.

This aforementioned piece of fact I knew before, but the journey to get there is what the movie is about; how two sisters managed to enchant the King and change the face of their country forever. There’s not much backdrop apart from what happened inside that castle, but there was so much drama that there was no need to fill the story with unnecessary subplots. I was constantly enthralled by each character’s behavior, whether it was the two girls or their families, and also that of the King and Queen and their people. I’m a sucker for historical romps which show you in detail how people lived and the traditions they had; this is no exception.

Natalie Portman and Scarlett Johansson are both excellent, although the former has the juiciest role and thus leaves the strongest impression. That said, they make for believable siblings and their work is flawless. Eric Bana is good, albeit forgettable; quite the opposite to Ana Torrent, as his wife, whose presence is towering. Kristin Scott Thomas appears as the girls’ mother and is also extraordinary. Other supporting performers include Jim Sturgess, Mark Rylance, David Morrissey, Eddie Redmayne and Benedict Cumberbatch.

“Well perhaps you should stop.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of The Other Boleyn Girl (2008): Groucho

Review

Chinatown

Director

Roman Polanski

Year

1974

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, September 25, 2008

I hadn’t revisited Chinatown in about a decade but lately I’ve been reading a whole lot about it in my latest kind of favorite books: screenwriting guides. Yup, screenwriting is one of my dreams, I hope I can tackle it someday, but for now, all I’m doing is reading those books and they all praise Chinatown’s script like there’s no tomorrow, or rather like there won’t be one like that again tomorrow or any other time. So I just checked it out again and indeed, what a script!

Robert Towne did the unimaginable, critics tend to say, by reviving the “film noir” genre and making it all the cruder while being faithful to everything that made it great, from the no-nonsense private eye to the enigmatic “femme fatale”. The script isn’t all there is to it but it’s one hell of a bone to build so much greatness around. In truth, Chinatown has become one of those films that’s just so damn boring to review because everything is praise, praise, praise. Don’t look here if you’re looking for anything else; I can’t help but recommend that you read on and be bored as hell… but I’ll try to make it worth your while, like Towne did when he came up with yet another private eye story like those by Dashiell Hammett and Raymond Chandler, which could’ve seemed to be a no-go.

Towne didn’t want to revive the genre, I say. He wanted to contribute to it, and he put in so many ideas that he not only managed to update it, but he also went so far that he astounded with his grit and crudeness. It looks like he had a very human idea in mind and set it to the tune of a film noir. Think about, if you take away all the private-eye stuff, put the story in a modern context, and you’ve got the same results: corrupt cops, parental abuse, a big corporation man with a greedy plan, and of course the hero who finds out about it. Why not make the latter a private eye who’s been conned into participating in the whole scheme; the girl a femme fatale at her best, involved in the case in more ways than one; and the mobster her father who also conducts as many crimes as an insomniac can count sheep. Then set it in the ‘30s and you’ve got a winner! Good job, Towne, you conned us all right: you made us believe you wanted to revive the noir genre, but all you did was make your story look that way, and you had critics tripping over in praise for your achievement. Now that’s one heck of a good screenwriter. If anything, I wanna be like that guy some day.

There are several threads running simultaneously as the story advances, but two are most important: mysterious goings-on with the L.A. water supply during a drought, and the family dynamics of water tycoon Noah Cross. It’s all seen from the [private] eye of J.J. Gittes, the man hired to follow another who’s presumed of having an affair, which later turns out to be just a setup for something apparently much greater. It all looks much more complicated than it turns out to be, but less wicked. As truths are told, revelations emerge, and we realize that the actual story is much less what we see, and much more what happened before, strengthening the plot immeasurably, as in most great movies. That it’s all convoluted but ends up narrowed down to a simple yet hauntingly evil conclusion is one of the film’s greatest achievements. The ending that wraps it all up so congruously is said to be Polanski’s contribution to the script.

After the murder of his wife Sharon Tate, Polanski left for Europe, and only came back (not for long, though, as we all know) to direct this. That talks of how great he considered the script to be. He even played the bit role of the short man with that classic-producing knife that slits Gittes’s nose. That’s how involved he was in heart and soul, and it shows not only in his cameo of course, but in how the film plays with such class, pace and distinction that make it unique. He’s really integrated with Towne’s material. Ironic, how they didn’t really see eye-to-eye in their vision of their story, according to legend.

Jack Nicholson, who was already one of the biggest rising stars in Hollywood, was honored with the role of J.J. Gittes, which Towne tailored for him in particular, giving him the kind of lines he would speak with such panache, and indeed, Nicholson made it his own, his nuances showing much more than the dialogue allows, his personality bouncing in indecision and caught between his profession and his passion; amazing. Faye Dunaway is no less impressive in the role of Evelyn Mulwray, who only acts as a femme fatale, actually having so many fears that her entire life is driven by them, and with good reason. As the unforgettable Noah Cross, there’s no match for John Huston, the celebrated director of The Maltese Falcon (1941) who always showed as much bravura as an actor as he did as director and really grabbed the material here, stealing his scenes with as much completeness as his character has for everything he sets his mind to.

The mood is complete thanks to an unmatchable team: cinematographer John A. Alonzo shot this mostly during the day, as opposed to the entries of the past which showcased the antics of Sam Spade and Philip Marlowe, somehow making it more credible, less novelistic; musician Jerry Goldsmith understood that this wasn’t to be a strict noir, but rather a study on romanticism and suspense; Richard Sylbert and Anthea Sylbert designed production and costumes respectively, not caricaturizing the period, but rather recreating it to an extreme that makes it special without looking unreal.

Chinatown is one of those success stories of Hollywood that combines a great script, a gifted team, and the right time to be made. The story is as shocking today as it was back then, full of universal truths and horrors that lie in all of us, hidden perhaps, but latent at best. The result is what has proven to be an undying classic. It will only get greater with time.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Austin Powers in Goldmember

Director

Jay Roach

Year

2002

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

They say Austin Powers went too far in his third installment, but I beg to differ: the thing the franchise had by then was insuperable fame and unlimited financing, plus tons of famous fans, thus resulting in one of those cameo-ridden “celebration of excesses”, but it’s really funny! Comedy doesn’t always flow like water though, sometimes the excessive factors getting in the way of the storyline, and not every element is as hilarious as the film pretends it to be, but it’s still successful and at times riotous enough to be worth the while. I say the next Austin Powers film can’t come soon enough… and it’s been a while already.

The film starts with a film-inside-a-film about Austin, which goes for every possible extreme in a surprising sequence that many people loved but I found to be too much. The real beginning comes as Dr. Evil presents his latest evil (and farfetched) plot to conquer the world, which he roots for regardless of the fact that his right arm, Number Two (Robert Wagner), has created a legal scheme to make the organization even richer. His plan is to travel to the past and bring a supervillain “back to the future”: Goldmember, a man so obsessed with gold that he got into an accident that replaced his genitals for a gold piece, hence the name. It’s obviously a play on Goldfinger (1964), one of the most famous James Bond flicks to which this one plays homage more than once.

International Man of Mystery Austin Powers stops the plot, but soon enough he finds out that his father, Nigel Powers (Michael Caine), who happens to be ten times more charming than him, and never proud enough of his son, has been kidnapped by that legendary evildoer and taken back in time. He goes back too, searching for his old man, and gets together with agent Foxxy Cleopatra (Beyoncé Knowles) to achieve his goals.

Of course it’s all rather trivial, but no matter, because the main structure is only an excuse for excellent jokes all the way. The one unforgivable fault is that the title character, Goldmember, played by Mike Myers, is everything but funny, and in fact quite trivial. Myers’ other three roles: Austin, Dr. Evil and Fat Bastard, are back and at the top of their games, but if we’re supposed to be at least a bit interested in the title, Goldmember should’ve been more intriguing.

That said, one can’t complain about much else. The family interactions were so successful in the previous films, that this one is almost exclusively about that: Scott Evil (Seth Green) finally breaking after much rejection from his father, Dr. Evil; diminutive Mini Me (Verne Troyer) facing rejection from the first time and changing sides; Austin struggling to achieve his father’s approval; and an unbearable revelation from the past that changes everything.

Of course, Burt Bacharach and much romanticism are back. A rendition of his song “Alfie” but with Hal David’s lyrics changed to “What’s it all about Austin” accompanies the final credits.

Other gags are better in concept than execution: while I laughed out loud about a subtitled scene, it was made so obvious I felt treated like an idiot, with Foxxy Cleopatra explaining every single joke. That scene also helped me realize how little Beyoncé had to do in the film overall: she’s an accessory, certainly the least memorable “Powers girl”, if such term exists.

Still, I had such a good time I decided I’ll eventually get my own private Austin Powers collection to rejoice at mainstream comedy cracking me up. I hope they keep up the good work.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Tropic Thunder

Director

Ben Stiller

Year

2008

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, September 23, 2008

If Ben Stiller allowed things to be what they should, Zoolander (2001) would be Zoolander and Tropic Thunder would be Tropic Thunder, but instead, after seeing the latter, I feel like it’s a continuation, an overplayed artifice that blurs the final outcome. Stiller tries to go too far in his filmmaking antics, turning his pieces into undeniable excesses, well-loved by many but as excessive as they get, truth be told.

The film-inside-a-film gimmick has so much potential it’s incredible how spoiled it is because no subtlety is allowed in Stiller’s films. Don’t take me wrong, I agree that over-the-top humor is potentially as powerful as can be, and there are many examples that I love, but when overused, it becomes mean-spirited, and I was intimidated by this film from the very first sequence: The super-production of a super-production of a war film based on a book called “Tropic Thunder”, about the real-life experiences of a veteran and his legendary companions. The sequence goes awry in great part thanks to the prima donnas in the cast, and the investors get quite mad at the inexperienced “Limey” director (played by Steve Coogan).

The divas in question are action star Tugg Speedman (Ben Stiller), cheap comedy idol Jeff Portnoy (Jack Black), rapper Alpa Chino (Brandon T. Jackson) and multi-Oscar winner Kirk Lazarus (Robert Downey Jr.). Their director can’t control them and gets an idea from the real-life war veteran whose story their film is based on (Nick Nolte) to put their actors in a real war scenario to make them forget about their pampered realities and get into character once and for all.

I was starting to get excited: the intent goes too far and these guys are stuck in what seems to be a real war and while they think it’s all made up by their director, true danger arises. My heart filled with wonder about what would come next. What came was as mean and unpleasant as possible. Within the extremes there were funny bits, but overall it was unfortunate. Also, Stiller’s character became more and more like Zoolander, but with extra existentialism that made me sorely miss the prosaic male supermodel.

The standout is Robert Downey Jr. mocking fun at method actors who get into their characters in flesh and bone and it seems to mess with their minds. His character, Kirk Lazarus, is an Aussie playing an African-American and goes so far as to undergo a skin pigmentation procedure to really become the man he’s portraying. The very fact that he’s in character all the time, no matter how extreme or absurd the situation, is hilarious. That there’s an authentic African-American with him (the ridiculously named Alpa Chino) who can’t take what he considers a disrespectful interpretation of his people is the funniest bit. Downey is brilliant.

I can say that the performances are game in all. Stiller provides nothing new, but Black goes places he never went before. There are a few cameos that aren’t revolutionary but provide good fun. The character of Stiller’s manager, played by Matthew McConaughey, was so perfect for Owen Wilson that one can’t but lament that he had to drop out.

I wouldn’t see this again, but it wasn’t a total waste. I just wish Stiller would channel his talent better. But who am I to tell what’s better or worse?

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of Tropic Thunder (2008): Morris

Review

Tear Up My Life

Director

Roberto Sneider

Year

2008

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, September 22, 2008

Mexico’s Arráncame la Vida took more than a decade to come to life. Director Roberto Sneider was always behind the project, but backing kept falling apart. At one point, the closest he ever got, Salma Hayek and Gael García were attached to star, but even that didn’t gel. Finally the movie was made but not only that, it became the most expensive Mexican production ever and by the time of its release it got an unprecedented amount of promotion, only akin to that of big Hollywood productions. Many people must’ve been very nervous, but the good news is that audiences are responding and best of all… that it’s actually a good movie.

Catalina (Ana Claudia Talancón) is a 15-year old ingénue from ‘30s Puebla who impresses General Andrés Ascencio (Daniel Giménez Cacho) and ends up marrying him. With the Revolution as a backdrop, she goes through a lot of turmoil as her husband wants to become the President and she eventually falls in love with an idealistic orchestra director, Vives (José María de Tavira).

Sneider directed from his own screenplay, based on the classic Angeles Mastretta novel. He also got an amazing team led by cinematographer Javier Aguirresarobe, editor Alexa Ferrero, composer Leonardo Heiblum, costume designers Gilda Navarro & Mónica Neumaier and production designer Salvador Parra. The production quality here is not like we are used to see from Mexican cinema, which is sad on itself, but also reason enough to celebrate the beauty therein. The level of detail is impressive and the visual splendor just breathtaking.

The story focuses on Catalina and the way she adjusts to her new lifestyle, being wife to a womanizer and dangerous politician who also happens to be highly charismatic. Her transformation and the way she eventually finds herself is a pleasure to experience. I did have a bit of a problem with the men in the movie though. The character of Andrés, from my point of view, is a walking cliché, but ironically it’s also a realistic portrayal. I didn’t know what to think of him at first, since his insults and actions are deeply offensive yet also very funny, even hilarious at times. I soon realized this was the intention and went on with the flow, but still I would not have minded if he was given more three-dimensionality. His last scene almost made up for it, but a couple more glimpses would’ve been better.

I had a bigger problem with the whole affair thing with the young director. I loved how Catalina was finally able to break out and do something wild, something entirely for herself. Unfortunately this romance is given a very quickly treatment. I have no idea if this is how it was in the novel but Vives is supposed to be the love of her life and the passion simply does not translate.

Many years are portrayed as Catalina grows up and takes on different challenges in her life. Usually in movies when this approach is used an episodic feeling takes place. Not here though, the script is seamlessly written and the editing flows naturally; it is a storytelling triumph.

Ana Claudia Talancón, an actress I’m not that fond of, took me completely off guard. She is not only ravishing but I believe her performance stands amongst the quintessential best her country’s cinematography has offered. Her Catalina is a complex individual, with not one arc but many, and Talancón brings her to life with bravery and dignity. She is matched by Daniel Giménez Cacho, who is consistently good no matter what he does and steals the movie with the panache with which he delivers his dialogue. José María de Tavira is good, albeit forgettable. And the supporting cast is excellent, including Joaquín Cosío, Camila Sodi, Irene Azuela, Fernando Becerril, Isela Vega, Rafael Sánchez Navarro and many more.

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of Tear Up My Life (2008): Groucho

Review

Tear Up My Life

Director

Roberto Sneider

Year

2008

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, September 18, 2008

I’m told the adaptation of one of Mexico’s bestselling modern novels, Angeles Mastretta’s “Arráncame la vida”, was long overdue given the big budget required to create such an epic film. Happily, the moment has come, the film is the most expensive ever made in this country, and it’s a big hit. It’s a combination of factors, of course, but what really makes it great is Mastretta’s story, and the outstanding way in which director Sneider translated it into a screenplay.

The tale is set in 1930s Puebla, where a young girl meets an impressive captain who soon makes her his wife. She’s rather unprepared for the life she’s suddenly set to live: that of a perfect wife for all occasions, with many more responsibilities than she ever bargained for, despite her wild dreams. Not that Catalina doesn’t passionately love her riveting husband, but he’s got his mind on many other things as to realize how much goes on in her life, or care about it; so she opens up to us, and we’re thankful for that.

Despite being the central character, Catalina doesn’t usually get the spotlight. In fact, she makes it all about Andrés Ascencio, her husband, at least for a good while. That’s because his personality is tumultuous and irresistible, he’s a charmer and a natural leader, always in control no matter what ways he has to apply, rarely if ever challenged by his peers, much less by his people, and one would think, even less by his wife, but that’s not necessarily right.

Feminist though it may be, the story rings true, and that’s not to say that feminism isn’t as real as anything else, but rather that in a certain context it might appear implausible. This is not a liberation tale where the woman all of sudden gains control, punishes the man and sets an example; she doesn’t even want to punish anyone most of the time because love and responsibility get in the way, and we all must respond for our own choices, so there you have it. What she does goes way deeper because without causing her husband distress she begins regaining power over her life, little by little regaining the confidence that she was born to lose. This is all about action and reaction, crime and punishment, fault and regret, all set to the beat of love and passion, always from the point of view of Catalina, many times portrayed via her stunning nudity, and every time successfully and succinctly enough to come off in proper elegance.

As is usually the case with such stories, particularly those, like this one, that span several years, Arráncame la vida serves as illustration of a certain time and place, in this case early 20th century Mexico. The characters, some theorize, are based on real-life history-changing personages. The production, making good use of its 6.5 million dollars budget, is flawless and mesmerizing, with rarely seen Mexican locations incredibly adapted to look like they used to several decades ago, beautifully photographed by Javier Aguirresarobe, sumptuously shot and presented in non-stop rhythm by editor Alexa Ferrero, and accompanied by touching music by Leonardo Heiblum, Arturo Márquez and Jacobo Liberman (some original, some not, all arranged appropriately), all together mixing romance and passion with intrigue and suspense like it’s all the same thing, like the feelings each produce can be blended into one overpowering and definitive emotion that glues us to our seats and our eyes to the screen and makes us enjoy this outstanding piece like few in recent years. I was empowered by it; I totally loved it.

For the same reason that Catalina, as narrator, makes Andrés the pivotal character, the actress playing her, though faultless, is outshined by the actor, who really comes off as extraordinary. They are the incredibly beautiful Ana Claudia Talancón and the overly talented Daniel Giménez Cacho, both showing great bravura in their straight-from-the-novel snappy dialogues, he in particular hilarious and monstrous depending on the case, but constantly believable and scary. In the third significant role, José María de Tavira doesn’t have much meat to chew on, but does all right considering the part’s importance. I’m hardly romantic about modern epics; this one, as there is an exception to every rule, tore up my life.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of Tear Up My Life (2008): Morris

Review

Death Proof

Director

Quentin Tarantino

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, September 17, 2008

I have never seen a ‘70s exploitation flick: the kind of cheap production that used to play at drive-in theaters filled with sex and gore. The genre eventually gathered a following, with some of these flicks receiving cult status. Their cheesiness and low-priced production values made it part of the fun and director Quentin Tarantino was certainly a fan. He and Robert Rodriguez opted to make an homage/return with their joint venture Grindhouse (2007), which showed both of their movies along with fake trailers. Outside of the U.S., the films were shown individually and in the case of Death Proof, with about 30 more minutes of footage. This is the version I saw.

Jungle Julia (Sydney Poitier), Shanna (Jordan Ladd) and Arlene (Vanessa Ferlito) spend the day driving around, eating at a restaurant and ending up in a bar, where they plan to get drunk and stoned. Friend/rival Pam (Rose McGowan) is also there, and she hits it off with one striking looking man at the bar, Stuntman Mike (Kurt Russell). Pam asks for a ride, one which she’ll never forget, while the girls head to a lake house. Months later he stumbles upon another group of friends, Abernathy (Rosario Dawson), Kim (Tracie Thorns), Lee (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) and Zoë Bell (as herself), only this time he chooses the wrong targets.

Tarantino directed, wrote and photographed Death Proof. The movie has been made look trashy, with scratches, burns, missing reels, black & white transitions and all sorts of “cheap” effects to make it look like it was actually filmed in the ‘70s. That said, he does something with a highway car chase sequence which kind of breaks the fourth wall and takes you off-guard; it’s like Tarantino nodding at his audience and I loved it. The dialogue is all him, with most of the movie, especially the second half, being about conversations between the girls. I think many people will get bored or won’t like the approach; I was fascinated from start to finish, even though I feel that watching some of these conversations in a second viewing won’t be as much fun.

The flick consists of two segments; each one has its unique details that make them palatable. The grittiness of the first half, how the girls behave and move, how they dress and talk, the way you kind of feel something wrong is going to happen at all times, it just exudes a strange feeling, one that I enjoyed thoroughly. Then Tarantino aims for the shock, with a “finale” to this segment that is both brilliant and horrifying. And the way it is shot is, again, all him.

The second half feels more modern, less… vintage. It contains all sorts of pop culture references and plenty of dialogue as well. Stuntman Mike appears once again, so we know we’re in for yet another ride. But this one takes a different turn and eventually a very unusual car chase sequence unveils in front of our eyes; I won’t spoil the extra quotient in stake here, but I’ll just say it is very exciting and extremely well-shot.

Kurt Russell, despite appearing less than the bunch of actresses strutting their thing, leaves the strongest impression, with a tailor-made part that is difficult to scratch off. Among the ladies it is Vanessa Ferlito who stands out, but Sydney Poitier, Rose McGowan, Rosario Dawson and Tracie Thorns are also excellent. There’s one bit of stunt casting, literally, in the form of Zoë Bell, who almost ruined the movie for me if it weren’t for her performance during the last half hour; just don’t have her speak, she’s not an actress per se and does not fit into the general tone at all. Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Jordan Ladd, Marcy Harriell, Eli Roth and Tarantino himself also appear.

“You could’ve easily been going left, too”.

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Taken

Director

Pierre Morel

Year

2008

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, September 16, 2008

Taken’s approach is not innovative, but the best part of it is it doesn’t pretend to be so, it only pretends to entertain, and that can’t even be called pretense, it’s an intent, an achievement, because what Taken does by avoiding worrying about avoiding doing what others have done, is to fluidly and unpretentiously develop its story and its main character into a constantly climatic tale that comes off, quite incredibly, totally credible. This is the perfect example of cliché avoidance by not struggling to avoid it. Typical though it may seem, I challenge anyone to tell me that the story isn’t as fresh and new as anything else. While watching it, I felt like it was my first such experience (forgive my romanticism).

The main character is bodyguard Bryan (Liam Neeson), now retired in order to be close to his daughter Kim (Maggie Grace), who lives with her mother (Famke Janssen). Bryan is an action man, but it’s important to understand that he’s also quite the loving father, and a mixture of both has never occurred, but it will soon enough. Establishing the peaceful (or is it?) side of the main character is the slowest part of the story, but luckily that’s how it begins, not how it ends.

Bryan comes off as paranoid, and unfortunately the movie proves him right, because no excess of warning is enough for his daughter when she travels to Europe and gets into trouble from the very airport. This is one spin that I personally didn’t like of the script: it proves super-paranoid parents, as my own, right. Who can blame them for worrying though, but one wishes they weren’t proved right, finding their overprotection justified.

This dad however is as prepared to warn as he is to act, and he’s really not one to be subdued. He’d rather kill than make a deal, that’s this kind of man. It’s like he wants to cure the world from all evil, and still he retains a great goodness in himself. The balance is of such complexity that the whole film could be about that. Luckily, again, it doesn’t focus on this duality, it just implies its difficulty, but stays on the action, on what matters for this tale.

And what matters is the kidnapping of the girl and Bryan’s subsequent actions. He’s a resourceful man who doesn’t hesitate to use brute force against his detractors but usually goes for the brainy approach and pulls off his stunts intelligently. What’s best is we totally believe all this is possible. From the very casting it’s implausible, I would never have thought of Liam Neeson as an action man and indeed it’s against-type, but it works, both because he’s tuff-e-nuff and because his character is so well-scripted that we just follow him around, believing blindly in what he is, despite our beliefs.

The story by Luc Besson and Robert Mark Kamen also doesn’t worry about judgment. Indeed, Bryan’s defiance of the law and constant risk-taking might seem stupid to some, but it’s his way of action, the only one he can consider given his experience, and it works to an extent, though there’s much cruelty and killing in his path. This isn’t black and white; sure, “legal” law enforcers can be corrupt, but that doesn’t mean they always or surely are. Bryan can be as wrong in overprotecting his daughter as he can be about all cops being dirty, and though the story proves him right in both extents, it doesn’t seem to me like it defends his absolute correctness.

Again (and this is getting repetitious I’m afraid), that the story doesn’t question Bryan’s ways or beliefs is no more than the lack of obstacles for the story to flow; consider what it would be like if Bryan was constantly questioned by the story itself whether he’s right or wrong—it would slow him down, and that would be deadly.

This is a far superior “popcorn flick” and a rather simplistic classy one. It’s caught in the middle and that’s how it’ll be treated. But it will turn irresistible to whoever catches it. As with everything else, Bryan won’t stop to wonder whether you like his film or not; he’ll just take you there.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Mamma Mia!

Director

Phyllida Lloyd

Year

2008

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, September 15, 2008

Huge fan of ABBA here; not so much of the “Mamma Mia!” West End play. And yet, I couldn’t wait to see the movie. If anything, I could take it as a concert and be done with it, but Meryl was in it. You know… Meryl Streep? I’d see absolutely anything with her. Fortunately the movie eventually became a worldwide success, just as the musical, so I became eager, hopeful. I was ready to have fun.

Sophie Sheridan (Amanda Seyfried) is just about to get married when she reads her mother Donna’s (Meryl Streep) diary and finds out she has three potential fathers: Sam (Pierce Brosnan), Bill (Stellan Skarsgard) and Harry (Colin Firth). She then invites all of them to the wedding unbeknownst to her mother and her fiancé Sky (Dominic Cooper).

Phyllida Lloyd directed from a screenplay by Catherine Johnson. Lloyd is also the original director of the play and makes her feature directing debut with this adaptation. Theater and cinema being entirely different mediums I have to say she did a pretty good job. An, I don’t know, grander feel would’ve made some of the dance numbers more exciting, but as it is, the movie works.

The story is paper-thin. It has been manufactured to fit ABBA hits with barely a sense of cohesion. Some songs feel more natural than others but why complain about it; no one is going to see this for its literate origins. Mamma Mia! plays it as campy and over-the-top as possible, going for fun and entertainment as its first priority. In that regard, it succeeds. I really don’t know how non-ABBA fans might respond though, since I stand in a different place, but I guess the experience won’t be as easily endured.

There’s no denying the movie is mainly targeted at women and gay men; from the relationships of the central female characters to the soap-opera elements of their stories. But there’s nothing wrong with that; Lloyd knows this and makes the full out of it. Donna’s love for her daughter and her own personal heartbreak do surprisingly get to be affecting. Musicals can easily fall in the trap of leaving audiences cold because of poor character development; that’s not the case here, at least in the case of Donna, who becomes the movie’s centerpiece.

This has a lot to do, of course, with the actress who plays the character: Meryl Streep. I understand it’s become a cliché to sing her praises about every role she tackles, but I don’t get tired of it. She’s so good, so watchable, so immersed in everything she does, it’s just a pleasure to have her onscreen; I wish she’d make movies forever. Her rendition of “The Winner Takes It All” is just unforgettable, perhaps the most powerful moment of the movie. The men are hit-and-miss. Pierce Brosnan has been criticized for his singing abilities but I think people are being too hard; he does have a raspy sort of voice which does not really gel with anyone else’s but he’s fine. Colin Firth and Stellan Skarsgard seem to embrace their roles more fully though. Amanda Seyfried is adorable, while Julie Walters and Christine Baranski threaten to steal the movie, especially the latter.

“It’s very Greek.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Suddenly, Last Summer

Director

Joseph L. Mankiewicz

Year

1959

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, September 11, 2008

Of all of Tennessee William’s plays, Suddenly, Last Summer was probably the most unlikely to be filmed at the time that it was, and with such a grade-A list of names involved, but it was notorious for many reasons, including, but not limited to, the casting of Montgomery Clift after his infamous accident that left him dependent of drugs for relief, which resulted in a rather deteriorated aspect that made him pretty stiff, facially, and with much of his good looks faded, but still with more than enough bravura to sustain a role like this. The experience was noticeably draining, he must have suffered a lot, but his life-long friend Elizabeth Taylor, who has the starring role, convinced him and surely helped him through, and the result is fine for Clift, and a welcome addition to his filmography.

The controversial subject matter should be considered spoiler material if revealed, so I won’t. It wasn’t the case with me, but it must make for quite a surprise ending. The filmmakers handle it beautifully despite their having to make it much more succinct thus less explicit. No matter; it’s there and as clear as pure water, and we’re all thankful for that. Also, they say, screenwriters Gore Vidal and Williams himself cleaned up some of the dialogue, which is surely appreciated because it’s talky as it is. This is more a play than a movie, so the fact that there are some scenes that take advantage of cinematic tools, especially the climax, is a tribute to director Mankiewicz and his team.

The story involves a Kansas high-society dame who demands a lobotomy for her niece, to be performed by a neuro-surgeon (Clift) claiming incurable dementia. The doctor is down-to-earth, objective and ethical, and the girl is clearly not as loony as she’s said to be, so we don’t really fear that resolution, but the forces against her (which include her mother and brother) are strong enough for us to wonder, in the most suspenseful way, what’s behind all that we see. The chemistry between patient and doctor is another theme, and that’s where the doctor does cross some lines, but all in the line of investigating her mental patterns and the truth behind a terrifying event that occurred suddenly, last summer.

By the way, the fact that the title is repeated so many times in the dialogue is rather laughable, but it successfully augments the dilemma and keeps us at the edge of our seats. Whatever it is, it’s enough to drive the rich woman, powerfully played by Katharine Hepburn, in her devilish venture. Poor little victim Catherine Holly is less than credible given Taylor’s exquisite looks and appearance, but the actress is talented enough to make her psychologically truthful in any case. Mercedes McCambridge is unforgettable as Catherine’s misled and opportunistic mother.

The haunting musical theme by Buxton Orr (taking over Malcolm Arnold’s work, after his resignation) is another one of the stars, as is Jack Hildyard’s cinematography, William Kellner’s art direction and Oliver Messel’s costume design. But the real star is the climatic final sequence, which still packs a wallop. And to think it happened just like that, suddenly, last summer…!

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Sex and Death 101

Director

Daniel Waters

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, September 10, 2008

I’ve always loved Winona Ryder and have mourned the fact that she mostly disappeared from the big screen for a long stretch of time and gave way to some personal scandals. She was certainly on a roll during the 90s but hasn’t done anything note-worthy since. The last couple of years she’s attempted to make a comeback, but nothing has really clicked, including her latest, Sex and Death 101, in which she barely appears despite getting top billing. But Hollywood is unpredictable and forgiving, so I’m sure she’ll hit a home run sooner or later.

Roderick Blank (Simon Baker) has it all going for him: he’s handsome, successful and engaged to a beautiful woman (Julie Bowen). But one day he receives an email with a list of 101 names and discovers that they are all the women he’s slept with… up until number 29. Fascinated by the idea that he’s going to have sex with 72 more women in his life he embraces this fact and goes for it, only to find that it might be more of a curse than a blessing.

Daniel Waters directed from his own original screenplay. I have to give the man props for coming up with such a wild and interesting premise, but also blame for the fact that the movie simply doesn’t work. Talk about missed potential.

Sex and Death 101 starts amusingly enough. The vibe is easy-going, funny but not in a laugh-out-loud way, more like a charming and entertaining romp. The premise is established and the way Roderick reacts to the news and the mission he embarks upon is, let’s face it, like anyone’s fantasy come to life. He gets into a series of misadventures as well; misadventures that wouldn’t have happened without him actually knowing whom he’s going to sleep with and being faithful to the rule that every act has its consequence, so it is because of that list that he’s going to get laid with this women as opposed to things having gone the same way if that list hadn’t appeared in his life.

But there are alarming traces here and there that set up what is to come afterwards in a more non-subtle manner. I’m speaking of two subplots, one involving a trio of mysterious men who are in charge of the machine with oracle-like powers, the other being a subplot involving a woman known as Death Nell (Winona Ryder) who seduces womanizers and puts them in a coma. The former could’ve been trashed altogether… why must there be an explanation to everything? Having the list suddenly appear would’ve been enough; these guys just get in the way and are neither funny nor interesting. The latter is predictable because we know she’s going to clash with Roderick one way or the other, but is also shaped by perfunctory scenes which belong to another movie altogether.

I certainly liked the way Roderick’s luck starts to change and how he starts to realize that knowing what is coming is not as fun as it seemed at first, especially when he falls in love with someone who might or might not appear on the list. But this bit is intersected with supposedly comical scenes (such as the schoolgirl bus encounter) that come off as plain silly, and that’s saying much for a movie with such a premise.

Simon Baker is an appealing leading man; I like the man, I believed him every step of the way. He should be in more movies. Winona Ryder, on the other hand, is barely in the movie, and her appearance is uneventful; I wonder why she chose to be involved in it in the first place. Patton Oswalt, Neil Flynn, Julie Bowen, Sophie Monk and many others co-star and do what they’re required of.

“Some dreams are too true to be good.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Mad Money

Director

Callie Khouri

Year

2008

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, September 09, 2008

If there’s a way to make an illegal acquirer of money a hero, which hasn’t been frequently (if ever) explored, and doesn’t rely entirely on the person’s sympathy or his/her personal crisis, usually quite touching and irrevocably justifying the felony, Mad Money has capitalized it: having its heroines steal money that’s meant to be destroyed, old money, which the Federal Reserve Bank carefully and within much security shreds to particles every day. The starring women find a gap in the system and manage to take out loads of it day after day. Of course, there are many problems about it, mainly how to spend it without being caught, and whether it won’t become an addiction. Truly, though, as credible as their story might be, they seem to be having so much fun, and their problems are so few, that we couldn’t care less.

That’s not to say it’s not a fun ride. Well, two out of the three stars are extremely funny women, Diane Keaton and Queen Latifah, so that’s a start. The other one is Katie Holmes, who is surprisingly sassy though her role is not much of anything. Keaton’s husband is played by Ted Danson, who can’t do much about the fact that his character is a big jerk, which by the way doesn’t seem to be noticeable except by the audience, since later on he’s the loving husband who supports the treachery and Keaton’s character doesn’t throw him out of a fifty-story building top, as we all thought he should. Unemployed, he’s not willing to help, laughs about it, spoofs his wife’s preoccupation, and lies down in the sofa with a beer; frankly, I don’t get how, within this lifestyle, he manages to be clean cut and shaven, and always with a smile on his face.

Nevertheless, loving wife Bridget finds a job as a janitor!, which is of course a big step for a high-society woman who has lost everything, even if she has, but she’s lucky enough that her position is in the Federal Reserve, which brings ideas to her head. She associates with the other two, and you know the rest. This is no Rififi (1955) or even Topkapi (1964) of course but it’s suspenseful enough when it comes to committing the crime, but then it’s all “relax and enjoy”, and not even funny enough to hold the story together. What’s even worse: it’s all told from the point of view of the participants, all but Keaton, who have been caught and are being questioned about the continuous robbery; we already know more or less how it will end, and we see that these guys are smiling while telling their stories, so why worry?

We’re right, it ends like that, more or less, and there’s nothing to worry about. The ending even glorifies these women, because the writers have found a gap in the system that doesn’t seem to be hurting anyone when taken advantage of—sorry if I’m a little sensitive about crime right now, one just happened very near me and I’m shattered by the immense irresponsibility of those involved, who were surely, for a while, living a wild ride without a care in the world, till caught.

But life isn’t like the movies and, going back into our subject, let’s just say this is completely harmless entertainment, because I did have fun with it, but could’ve easily done without. Diane Keaton is game as usual, but even she can’t make her character totally believable. The endless ambition I will buy, but the will to work as a janitor of a former pretension-ridden upper-class dame, allowing her husband to sit around drinking beer in the meantime? Nah.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Elsa & Fred

Director

Marcos Carnevale

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, September 08, 2008

Have you heard about a movie called Elsa & Fred? It is likely that you haven’t. It is a 2005 Spanish-Argentinean production that has charmed its way around the world. I stumbled upon it in 2006 and it wasn’t until 2008 that it got a limited U.S. release. I had never heard of it before it arrived at theaters and suddenly people started recommending it like crazy. There are movies that just click with a certain audience or a certain culture. Anyway, I did some research and found out that it was a movie about two old people falling in love. Nothing against old people but… really? It didn’t matter though; I still went and fell completely in love.

Fred (Manuel Alexandre) moves into a new apartment arranged by his daughter Cuca (Blanca Portillo) after his wife dies. Lonely and depressed, he meets his exuberant next-door neighbor, Elsa (China Zorrilla), and a beautiful relationship blossoms between them.

Marcos Carnevale directed from a script he wrote along with Marcela Guerty and Lily Ann Martin. There must have also been a lot of dialogue that came out of improvisation (especially on Zorrilla’s part) but I can’t really tell apart from the spontaneous vibe that the movie exudes. It certainly tells a beautiful story with dignity and care for its characters, which also happen to share chemistry that simply cannot be found on paper.

Concerns about this being a tale about two elderly people with which maybe you or I could not identify are quickly forgotten because of the well-defined characters and the fact that they are both so lovable. It is impossible (believe me) not to fall in love with Elsa and Fred. They are so different yet so right for each other; and they have great personalities of their own, which makes their story even more interesting. Every time they’re both on-screen the movie soars, and their rapport is not only laugh-out-loud funny at times, but it is also tender and intimate without getting too sentimental.

The movie drags a bit in its second half when the inevitable complications ensue, but this doesn’t last long, as the final half hour is just magical, leading to an emotional climactic scene that left me breathless. There are several references to Federico Fellini’s La Dolce Vita since Elsa is a huge fan, references that make of it a richer experience.

I can’t really say if non-Spanish speakers will get the kick out of it that people who speak the language do. The way the characters speak, their personal lingo, is a very important part of why the movie works so well, and it’s also very difficult to translate without losing something in the way. I wish everyone, regardless of language or culture, could have the experience I did.

Technical aspects are impeccable, with Lito Vitale delivering a wondrous score and cinematographer Juan Carlos Gómez capturing both the essence and the details with a great touch.

Carnevale does an excellent job in the director’s chair, but the movie’s success comes mainly from two veteran actors who give unforgettable performances. China Zorrilla is especially delightful; creating a character that seems to be a child trapped in an old body. Her work is nuanced yet volatile, and her comic timing is perfect. Manuel Alexandre, on the other hand, is poised and sad, but the transformation he goes through is a pleasure to experience. Supporting players are all solid, including Blanca Portillo, Roberto Carnaghi, José Ángel Egido, Omar Muñoz and a special appearance by the great Federico Luppi.

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Other Boleyn Girl

Director

Justin Chadwick

Year

2008

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, September 04, 2008

As a complement to my experience with The Kite Runner (2007), and not long after that, I discovered that watching a film based on a book you read, enough time after you read it, can turn out wonderfully even if the treatment completely betrays the source or even slashes it. Sure, there must be exceptions, but I so loved Philippa Gregory’s novel “The Other Boleyn Girl” that when I read Peter Morgan’s screenplay based on it, soon after finishing the novel and long before watching the film, I was shattered on account of the drastic changes the story had suffered and the cheap treatment it was given, if I may say so.

Then I completely forgot about the thing, and by the time I watched the film I wasn’t so fond of Philippa’s story anymore as to consider anything deviating from it a blasphemy. In fact, I now acknowledged the fact that even her treatment of history had a pretty damn good share of creative license, and had little or nothing to do with the real thing. So what’s the problem with some extra changes here and there? Peter Morgan’s script became a movie that works at being entertaining, and that’s what this is all about.

Complaints are plentiful but I wouldn’t write too much about them. I haven’t read reviews about the piece but I can bet most say it’s melodramatic and even soapish, and of course that’s true, but what the heck: the court was full of that, that’s what it was about, think about it, it was a boring place despite all the music and storytelling, it was a place with not many people and all of them social climbers, so picture the constant gossiping and personal intrigues, it must have been sickening… Well, it’s no lie that such families as the Boleyns and the Seymours were full of schemers who used their daughters to appeal to kings and other men with titles, and it’s well-known that Anne Boleyn and her sister Mary were in that game from their very early age. This is just an imaginary tale of how that probably went. And I found it quite believable.

If we’re to examine such things as the age of the characters or their looks, we’re at a loss, but I would then find it inexcusable not to take a closer look as such things as hygiene, or obvious lack of it, so why don’t we just apply a suspension of disbelief to cover all that and keep up the good work. As the Boleyns, two hotties are cast, but they also happen to be swell actresses: Scarlett Johansson and Natalie Portman. The former plays Mary, the sweeter of the two, the purer, the more innocent; and the latter plays Anne, the historical plotter that went out as a witch, regardless of what really went on. Of course she was far from a saint: she triggered a disruption of England by being the object of Henry VIII’s first divorce, his separation from the Catholic Church and a well-documented and quite famous streak of infamous marriages.

As put by Morgan, Anne had everything to catch a king when the first wife, Queen Catherine (Ana Torrent), had proven unable to bear him a son, but the king preferred the other Boleyn girl: Mary, who wasn’t even looking to trap him. The Duke of Norfolk, a relative to the Boleyns, largely supported the girl’s quest, but Anne had a hidden agenda, both jeopardizing her family’s plans and sporting their philosophy to the farthest extent. Portman is completely credible in her role, which seems rather one-note but one mustn’t overlook her most dramatic moments. Johansson is unremarkable but so is her part, so I suppose that’s not quite bad. Both of them sport quite good accents, by the way.

As the king, Eric Bana is most impressive given his astonishing costumes, sporting gigantic shoulders as the image of King Henry VIII that we remember, but he doesn’t do much else—not that he’s allowed. Instead, another man steals the show: David Morrissey as the unforgiving, ruthless and powerful Norfolk. Ironic, that the masculine role that should matter is that of the king and the one that actually does is that of a lesser man… That’s the unwilling irony of this film, and its theme as suggested from the very title.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of The Other Boleyn Girl (2008): Morris

Review

The Bubble

Director

Eytan Fox

Year

2006

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, September 03, 2008

I hadn’t heard anything about Ha-Buah, a 2006 Israeli movie which was presented at the Berlin Film Festival, before reading about its upcoming release in a local magazine. It was, for me, one of those surprising movie experiences that come once in a while in which after having nothing else to do I decided to go to the theater and choose something that sounded passable. It was a little gem that unfolded upon my eyes.

Noam (Ohad Knoller) serves one month in the Israeli reserve forces and that’s where he meets Ashraf (Yousef ‘Joe’ Sweid), a Palestinian. Through a series of circumstances Ashraf ends up in Noam’s Tel-Aviv apartment, which he shares with his best friends Lulu (Daniella Wircer) and Yelli (Alon Friedman), and they soon start a romance amidst all the political implications it conveys.

Eytan Fox directed from a screenplay he wrote along with Gal Uchovsky. When I first read the movie’s premise I though it would be a serious, dense political movie and that couldn’t be farther from the truth (until the end, that is, but more on that later). I can’t say The Bubble is lighthearted, but its relaxed approach makes it more accessible and to the point, portraying the stories of these four free-spirited individuals as they go through their everyday lives with a heavy backdrop full of violence and injustice. The fact that the central characters are gay takes a backseat to the seriousness of the situation regarding what their countries, which are enemies, are going through, and how they cope with it.

As is always the case with movies that come from countries whose movie production is not widely seen in this side of the world, there’s also the fascinating aspect of learning about another culture, in this case both Israeli and Palestinian; and even more so when both come together and are looked through the eyes of young people. The details in their everyday life, their traditions, their behaviors, it’s all something to savor.

Fox goes way overboard with the political message he wants to give (a strong one at that) as his movie not only becomes overlong but ends with a stupefying sequence which betrays all sorts of character logic and which I didn’t believe for a second. I would’ve rather seen the movie end at the beach party segment, but there’s still a lot more to go from there and the change is so in-your-face it becomes almost like a prologue that needed much more fine-tuning. I don’t necessarily need a happy ending, but it’s a pity how it turned out at the end; I’m certainly going to stay with what preceded it.

The actors are all extraordinary. The woman in the bunch, Daniella Wircer, is a real find. I hope she’s able to capitalize on her talent and looks because she’s a star in my eyes. The guys are no less impressive, with Yousef ‘Joe’ Sweid delivering a sad and intense portrayal which is difficult to rub off, while Ohan Knoller and Alon Friedman both deliver solid performances.

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Turtles Can Fly

Director

Bahman Ghobadi

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, September 02, 2008

I’m not sure I have seen anything else quite like Lakposhtha parvaz mikonand , or that I would’ve looked forward to it, knowing in advance what it was. This is hands down the crudest film I have ever seen in that, despite the spirits it transmits, it is actually hopeless: we know the characters can’t get anywhere, we are aware that their situation, as bad as it currently appears, will only get worse, and we are sure that there’s nothing at all we can possibly do, and I don’t mean as audience, but as people, because we are real people and so are they, and we really don’t want to be in their place, and it’s not really clear whether we can help them, but it certainly looks like we cannot. One even wonders if the impotence that’s inevitably felt while watching this film is intended as punishment for our good luck, not having to live through all that, or as a reminder that these people and their problems exist, or as a natural reaction to a story set in that scenario. One has to appreciate such a powerful story. But it’s just too hard to know how to feel about it.

The story is that of people caught in the middle of conflict. These are Kurds who have been repressed by Saddam Hussein’s regime, have nowhere to go, hope to find allies in the invading Americans, and are mostly disconnected from the world. In a scenario like this, it’s like humanity starts anew, with all of its rules taken down to basics and the world open to new experiences. The best example is Satellite (Soran Ebrahim), a young teenager who has found his way into life by outsmarting the elders in “town” (actually a refugee camp at the border of Turkey and Iraq), those who seem to have lost all they lived for as opposed to the younglings who are just beginning their lives. The spirits are so contrasting that this is a spot ruled by children. Satellite is a natural leader on account both of his determination and the need of his peers to have a role model, because there’s no adult left to be that much needed figure.

This tale reminded me of “The Lord of the Flies” as unguided children take control and are capable of things beyond their age, not necessarily bad things, but some that aren’t supposed to be for them just yet. The very good part is that living their lives like this is not only a natural course of human development, but a way to cope with the actual crisis around them. Heck, they live surrounded by mines! And what do they do? Do they live in fear? No… They respect the mines’ danger, learn about them, dismantle them, and resell them. It is, at least, something to do.

The ever-cheerful entrepreneur Satellite, called this because he installs antennas to procure information for his community (for a price, of course) represents the group of children who appear to have something to live for and do so happily. On the other hand is Hengov (Hiresh Feysal Rahman), an armless boy who clearly lives in a world of ghosts. He has to take care of his sister and brother, the former a clearly traumatized and overly serious teenager, the latter a young blind child. Whatever happened to these three is obviously horrible as can be seen in each one of them. As their story develops, we find out in shock what they have been forced to live. Agrin (Avaz Latif), the girl, is particularly affecting, especially because she’s the object of Satellite’s affection and we care for her in particular through him.

The roughness of this movie is its greatest asset. It feels so real to watch these kids, most of them crippled, walking about and shouting in all directions in what appears to be a disorganized lifestyle but actually has a structure, that it even appears to be a documentary. The more specific thread of the three siblings takes the audience out of that broad context and puts them in a narrower scenario, despite its being powerfully poignant, and played with outstanding realism by actors who have obviously not had it easy either. However, when it comes together with the other threads in the end, it’s unspeakably powerful; it can’t be believed that such atrocity exists in the world, yet, as presented by director-screenwriter Bahman Ghobadi, it’s impossible not to believe it.

Turtles Can Fly is one of the most affecting films you can ever catch, and one you would probably like to skip, only I’m not sure I’d feel too good if I had just ignored what was here to see, even though I’m still not sure what to do about it; the world can be a horrible place, but it cannot be left at that.

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

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Tropic Thunder

Director

Ben Stiller

Year

2008

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, September 01, 2008

Tropic Thunder has been publicized as being a new entry into the Frat Pack filmography, this being the group formed by Ben Stiller, Jack Black, Owen Wilson, Luke Wilson, Will Ferrell, Vince Vaugh, et al. But the truth of the matter is that only the first two are in it (Matthew McConaughey was a last minute replacement for Owen though) and this movie is way cleverer than most of the stuff they’ve done, except maybe for Zoolander (2001). Wait, that absurdist flick was also directed by Stiller himself. The guy sure knows what he’s doing.

Damien Cockburn (Steve Coogan) is directing a Vietnam movie with several big-star names such as Tugg Speedman (Ben Stiller), Kirk Lazarus (Robert Downey Jr.), Alpa Chino (Brandon T. Jackson), Jeff Portnoy (Jack Black) and newcomer Kevin Sandusky (Jay Baruchel), based on the true story of Four Leaf Tayback (Nick Nolte). Most of them keep behaving like divas and thus the production is going way over-budget, so Four Leaf has the idea of putting the actors in a real war situation so they really understand what it was to be there.

Stiller directed from a screenplay he wrote along with Justin Theroux and Etan Cohen. Tropic Thunder tiptoes around the line where satire becomes parody and parody becomes satire. Well, his movie works as both, and it is smart and sharp all the way. I was expecting mindless foolishness, and even though that’s what I got, it came tied in a package with actual brains. The result is a very funny and right-on-spot spoof of Hollywood and war movies.

Mainstream audiences have historically turned their backs on movies about Hollywood; it is such a unique and bizarre place that lampooning it is like filmmakers are telling an inside joke. I personally have always been fascinated by that world, but that’s not the case with everyone. Fortunately Stiller seems to understand this and plays it broader so that there’s something for everyone; there are witty and sophisticated lines as much as there is profanity and silly slapstick. As is mostly the case with this genre, there are also plenty of gags that don’t work, but they are far outreached by those which do.

I was truly amazed by the way the script suddenly started coming full-circle. The third act took me completely off-guard and while there is certainly a lot of gunfight I could’ve done without, the references about the references the movie was making all the way were brilliantly handled. You’ll have to see the movie to understand what I’m talking about, but as a film buff I was certainly amazed. At the end of the day Stiller pokes fun at a genre that has been so admired but he also shows his love for it and in a way pays homage to it; again, a tricky line to wander through but ultimately achieved.

Highlights include almost anything that Kirk Lazarus has to say or do, the whole sequence with Portnoy tied to a tree, the confrontation between the director and the actors in their new “live” set and the climactic escape. Not cutting it through are some scenes with Speedman as a retard and the final sequence with the head of the studio; both of these are threads that run throughout the entire movie and that are initially funny but get repetitive and less funny as it goes along.

Robert Downey Jr., who is having a banner 2008, easily steals the movie from everyone else. His Kirk Lazarus is a five-time Oscar winner who likes to go method, so he goes through a process to change the color of his skin and go black; that’s not only it, as he also sports an accent and refuses to get out of character. It is a memorable role made even more memorable by the talented actor playing it. Jay Baruchel also leaves a strong impression, playing the youngest and thus most down-to-earth guy in the bunch. Jack Black, whom I’m usually irritated by, is a hoot and the character suits him really well; ditto for Brandon T. Jackson. Ben Stiller is his usual self, although that’s not a bad thing. Nick Nolte has actually little to do, a pity, but a strong presence was needed for that role and they got it right. Others include Steve Coogan, Matthew McConaughey and Bill Hader, joined by plenty of small appearances and cameos that are better discovered than told.

“What do you mean, ‘you people’?”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of Tropic Thunder (2008): Groucho