halopes's Reviews

Underworld (2003)

6/10

27 January 2004

I'm not a huge fan of the vampires and werewolves universes. Though, every once in a while, I can enjoy a vampire or werewolf vs. human picture, particularly when there's a siege situation. Not being a fan of the myths, it's easy for me to identify with the fellows in trouble. If the approach to these legendary themes is easy or mockingly I can let myself go without major tribulations. UNDERWORLD takes itself too serious for its own good.

My main problem with this movie is that it is a story about vampires and werewolves, nothing more, a battle between both clans. There's nothing here for people who don't love vampires and werewolves. Although the special effects are pretty impressive and Len Wiseman's direction is technically flawless, it came a point in the movie where I couldn't identify with any character, thus the movie became boring and extremely overlong. The action sequences weren't enough to lift up the movie because I just couldn't care about the story. Therefore, the special effects and fight sequences had a void, meaningless effect in me. The same is true for the nice, dark cinematography and the rich, gothic set design.

Maybe it's just me, since I can even recognize this movie had a good premise: a legendary battle between vampires and werewolves. But if it weren't for the gorgeous Kate Beckinsale, in non-sexy mode here, probably I wouldn't have paid half the attention I did to this movie.

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Lost in Translation (2003)

10/10

So, so beautiful...

25 January 2004

Sofia Coppola's latest movie, LOST IN TRANSLATION, is an astonishing piece of sublime film-making. There is not one thing that is left behind in detriment of something else. Everything works in perfection, from the cast to the editing. Ultimately, this movie is a great lesson of film-making. It magnifies the importance of such things as musical score, songs and chosen locations. Not everything is storytelling in cinema; visual composition and music are also utterly important. LOST IN TRANSLATION is the most remarkable example of that. The city of Tokyo, colorful and technologically advanced, is as important as the characters themselves, or the story, and grants supremacy to this wonderful film. The same is valid for the superb score and carefully picked up songs. I could go on talking about cinematography, costume design, etc.

I found the chemistry between the dry, ironic Bill Murray and the sweet, innocent Scarlett Johansson just fabulous. Murray couldn't be a better choice to play the man lost in his life, alienated from the mundane realities of modern times; a man who eventually have learned to accept life's small frustrations and a loveless long-time marriage without carrying a burden. Johansson, on the other hand, has to be the sexiest actress of her generation. Her eyes can have the deepest, touching look. She glows sweetness and innocence from her entire body and she couldn't also be a better choice to play the young, married girl already `lost' in life but who still has some hope.

Sofia's approach to the main characters' relationship is extremely subtle. This is not a movie about a one-night-stand between two people who meet in a foreign country hotel. It is a movie about two people who meet and the things that are left unsaid. Eventually, it's also a movie about the clash of different cultures but ultimately, this is a movie about a relationship between two lost and lonely people. The city of Tokyo becomes the personification of alienation, thus allowing both characters to be themselves; they don't try to impress each other. The consequence is a natural, honest, deprived of second intentions relationship; a relationship where both people try to find comfort, being surrounded by a strange environment.

LOST IN TRANSLATION has beauty written all over the place. The movie becomes magical and the bitter sweetness of its tone is what makes it so powerful. Unlike the dozens of Hollywood films we watch during the year, here not everything needs to be explained, not everything needs to be verbalized. The chemistry, the looks, the touches, the expressions speak for themselves and what is not said is agonizingly powerful. After THE VIRGIN SUICIDES, with this movie Sofia Coppola defines herself without a shadow of doubt as a sensitive filmmaker who, in a subtle yet very efficient way, cares about the complexity of human relationships and understands the potential of cinema as a way to evoke deep emotions.

0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Tim Watcher (2003)

2/10

What's the point?

20 January 2004

As far as I can understand, TIW WATCHER is the first work of a young director. My doubt is if this is the work of a regular guy who happens to love films or if this is the work of a cinema student, since there is a reference to Oporto School of Arts in the final credits.

Nevertheless, director Ricardo Pinho demonstrates with this movie a total unawareness of some basic notions about cinema. What is a movie? How to tell a story? It doesn't matter, for the novice director. One of the first things you learn in school when you're studying cinema is how to tell a story. You learn that, just like in novels, in movies you should also construct your story in three acts: the introduction, the development and the conclusion. You learn that your story should have a protagonist and an antagonist and that there should be a climax. You learn this is valid for a 3-hour-epic, for the regular movie, for a short film and even, believe it or not, for a 30-second commercial. You also learn there can be levels of subtleness in your approach to the academic structure and that, ultimately, you can even deconstruct it.

In rough terms, TIM WATCHER introduces us its main character and then, the movie ends - the whole movie sounds like the introduction of the characters in Jeunet's AMÉLIE. There are no second or third acts in TIM WATCHER. This is not a parody or an art film, thus you can't even try to justify the disrespect for the academic structure. You are expecting to be told a story, and it doesn't happen. Worst than that, TIM WATCHER defines itself as a warning; and one with no real purpose. It doesn't make a point, or at least, not a valid one. Its point is childish, with a sense of vengeance. The situations portrayed are utterly simple and its approach is Manichaean.

I was expecting a lot more from this short. The movie opens with a rather good-looking credits sequence and you quickly realize you are watching something with better production values than the regular Portuguese short film. I don't know the budget for this movie, but judging for the thanks-list in the end credits, merit must go to the production team for such good connections in a country where's difficult to have doors opened to young filmmakers.

TIM WATCHER seems to be an exercise in style, color and carefully chosen plans, combined with a fine score. That's all. There's nothing else. There's no plot. And that's a shame because it feels like a waste of production values. Hardly, you can see in the regular Portuguese short such diversity of locations and so many available extras to enrich a story.

As absurd as the comparison may sound, I must refer the BMW shorts as a fine example of how you can tell a good story in a very short film severely conditioned to product placement and over-the-top stylish cinematography.

2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Cold Creek Manor (2003)

6/10

Unbalanced movie. (small spoilers)

16 January 2004

Warning: Spoilers

I think the first big problem with COLD CREEK MANOR was the promotion and the advertising it got. I believe this is the main cause of the many awful reviews the movie is receiving. People were expecting a different kind of movie. Watching the trailer, I was expecting some kind of supernatural, haunted-house movie driven by cheap thrills the ones filmmakers deliver by cutting two different images together with a sharp sound.

Watching the movie, I was pleased to confront myself with something unexpected: a slow-paced movie that doesn't rely on its score and editing to scare the audience. The moment where Sharon Stone's character is surprised by the female police officer could easily have become a Hollywood horror/thriller cliché, making the audience jump of the chair. Yet, Figgis doesn't go the easy way. He prefers to create an uncomfortable, moody ambience, occasionally provoking a chill. You can spot the thrills around the corner and Figgis manages to avoid the teen-horror-movie cliché. Everything is evocative, and that's a big plus for COLD CREEK MANOR. The score is whimsical and haunting. The first hour of the movie is pretty decent, I dare to say.

Then, there's the snakes sequence and the film is betrayed. I can deal with the lack of plausibility when all snakes attack at the same time. What I can't deal with is that a movie that had been so evocative turns so cheap and gratuitous, destroying the ambience it had created. In the snakes scene we are offered the usual screams and sharp sounds cut together with close shots and fast editing. There's even a fast zoom-in, I believe. This would be acceptable for the common teen-horror-movie, but not for a serious film like COLD CREEK MANOR was pretending to be. Here, the score also changes dramatically, in the worst possible way, and so does the tone of the movie.

This movie had potential. Figgis is a competent character explorer and the first hour was more of a drama than a thriller or a horror movie. I didn't care the whole movie was predictable because I was more absorbed by the unpredictability of the way Figgis avoided the genre cliché several times. Figgis approach to this movie was, most of the time, unusual. Eventually, there are clichés, it's unavoidable. But I loved the fact that Quaid wasn't thrown into the pit by Dorff. I loved the fact Dorff wasn't inside the house when both Quaid and Stone locked themselves in. I loved the fact this movie didn't have a major twist. For those who criticize the absence of the twist, pointing out the predictability of the whole plot, let me ask a question. Did CAPE FEAR have a major twist? Did PACIFIC HEIGHTS have a major twist?

As for the cast, Quaid delivers a nice performance; Dorff is great, as usual, as the next-door psychopath. Juliette Lewis is sexy, as ever, but certainly doesn't get the proper attention she deserved; and Stone, well, I could barely notice she was in the movie. There are also some really bad stylish choices in the film, like the use slow-motion and the way the final sequence is cut. There's even a superfluous freeze frame with Lewis.

Overall, COLD CREEK MANOR fails. It fails because it's extremely unbalanced; not because of the eventual clichés or the plot predictability.

0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Teknolust (2002)

3/10

Teknoboring

14 January 2004

Teknolust. I guess the title says it all. This movie contains no substance whatsoever. Everything is stylish and tech just for the sake of it, with no real purpose. And the movie tries desperately to sustain itself by exploring this lust for hi-tech and a pseudo-futuristic design. There are nice sets, though, and the use of strong, basic colors is interesting and hardly unnoticeable. But everything else is void. The movie is deprived of a strong premise, a decent storyline and interesting ideas. Every theme present in TEKNOLUST was already debated in several other movies: cyborg questioning his nature and trying to turn human; human falling for cyborg; the dangers of genetic manipulation and cloning; and so on.

I'll not bother criticizing the absurd computer-related technicalities because that becomes unimportant when compared to the flawed and unstructured plot. If there isn't a good plot, a strong dilemma, it's hard for us to become attached to the movie. TEKNOLUST suffers from this problem, and I couldn't care more about what was going on. If it weren't for three plus one Tilda Swintons, I'd probably never had reached the end of the film. Even though, the movie is slow and uninteresting. The deficient plot translates in lack of cinematic rhythm. It's boring. Luckily, TEKNOLUST runs for no more than 80 minutes.

Not everything is awful, as you might expect. Apart from the nice use of colors, be it on the sets or in the wigs and costumes, there is some kind of wittiness in the tone of the movie that keeps us from leaving the theatre. Nevertheless, what ultimately saves this movie from being a total disaster is the glamorous Tilda Swinton.

3 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Elephant (2003)

9/10

Beats documentary genre in realism.

6 December 2003

What makes a good movie? Some people may say it's an engrossing and well-told story. Others may defend it's a believable or accurate portrait of an event. It can also be a technically flawless or ground-breaking cinematic achievement, for others. Some can argue it's the film's aptitude to raise questions and promote debate. And although these points are extremely valid when it comes to define a good film, there's one I rely great importance on and that I find to be sometimes overlooked: film as a way to induce feelings and states of mind.

ELEPHANT is a great movie for all the above reasons. But what really makes this movie magnificent and astonishing is its ability to stimulate on the audience deep emotions and provoke an almost eerie, pervasive state of mind that will remain in your head after you leave the movie theatre.

Destroying every single cliché we know about high-school movies, ELEPHANT, in its aseptic and sober style, transports us to the on-screen events through an ever-present camera in front or behind the characters, where most of the time the only thing on focus is the character himself, as if he is the only thing that matters. To deepen this feeling, Van Sant follows the characters in long, amazingly executed, steadicam shots. There are no cuts, we linger with the characters, doing nothing special, because they're not special, they are ordinary kids. We don't need to know their backgrounds, their origins, because when tragedy hits, they are all victims, there are no heroes. Neither we need to know the killer's motivations or problems. We don't need to know their parents (there's one scene where we see the mother of one kid, but we don't even see her face, it doesn't matter) or the kind of education they get home. We just need to know tragedies like the one portrayed happen as it did - and we ought to reflect on the subject if we care.

I dare to say Gus Van Sant's movie is potentially more effective than BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE - Michael Moore's documentary which covers that same subject. While Moore presents actual events and deconstructs the theories behind them, delivering answers, Van Sant puts us inside the situation through fiction, with a disturbing level of realism, and let us draw our own conclusions. ELEPHANT is a wake-up call: look at the elephant.

0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Matrix Revolutions (2003)

9/10

Could been better. Could been much, much worse!

3 December 2003

Warning: Spoilers

*Spoilers alert*

If people went to see THE MATRIX RELOADED because it was a sequel to the much loved, original and audacious THE MATRIX, I believe people went to see THE MATRIX REVOLUTIONS because they wanted answers, mainly. It's not that people weren't expecting also a lot of action, special effects and thrills in this final settlement of the Wachowskis' tale of an apocalyptic world controlled by the machines, but I do believe people were expecting, above all, answers, many answers.

The Matrix franchise became a cult, with a lot of web-talk. User thesis and explanations about virtually everything covered in both movies crawled from all over the places. It's not easy to please everybody, if not impossible at all, and The Wachowski Brothers surely were aware no matter the end they would chose for the trilogy they would deceive some serious fans. Instead of delivering answers, REVOLUTIONS starts with more questions. Where is Neo? What have happened to him? What is Mobil Ave? And so on

In an intelligent move, The Wachowski Brothers manage to avoid delivering critical answers for almost two hours. As an alternative, they present a movie loaded with action and over-the-top special effects. The Zion attack scene, which lasts 14 minutes, is a gripping combination of military action, general mayhem and digital effects. It's flawless and it totally absorbed me. In fact, it's so effective that you almost forget you wanted answers when you entered the movie theatre. More action sequences follow: there's Neo and Trinity over the crop fields; the final fight with Agent Smith; amongst others. Overall, REVOLUTIONS is a great action movie, more efficient than RELOADED.

But let's not forget we wanted answers. And that's the big problem of this movie. REVOLUTIONS is betrayed by an anti-climax of such proportions only equaled by the one of Monty Python's HOLY GRAIL. There are no answers, or at least, not as many as we expected after watching the three movies. During the whole film, I expected a mind-blowing speech like the one The Arquitect delivered in RELOADED, but there is no speech at all, and when The Arquitect comes in, you know everything that had to be explained already was. I hate movies where one character, by the end, explains what is already pretty obvious to us. But in the universes created by THE MATRIX nothing is obvious enough and I'm strongly convicted that a final speech, even if it were a rhetorical one, would give a lot of strength and cohesion to this film, as well as to the whole trilogy.

That's not to say nothing makes sense or that we are left in oblivion. Although a lot of questions will remain unanswered, REVOLUTIONS presents a few facts. Everything else is interpretative. Therefore, multiple theories about The Matrix, The One, the war, the Agents may still be valid, as is the possibility of a fourth episode.

Considering the dreadful possible exits to REVOLUTIONS, like the so much debated Matrix-within-Matrix theory, I must confess I found the peace-agreement solution extremely honest and even original. It's nice to see The Wachowski Brothers didn't go for a manichaean settlement like it was expected.

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Pee-wee's Big Adventure (1985)

4/10

Overrated

1 December 2003

I just can't get the point of this movie. Its material isn't defined enough. Is this supposed to be a kid's film? Then what for the sexual puns and innuendos, or the soft, yet present, critics to Hollywood and studio executives? It seems a mixture that doesn't glue together.

PEE-WEE'S BIG ADVENTURE isn't entertaining. At least, it isn't entertaining enough. Its dialogues are undeveloped and basic, in its worst sense. There's an absence of a strong story-line and our main character doesn't grow up in his journey. What's the point of having a journey if the character doesn't evolve? In the beginning, the only thing that matters to Pee-wee is his bike. In the end, he feels everything exactly the same way with the exception of the opportunity he gives to the girl. Naturally, Pee-wee is helped through his journey when initially he though he wouldn't need help from anyone, but this isn't strong enough to denote a change in the character.

I like Tim Burton and his universes but I find this film very poor. It's not a visual extravaganza like some of his posterior films would be. There are a couple of interesting scenes the dinosaur in the Pre-Historic Museum and Pee-wee's dream inside the hospital - but in general the film is not as rich as it could be for a Tim Burton picture. Even though, I can understand Burton was preparing territory for his following films.

Special mention must go to composer Danny Elfman in his first collaboration with Burton who delivers a wonderful score, sometimes scary, sometimes radiant, always magical and powerful. The soundtrack is predominantly present and, ultimately, that's what brings some color and life to Pee-wee's adventure and gives some cohesion to this film.

As an adult, I didn't enjoy this fantasy film but I can't either imagine what message a kid can take from it? `Mommy, daddy, can I have a new bike?', `No, you can't! And stop talking like Pee-wee!' Is that it?

6 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Santa Claus Is a Stinker (1982)

8/10

Great comedy.

1 December 2003

This is the kind of movie you don't mind watching over and over again because its script is so rich, so full of wonderful dialogue and genuinely funny situations, that one view isn't enough to absorb everything. Ultimately, this is a film about the spirit of Christmas in the modern times. We live stressed and frantic lives, so why would Christmas Eve be different form a regular day? That's sort of the premise of this movie.

LE PÈRE NOEL EST UNE ORDURE is a black comedy, a very dark one, full of odd characters and bizarre situations. Themes like homosexuality, suicide and murder aren't left behind and spice up this crazy, passionate, comedy set on Christmas Eve.

The performances are plain terrific, with no exception. The characters are wonderfully defined and the dialogue is delicious. It's impossible not to laugh. a lot! After a relatively calm beginning, the wacky situations start to pile up in a frenzy rhythm. Being a huge fan of black comedies myself, I prefer a more subtle approach to the themes. The humor here is sometimes histrionic, theatrical and over-the-top. That can be easily accepted because the movie is adapted from a stage play and, in the end, it works in perfection.

29 out of 43 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Detention (2003)

3/10

Don't be fooled by its rating.

30 November 2003

I wasn't expecting a lot from a film directed by Sidney J. Furie and starring Dolph Lundgren but I was surely expecting more than a got. A one-liner user comment - 2nd rate action movie - didn't seem too depreciative to me for a Lundgren film. On the other hand, I wouldn't have bothered to watch this film if its rating was below 5.0 but hey, the movie had a 5.9 out of 10 score, which seemed pretty acceptable to me for this kind of production.

Now I understand that the 37.5% of people who rated this film a 10 (excellent) was clearly a publicity stunt because DETENTION is the regular Nu Image garbage you have seen before, over and over.

Lundgren does not convince as an ex-military turned a history teacher assigned to a rough school. His acting is just plain terrible, emotionless and contrived. Lundgren's inability to act becomes more visible in the scenes with the juvenile delinquent kids. Either they are great actors or, compared to Lundgren, they seem great actors - just because they seem natural and believable.

DETENTION has some elements that could have been potentially interesting for this low budget movie - a closed-for-weekend high-security high school, four teens in detention with a war-veteran teacher and a group of ruthless criminals trying to get in - but the story (something like THE BREAKFAST CLUB meets DIE HARD, or is it PANIC ROOM?) is full of unbelievable situations, lots of clichés and stereotypical characters. And let's not forget Dolph Lundgren is the main actor.

Alex Karzis and Kata Dobó play a Bonnie and Clyde couple in love and they deliver the most acceptable performances of the movie, even if he seems a low-budget version of Sam Rockwell and she, a Milla Jovovich wanna-be. In a movie where everything fails, their craziness and style supplied enough fresh air to prevent my interest from dropping to ground zero.

3 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Mask (1985)

Powerful message, yet fails to be a powerful movie.

30 November 2003

MASK tells the true-life story of a disfigured boy, Rocky, inflicted by a genetic disease as he tries to lead a normal life if at all possible against all adversities. After all, he's a kid and he needs to go to school. He's in his teen years and has to deal with emotions like love, and therefore has to deal with girls. He needs friends as any other kid needs them. But he's disfigured, his head is huge and his face resembles a lion, and we all know kids can be very cruel to each other and that the inner-beauty concept doesn't prevail in our world of appearances.

Rocky is helped by his mother (remarkably performed by Cher) and mainly by his mother's friends who are also his friends. Early on the film we know Rocky's future isn't bright from the medical point of view, even if we are aware the doctors have made wrong prognostics about his life expectancy in the past. His head continues to grow as well as his aches and we can only expect the worst for the brave Rocky.

MASK contains a great lesson of life: the triumph of optimism over adversity. Rocky has a positive attitude on his daily life and that's why he manages to lead a rather regular life, considering the situation. He is a dreamer, who can rejoice the good things he has been through during his bad moments, thus allowing him to keep going with his head up. There's one scene where Rocky talks to a 19-year-old prostitute his mother sent for him and, ironically or not, she seems the doomed character, not Rocky.

Inevitably, you find yourself wondering about your life and your problems while watching MASK and maybe you realize they're somehow insignificant compared to Rocky's life and struggles. In fact, in a perverse way, the movie can lift your mood as you understand your life is much easier than the one of the lion-headed boy. And that's where this wonderful movie carrying such a powerful message fails to become a powerful film.

MASK isn't powerful as THE ELEPHANT MAN. Why? Because MASK delivers tragedy material presented as a slice-of-life episode. Some of you may argue that was the directorial approach intended by Peter Bodganovich in order to show optimism prevailing over adversity. If the message is beautiful, it's in some way difficult to accept it in this context, because it's hard to believe Rocky didn't suffer more than what's portrayed in the film. A credibility issue may rise.

I can understand the dimension of our problems is related to our attitude towards it but MASK should be a tragedy because for us, the audience, Rocky's life is a tragedy. Even though he refuses to see it that way, fighting with hopefulness and confidence, the movie's core is tragedy and should be treated that way for the sake of its own credibility. However, if the movie fails to be powerful and astonishing, its message surely doesn't.

4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Eye (2002)

4/10

Disappointing and overrated.

25 November 2003

I was eager to watch THE EYE, not because I had read the plot summary or had seen the trailer, but because everybody was talking about it. Now that I've seen it, all I can say is what a huge disappointment. I don't understand all the hype surrounding this film.

The movie fails from its very beginning since a good premise isn't enough if you don't build an interesting situation to explore it. We have a young blind girl subject of a cornea transplant who starts to see the real world, but she also starts to see what appear to be ghosts. The girl is scared, naturally, but it takes just too long for her to comment the visions and nightmares with someone, which would be the logical thing to do for a person submitted to any kind of surgery, I think. And I can't buy a she-can't-tell-a-ghost-from-the-real-thing possible explanation. But that's not the only problem. The setback here is although we have a potentially good premise, the plot does not explore properly its premise. Nothing happens. Ok, this girl sees ghosts and dead people, in a clear reference to THE SIXTH SENSE. So what? All we can ask ourselves is who are the ghosts and why is she seeing them. Michael Apted's BLINK manages to succeed with a very similar premise because its plot creates a situation to be explored based on the movie's premise. That doesn't happen in THE EYE and I couldn't care less why was the main character seeing ghosts.

However, what really annoys me in this movie is the self-indulgent look at death and particularly suicide. Are the filmmakers really trying to make a point here or is it just a cheap plot mechanism? There is one point of the movie where one character makes statements about the after-life in a way that he seems to be talking about universal truths that can be found on any medical compendium.

The artsy camera-work has no real purpose many times and the thrills are cheap as in a bad Hollywood horror picture. Cutting two different images with a loud sharp sound is the easiest way to scare the audience, not necessarily the most effective.

I found this movie boring, predictable and unsatisfying; it's full of references to some Hollywood hits, and the ending reminded me THE MOTHMAN PROPHECIES a lot. Maybe you should try THE SIXTH SENSE instead, or even BLINK, if you're willing to watch THE EYE.

3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Mad Dog and Glory (1993)

7/10

Odd love story.

24 November 2003

Contrary to what you might expect from a picture from the director of Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer (John MacNaughton), producer Martin Scorsese and Academy Award Winner Robert De Niro, Mad Dog and Glory is not a violent movie neither a crime epic; in fact, it's an odd, strange, love story.

The `ruthless' mobster here is comic actor Bill Murray and De Niro plays the sweet, shy, repressed cop, uncomfortably dealing with in nature sensual Uma Thurman. I'm a huge De Niro fan and I also love the sarcastic Bill Murray. Mad Dog and Glory is sustained by this cold connection between the two actors, which appear to be playing reverse roles, but manage to be incredible believable and surprising as individual characters. Uma Thurman is charming as the girl in debt to the small-time crime boss and David Caruso delivers a solid, contained, performance.

There's a pacing problem in the script filled with wonderful dialogue, but if Mad Dog and Glory clearly fails to fit in the crime genre for its obvious reasons, it also does not totally success as a character driven comedy/drama because there's a lack of chemistry between the three main actors. I mean, De Niro plays a shy, introverted police photographer; Murray is sarcastic as always, funny but distant, and Thurman is in the middle of both, kind of lost.

I liked Mad Dog and Glory though it's not a magical movie; it's simply an odd love story, sometimes funny, always cold. It's a movie which has some common ingredients but manages to do something different.

2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

And Justice for All (1979)

8/10

`Catch-22' inside a courtroom

24 November 2003

I liked And Justice for All. I found it very entertaining and absorbing. In its satiric way, the movie is full of rich characters and plausible situations even if sometimes you can spot the cliché around the corner. Sometimes satire works as a magnifying glass to expose and better criticize something. And I believe that's what happens in this movie with all those bizarre scenes and deranged characters.

Even though Jewison focuses problems such as corruption, criticizes the danger of powerful people in the wrong places and brings up moral dilemmas about the practice of law, I believe And Justice for All is more of a satire than a serious alert to a possible decadence of the judicial system. The odd elements in the plot are one too many to see the movie strictly from its dramatic point of view: a cross-dresser client, an evidence-eating defendant, a suicidal judge, a hysterical lawyer.

In a certain way, the message of this movie reminded me the one of Mike Nichols anti-war comedy Catch-22: in order to cope with a crazy situation you have to become a little crazy. In a war scenario people fight for values like justice and order, but they also fight for power and interests; the same thing happens inside a courtroom. Some lawyers see Law as a business, some see it as a way to promote their personal careers and some see it as the opportunity given to those who have nothing else to lose.

The performances are just great, specially the ones of Jack Warden and Jeffrey Tambor. Al Pacino unquestionably steals the movie with another over-the-top performance as the lawyer willing to risk everything and delivers another memorable speech during his `opening statement'.

58 out of 67 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Second Skin (2000)

4/10

If everything else fails, there always Henstridge to look for.

23 November 2003

I caught this movie on TV after watching a rather suspicious promotional trailer. The first scene with the sensual Natasha Henstridge dressed in a semi-transparent white dress hooked me and I decided to give the movie a try.

The first half of Second Skin is pretty tolerable. I felt I was watching a fair and honest low budget noir picture, certainly moving toward some major twists. But I could never expect the plot could become so flawed and the second half of the movie could become so lame and dreary.

This predictable, cliché-ridden movie could have been interesting. The music and the photography create a nice, moody atmosphere. Henstridge is, well... sensual as the femme-fatale, and MacFadyen is ok as the guy running from his past. Even though I don't like the way some scenes are cut, the real problem is the plot which turns out to be some kind of mess in the second half of the movie.

After the 90 minutes of Second Skin it's frustrating to realize probably nothing will linger in your memory apart from the beauty of Henstridge.

10 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Box (I) (2003)

7/10

Dark, rough and efficient

22 November 2003

There is one thing that works better than a good twist: the absence of a twist when you are expecting one. Why? Because if this happens, it means the movie could surprise you, in the way it didn't choose the path you were thinking about. The Box falls in this category of films.

In its dark, somber and rough style, The Box has elements of the film-noir genre: an ex-convict just released from prison, a small urban town, a femme-fatale and a load of money. And as soon we realize everything is going from bad to worst - following a pessimistic storyline - we know Frank is doomed from the first moment he was released from prison, just because he left unfinished businesses when he was arrested. And for that reason there is no possible redemption, even if we can see, for some moments, glimpses of a new life for the doomed hero.

I like tragedies and doomed characters, and that's one of the reasons I liked The Box. Also, it's nice to see a thriller without a major twist in a time where every thriller marks its points by a closing twist. For this reason, The Box is surely an original piece or, at least, something different from the big-twist-ahead thrillers I've seen in the recent times. For its own good, The Box does not pretend to be smarter than its audience.

3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Freddy vs. Jason (2003)

7/10

Nothing I was expecting!

21 November 2003

I believe I had never seen a Freddy Krueger film neither a Jason one - a rather embarrassing statement for a film lover.

When I decided to watch Freddy vs. Jason I was expecting first, not to understand it all due to lack of knowledge about the franchises, and second, I would watch pure crap. How was I wrong... Freddy vs. Jason is a horror movie like I haven't seen for awhile.

The movie opening is rather good in establishing the two horror icons for people who might not remember, or simply, like myself, never watched a Freddy or Jason film. The film quickly establishes its mood with a house in Elm Street with the kids' parents away, buxom teens and a sex scene with nudity. There's also a teen in a shower, a brutal killing and lots of blood.

At this point you know you aren't watching a straight, competent slasher but you are watching a b-movie that captures the feel of slashers from the 80s. Above all, you know you are not watching a politically correct horror movie like the ones filmmakers make today.

What follows is a rampage of thrills and action, severed bodies, gallons of blood and bizarre killings in the midst of an epic fight between legendary Freddy and mythic Jason. Merit goes to screenwriters Damian Shannon and Mark Swift and Hong Kong director Ronnie Yu who, perfectly, manage to deliver a movie loaded with action sequences and chilling moments, where almost everything makes sense in its own universe and is easily accepted by the public.

However, what amazes me the most, in a time where studios tend to be so politically correct, even in horror movies, is to see a studio like New Line Cinema release nation-wide a slasher without limits. Everything goes; from every possible imagined part of the human body stabbed and severed to themes like murder, sexuality, drugs and necrophilia, nothing was left behind.

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

El amor perjudica seriamente la salud (1996)

5/10

Interesting, funny, boring and overlong

21 November 2003

Just a week ago I was have this conversation with a friend; she said she wanted to find a man who would marry her and would agree both of them to live in separate places, with their own personal lives. They would be together only when they felt like it. That's the relationship that works, in her opinion; in mine, that's choosing the easy way.

The premise of the movie is very interesting, even though reminiscent of Forrest Gump. The movie itself raises a lot of questions about love, lust, relationships, marriage and ultimately, about sharing a life and the evolution of love in a relationship.

The movie starts well, setting a warm mood, and delivers us a promising story with funny moments. After the first hour this cozy movie begins to turn too repetitive and its otherwise empathetic and cheerful main characters start to make you uncomfortable. We all know passion doesn't last forever and that love has its own evolution in a relationship. We also know time and distance help to heal frustrated love stories.

And as the movie goes by, chance puts the characters in a perpetual never-ending confront about their feelings for each other almost in a masochist way. Even though this is a comedy, we can see the characters suffer with their impossible love, and at certain point I lost total empathy with the characters - they are only in pain because they don't want to make a decision, for the good or for the bad - so the movie becomes boring and overlong running almost two hours.

Hopefully this is a comedy and the title - Love Can Seriously Damage Your Health - could not be more appropriate.

3 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

halopes

Reviews

Tell Your Friends

Recently Viewed