juliomontoya2000 Reviews

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)

Worn out idea

[6/10 · 22 May 2008]

The first half of the movie is boring. The real action begins halfway through, but it's not that exciting. The movie is unfunny, everything that is supposed to make you laugh is forced and stupid.

The best part of the movie is near the end, when the adventure culminates with a grand finale. But the only reason it's impressive is because it's special effects. And computer special effects have never been the main reason for the existence (and success) of the series.

By the way, there's another impressive CGI: an atomic explosion at the beginning. Only we are left to wonder: was it necessary? It's not that is offensive. It's just that I think is a filler.

Ray Winstone is wasted in a clichéd role. John Hurt is simply out of place for an actor of his stature. Harrison Ford is still adequate for the character, he doesn't spoil the movie, as many would fear. But is really little that you can do in a movie which formula seems tired and unoriginal.

Sean Connery's decision of not to participate in this movie might be the wisest, since Keanu Reeves discarding Speed 2.

To throw a little X-files topic in the mix may have seemed a good idea, but they didn't know how to execute it. That's the problem with digesting a bad idea for a long time: out of exhaustion, it may seem like a good thing at some point. This is exactly what happened with this movie. As such, it should have never been released.

Be honest, Indiana Jones buffs. This one represents something different: in your heart, you know that is the first movie that you would not recommend. It's not up to the standard of the series.

Equilibrium (2002)

Everything, but original

[7/10 · 10 August 2006]

If you have seen (or read) 1984 and FARENHEIT 451, and also have in mind THE MATRIX, you won't find anything fresh here. OK, EQUILIBRIUM has a great message, but it was already in the aforementioned novels. And it has "exciting" action sequences, but you can never forget that you have seen something like it in the latter movie. But it's not really a waste of time, since this movie has a good style, and it's entertaining. But as good as that entertainment is, it's light. It's not like it will provoke philosophy and meditation. OK, maybe it will, if you haven't watched 1984 and FARENHEIT 451. And if you have lived in the wilderness, and haven't watched THE MATRIX (or maybe you were born yesterday) you'll find the action sequences fascinating.

Death of a Bureaucrat (1966)

A very good movie with lots of imagination to spare

[8/10 · 19 June 2006]

For a movie that was released 40 years ago, this one has aged particularly well.

I think I'm not exaggerating by saying that this movie represents something of a precursor of the Monty Python movies, alas, not so irreverent. But the way it deals with the topic, and the imaginative gags and inter-cuts that it has, can only remind you of those English geniuses.

But is also many things. A little of Three Stooges here. Even a little Chaplin there...

How you can make something funny out of the situation of a family (the main character and his aunt) that cannot get his relative buried, and have to keep him home until the red tape is overpowered, without losing sight of the human touch and their despair?. You'd need a very skillful director to juggle all that successfully.

I Haven't seen or heard of a Latin American movie like this one. It must be considered a milestone in Latin American cinema (and certainly, in world cinema). Regretfully, not the style, or the genius of the director Tomás Gutiérrez Alea, seem to have had dedicated followers. I'm afraid that has something to do with the Cuban origin, not because of Cuban backlash, but because of lack of interest or attention over Cuban art during the 60's. Latin America has produced a lot of movies, but most of them are dead serious. When somebody comes with the idea of a comedy, it is very light, unfunny and clichéd, nothing to tell the world about, with very few exceptions.

That's why I was surprised by LA MUERTE DE UN BURÓCRATA and I highly recommend it, if you can find it somehow.

Vertigo (1958)

An interpretation of the end (Spoilers)

[9/10 · 3 April 2006]

I won't make an extensive commentary, but an interpretation of the end.

Nowadays, when there's a part of a movie that is hard to understand or put together, it is easily explained through the device (somewhat overused) that it was all part of a dream, or it was all product of the character's imagination When I watched VERTIGO, that's one explanation that I had: everything that happens after Madeleine's suicide (and so, we are stating that HER suicide was true) only happened in Scottie's (James Stewart Character) imagination.

CLUES: Just a little after the suicide occurs, there's a trial. Or sort of. I'm not very familiar with these kinds of trials or investigative proceedings, but this one looks very informal. Anyway, the proceeding never leave Scottie out of responsibility. In fact, every time the coroner speaks, he establishes again and again that Scottie's fear of heights produced his lack of will to act, and that in turn did not avoid the suicide of the one he was taking care of.

Those words are recriminating, like those from the voice of one's conscience. Next time you see this scene, pay attention and you will hear that the coroner is merciless against Scottie. It's my opinion that in this theory, this trial represents the fight in Scottie's mind against his conscience, that is telling him again and again that he is guilty, What happens after the "trial"? We see Scottie walking towards Madeleine's grave. This represents him facing the consequence of his acts, facing the need to still deal with it.

Was all this a dream, something out of the character's mind? Well, that's what the movie is telling us. Inmediatly, we see Scottie in his bed, as if everything that has just happened came from his subconscious. And then, his mind begins to run wild. He begins to hallucinate.

His conscience hasn't liberated him from guilt, and that finally drives him completely mad.

Then we see Scottie in some kind of clinic or asylum, completely blank. From then on, we can assume for sure that everything is happening only in his crazy mind.

When Midge (Scottie's friend) speaks to the doctor, he says that Scottie has a great deal of feelings of guilt. Now we know that the movie tries to make a big deal about it. Now we confirm that his insanity has been caused by his guilt, and in his mind he's trying to make up a theory that set him free from his guilt.

It's kind of strange that after he leaves the clinic, that is, the whole final part of the movie, Midge never appears again. Obviously, she's got no place in the story that Scottie is inventing in his head (it would be logic to see her at least once, since she was his closest friend. But this wasn't the real world...).

Since his conscience hasn't liberated him, he has to resort to something else, something that could explain things in a way not only to present him as not guilty, but, even better, as a victim. So then on we see how a conspiracy theory against the real Madelaine, and in turn, against him, is discovered little by little. Or, better said, is invented little by little.

The fact that Madeleine, this time as Judy, dies again, can only mean that Scottie didn't find a real answer to his guilt: no matter how he tries to fool himself, he will never get rid of his responsibility. Now, that's a mind playing tricks on you !!!. We can rest assured that poor Scottie never awoke from his madness.

Is this theory plausible? I guess so. Could it be contradicted? Yes of course. But then again, all the theories that you could imagine about Vertigo are not flawless, and that's the great thing about this movie: it could mean a lot of things, but those meanings are never conclusive.

You can blame too much MULLHOLLAND DRIVE for this kind of theory. But it's interesting to think that movies like Vertigo could have inspired such great style of movies.

Of course, some will argue that the final scene that was included in the English version (and in the American DVD as an extra) spoils this interpretation completely. But since it was taken away (by a the director's decision or whomever is responsible), it has left the puzzle incomplete, and so we are left with the option of making sense of it all.

La vida sigue igual (1969)

Strictly for Vintage Julio fans - SPOILERS

[5/10 · 1 April 2006]

This movie tells a very simple story. It dramatizes Julio Iglesias' own life, whom a car accident left him temporarily paralyzed, and permanently away from professional soccer, in which he was a goalie. But those blows of destiny are surprising sometimes. Were it not for this, probably Julio would have never become the most famous singer from Spain and from the Hispanic world.

The movie begins with the news of his long-awaited debut in the first team of the Real Madrid, but the accident happens that very same day. Then, it comes a period of physical and mental recovery, that, of course, will not be easy, and will demand lots of will.

Basically, the movie shows us that the character, through this experience, got to cherish the important things in life, as exemplified by: a) He dumps his former girlfriend, who abandoned him in the most critics moments of his illness, for the girl that wanted him and helped him get in shape again. And b) He decides not to see some record executives because he rather visit a child, that admired him and who is paralyzed, and that needs his friendship and help. Sounds cliché? Yes, the whole concept is corny, although the message has meaning still.

It's not hard to criticize negatively this movie, from the formal point of view. It's filmed as a soap opera. The edition is poor, the accompanying music begins and ends abruptly, just like the scenes changes in some instances. Camera movements are clumsy at times. The movie is completely "dubbed" (in Spanish, that is) the way some Italian movies were made, and so the movie doesn't feel natural because of the lack of ambient sound. I assume that the only occasion that we get to hear Julio's ambient voice is at two thirds of the movie, when before his friends he grabs a guitar and sings the first line of "Life goes on", to show them how it's supposed to be sung.

The movie intends to be more a comedy that a drama, which is surprising, considering the topic involved. However, done with style, this movie would have functioned marvelously. As it is, the movie comes and goes from life drama, romantic drama and comedy, without succeeding in neither aspect, mainly because it has no depth at all.

All this formal and technical flaws should not be blamed on the longevity of the movie, because by the year 1969 the movies had great advance in those fields (but, to be honest, I'm not that familiar with the state of the Spanish cinema of that time).

Actually, I think that all is due to the main intention of the filmmakers: that this movie would serve simply as a vehicle to promote Julio Iglesias, regardless of the technical quality. And maybe, in that purpose, it fulfilled its objective. At least, we have to recognize that the movie is honest in that aspect: it wanted to promote its star, not try to turn him into an "actor".

As such vehicle, and as it is customary with other movies that try to promote artists, the main objective is to put whole songs that the singer performs (lip-synchs, I should say) to the delight of his fans. Sometimes they are comfortable attached to the story, but sometimes they are forced into it. By the way, in this case, the songs are from the record "Yo canto": "I sing", "Someone who passed by", "In a barrio in the city", "Little girl", "I had a guitar", "Some years ago" and of course, "Life goes on". Except for the first one, the rest are alternate versions. (Note: I translated the Spanish names due to this site restrictions, that don't allow to write many foreign words).

In spite of the formal flaws, I must say that Julio's performance is not bad. Convincingly, he represents the fragile, confused and bitter character that comes after the accident, and then the bright and happy individual that surfaces when the strength and the love come back to his life. Of course, he is performing himself, and some would say that then there is no merit in that. But we have seen some other examples like this in the past, with very bad results.

What happens is that, in spite of everything, those who saw this movie years ago, even if we were very young, and those who liked Julio Iglesias' music since that time, could not despise this document. It's a nostalgia affair, more than anything else. Therefore, this movie has a reason to exist and be seen only for the old fans of Julio, specially those who liked his record "Yo canto". Those without this qualifications, should steer clear.

A final note: I think this movie is only available through the collection "100 años de oro de cine español". It's region 2 and PAL system. The sharpness and quality of the transfer are surprisingly good, although the sound is just satisfactory. Moreover, this version has no subtitles whatsoever.

Hostel (2005)

Boring, boring... boring !!!

[1/10 · 1 April 2006]

Let's see: This movie has no suspense. The story is bad. The performances are amateurs and laughable. The movie plays like a SAW wanna-be in some parts. The message? There is a message, but it's obvious that its delivery was the lesser of the intentions for the filmmakers. As it is hinted, it does not justify the movie. So what are we left with? Well, of course, with the "visual impact", the thing that this movie is getting famous for. But since we are so concentrated in THAT, we expect a lot from THAT. And guess what? The gore is handled with so little style and impact, leaving well evident the intention of the filmmakers of producing shock, that it doesn't work either. It would have helped a little that the actors playing the victims could act more convincing during the torture scenes. But their performances are so laughable, that we lose any sympathy for them, and just wish for the torturer to finish them right away. It's ironic that this movie is in some way related to Quentin Tarantino, since he has made graphic violence and gore something with style in his movies. But that's exactly what we miss here: in the hands of another director, it may have been a better product. As it is, it's a very good movie...for the 15 year old crowd. All of the sudden, SAW I and II seem to be masterpieces !!

Forbidden Games (1952)

Criterion Collection DVD...at last

[9/10 · 28 December 2005]

Forbidden Games deals with the reaction of a couple of children –Paullette, who losses both her parents as the consequence of an air attack, and Michel, the youngest of a peasant family in which Paullete finds refuge- in the context of the horrors of war, in this case, the second world war, in 1940.

The movie (unlike others dealing with children and war, like "Germany, Year Zero") does not portray a miserable and deadly environment. Certainly, war is sensed all the time, and the danger of falling bombs is ever present. However, the movie is set in the seemingly peaceful countryside, not among ruins and combats. That doesn't diminish the tragic context of the movie at all. Because we have witnessed what Paullette has gone through. And although Michel doesn't seem to have had any kind of traumatic loss, he's old enough to know what's going on, and what Paullette is suffering. Maybe, this explains the way Michel wants to please Paullette, in her way to direct her pain. Their game of stealing crosses to complete a "big" animal cemetery could be seen as a morbid and macabre play by children spoiled by the war, transformed into monsters. However, we never question the innocence that remains in the main characters as children that they are: what's macabre is not what they do, it's the war that they are witnessing. They just channel the influence of war and its implicit dead without malice.

Whether this topic is analyzed as the simplicity of an ill influenced child's play, or through any psychological or mental connotations or meanings that could be applied, Forbidden Games is still, even today, a very original piece of cinema, that would hardly reach the same meaning if it's filmed today, without the context and recent history that influenced it back in 1952. Anyway, nowadays, any director that would try to make a movie like this would find himself being very cautious, and I think he would end up doing something too tragic or too simplistic. René Clement did the right thing with the material that was handed to him, and the story and its meaning is so powerful and well executed that can still be enjoyed today. And what seems to be an open ending, is useful to reminds us that in war, for children there are no happy ending stories.

Unlike what one might think about a movie made in 1952 and with children as the lead actors, acting is flawless. I said that we never question the innocence of the children, and that is due in great part to the looks and great work of Briggitte Fossey and Georges Poujoly, whom give great credibility to that premise.

Criterion Collection has made available this magnificent movie on DVD for the first time. As usual, it's a commendable work of restoration in many senses: in the sense of allowing more people –like me- to get to know this movie, and in the sense of giving it the best quality that the latest techniques allow.

The original French soundtrack is included, along with the English dubbed, both of them monophonic. Of course, English subtitles are included.

As Bonus materials we have alternate opening and ending, that would have given the movie a different context, less realistic, if you will. But I cannot help but think that they would have given the story some more contrasting connotations. Also, there are interviews with the director alone and him with Briggitte Fossey (both from the 60's) and an interview with the actress in 2.001.

Unlike some other Criterion releases, there is no additional track with an expert shedding some light on aspects that might be of interest, but a little printed essay is included in a booklet.

My only complaint here is that in IMDb this movie has a relative low qualification, and few votes. I hope that the availability of the new Criterion release will change things in the near future.

Flightplan (2005)

Easily the worst movie Jodie Foster has ever been in

[4/10 · 19 November 2005]

Once you know what the story is about, the movie becomes as predictable and cliché as can be. To get there, the first hour is pretty good, I'd say. But after wards, everything goes by the board. This movie should be like RED EYE: even though the latter's last part was cliché also, at least it was presented with a lot of excitement. In Flightplan, the climax is anti-climatic, and chances are that, by that time, you will be so bored that you won't give a damn. I didn't like either the way the movie tries to work in another level, in trying to portray the negative side of prejudice feelings against "arabs" in planes. The message is so heavy handed (it looks as it was intended for children to get it) that becomes ridiculous and out of place. The statement is valuable, and it deserves a little more respect than to leave it as a footnote in a so-so movie.

El 7º día (2004)

ELEFANTE ESPAÑOL (Spoilers)

[7/10 · 8 July 2005]

It's hard to believe the facts depicted in this movie. In general, the same topic that was the basis for "Elephant" (Gus Van Sant) is present here: A killing spree, inspired by revenge, and madness. In THE SEVENTH DAY though, the deed is carried out by grown ups, and somehow that is harder to believe. We are informed that ELEPHANT was inspired by the tragedy in Columbine. As irrational as it was, the explanation was there: a typical reaction of outcasts, not coping with a society that alienate them. A crisis of teenagers. But what about grown ups?. Harder to swallow.

So, you tend to believe that the premise in THE SEVENTH DAY is possible, but not probable. That is until you know that this movie was also inspired in actual events. There was a killing spree that took place in Puerto Hurraco, Spain, in 1990, carried out by two brothers, supposedly instigated by their sisters. In the real events, it seems that an old dispute over lands, and a failed love, originated everything. In Carlos Saura's movie, those facts are fictionalized, but there's something more, that somehow is implicit in the real causes: the perpetrators felt alienated, hated, cursed by the rest of the town. So their anger and hatred, and their madness, accumulated for years, could only find one way out.

I got to know that the movie was based in actual events after I watched it, and I couldn't believe it. It gave me a completely new perspective about what I thought was an improbable scenario. What do you know? A sign of the times indeed. Elephant and The Seventh Day depict violent and irrational acts that not long ago were supposed to be only in movies, but regretfully, are part of our reality.

There are some formal problems in this movie that make me grant it a 7/10 qualification, mainly some secondary story lines that have no great interest or are treated superficially, and a narration that doesn't work well overall. But still, the story is not as fictionalized as to make it ridiculously improbable, and once you know that the main facts are true, you can tell yourself: yes, this is how it could have happened.

Elephant (2003)

You'll be there

[8/10 · 14 August 2004]

Lives that get entwined. Like in the everyday world. A pending tragedy, that of course, we all know it's going to happen. We become witnesses of all that.

ELEPHANT takes us closer to what ‘it would have been like' if we had been given the chance of being in Columbine just minutes before the tragedy. Long minutes, enough to get, somehow, to know better some of those involved. I think that's the reason for the long shots. We are able to accompany some of the students as they walk through the campus. ‘We' are with ‘them' for a while, but long enough to care about what's going to happen to them. That's without the need of lots of information (which anyway is absent from every character), but just because of the fact that we don't see them as strangers anymore.

And then we have also long shots of the landscape, that appear during the movie from time to time. The sky, the clouds, the campus…scenes sometimes beautiful, most of the times peaceful, without a care, as a remainder of a peace that is destined to be broken at any moment.

ELEPHANT is not exactly about ‘what happened' in Columbine (it doesn't pretend to portray actual events or characters) but it's about the same tragedy.The movie is not perfect, and it demands a lot of patience from the viewer, not only because it's slow, but because it doesn't pretend to explain or justify anything. It just wants you to be in contact with the students (even the killers) and let you see what happened and leave you with your own conclusions. The reactions could be mixed. I admit some people may find this movie pointless, even exploitive. But it worked for me, and somehow it put a face to those that we, indifferently, had come to know only with the generic name of ‘victims', in an event that, sadly, really happened.

9 out of 10.

28 Days Later (2002)

Great movie...with the finale affected with bad judgement (SPOILERS)

[7/10 · 27 October 2003]

I thought I was watching something that would become a classic. And I think this movie will somehow survive the test of time, but it could have been better. The filmmakers had the means in their hands, to do so. It's right there, on the DVD. I'm talking about the alternative ending, and a deleted scene that is rather an alternative scene that precedes the ending and that should have stayed instead of that in the final version. Even so, there would have remain some of the things that for me spoiled the movie towards the end, and converted it in another cheap slasher. We pass from a good science fiction-suspense movie, to a copy of any film that you can remember in which a killer is bloodily disposing of everybody in sight. But that alternative pre-ending, and the alternative ending, would have saved the day. The first one, because, among other things, the breaking and massive attack of many zombies have a better effect that just one doing all the havoc. And the latter, because it's more according with the general mood of the movie, and would have left us guessing. (Note: I'm satisfied with the alternate ending, but stripped from the second alternate ending -or continuation- that also comes in the DVD, which is also guilty of being Hollywood-esque). My guess is that the filmmakers were afraid of leaving the movie with no happy ending, and that was their biggest mistake. It's a shame, because it's all there, in the DVD. You just wish you could put the pieces in order. I gave it 7/10, because for seven tenths of the way, it's very good.

The Man from Elysian Fields (2001)

8 out of 10 (Possible spoilers)

[8/10 · 4 April 2003]

We all know that you can feel lonely even though there are many people around you, that you can feel absence of love, even if you make love like crazy. So it's more important in life to establish a strong relationship, than to settle to a thousand superficial ones. This is the main message of the movie. As evident as that message may be, here it is delivered in superb style. The main difference is that Andy Garcia's character gets to confirm this truth because, out of obligation, he has to resort to work in the escort business, but in the end, he gets the chance to get back and get a hold on to what's really important. That may be a happy ending. But there's no happy ending for those who dedicated their life as simple pleasers, who could never find the right time or the right person to start a life, a family life. They are beyond redemption. That's why, Mick Jagger's character moved me more than Andy Garcia's, because you sense that he feels that his time is up, that there will be no future chance. That's another ending of the story, a sad one. In fact, this movie has more than 2 characters so well developed and interesting, that you have to recognize that it's no easy task to make a well balanced movie, like this one is. There is balance also in the tone of the movie: is funny in the right places, and that never affect the overall sense of drama. The acting is very good: Andy Garcia brings to life a loving husband, but troubled and tormented, Mick Jagger shows an elegant gentleman, but that's more a façade to his real feelings, which he expresses in the very poignant scene that he shares with Angelica Houston, in which he confesses his love only to face the hurting truth, and James Coburn is magnificent as the dying man so understanding that he lets other men satisfy his wife sexually, the only part that he can't provide. Maybe the main message that we can find in the end is that if you conduct your relationships without love, there's a price to pay. Either you endanger the people that you really love, or simply never get to know love at all. In any case, all is suffering. Come on, we all know this. It's just that we need a little reminder every now and then.

Road to Perdition (2002)

Slow, slow (POSSIBLE SPOILERS)

[6/10 · 14 March 2003]

A very slow movie. The acting is good, there could be no other alternative if you have Tom Hanks and Paul Newman. But their characters are so cold, that you rarely feel sympathy for them, What's more, you don't feel compel to hate them, or, in general, feel something for them. They seem so distant, so plain, uninteresting. Tired, would be a very accurate word. And then, the story has serious flaws. Are we going to believe that a man alone can bring chaos to a crime organization just by himself?. Was it so hard for a cold blooded maffia just to find the man and eliminate the problem? And over and over again, you can predict what's going to happen, until the very end. There are few surprises. In my concept, the story is not a complete waste, and the movie could have been more, if not for the slow pace, and lack of emotion, which, sorry to say, Mr. Mendes, seems to be the director's fault.

Agnes of God (1985)

A movie that makes you think...

[8/10 · 22 February 2003]

This is a superb film. It has great performances, specially from Meg Tilly, as the young nun who has fallen from grace. Neither she, the rest of the sisters, or the psychiatrist sent to investigate the case, can find a satisfactory explanation. What really impressed me about this movie is the way it confronts religious beliefs with skepticism, confrontation that, in turn, is transmitted to the viewer with all its questions. Is what happened a big lie, just the product of the imagination -or distorted faith- of a young woman?. Is it all God's plan?. If it is so, did he make a mistake?. Is it all a miracle gone wrong?

Signs (2002)

Some problems...

[5/10 · 9 September 2002]

I think the movie has some serious flaws that affect the final product all around. One thing that bothered me the most was the children. Malcom, the son, sometimes looks very smart, over average, but sometimes looks like a fool. In the end, I can't say if he's a genius or just an average little boy, because the script drags him from one extreme to the other. And Bo...well, if I have to define that character, is more like a crazy child, a mad little girl. But in fact, we don't know if she's crazy, or just her childish imagination, playing tricks on her. Her line, that has been part of the trailer, in which she speaks to her father, in serious tone: `There's a monster outside my room...can I have a glass of water?' represents the major problem with her. We don't know if she's joking, or if she's serious. In that line, she looks to be mad, or possessed, and that's the way she goes through the movie, without a real explanation or justification, just to fulfill the roll of another `sign'. Those are problems with the script, not the acting, which by the way I think is good. And the jokes...there are far too many jokes or "funny" situations in this movie, that not always work well or are funny enough. Sometimes they're just plain silly. In `The Sixth Sense', the most renowned movie of the `Signs' director, the jokes were adequate, in perfect balance with the rest of the movie. Here, they really endanger the seriousness of the movie and the topic it deals with... Which, in the end, is the question of faith. That's the most interesting point of the movie. It's not a movie about aliens, is about one person's faith, the lose and the recovery. But, as interesting as this may seem, there lies the final flaw of this movie. If I loose my faith, the message of this movie is that I would need the kind of happenings, coincidences, better yet, miracles, like the movie presents, to get my faith back again. And that, for me, is a very hopeless thought. And that would be the same for anybody...except if they believe in miracles, indeed. 6/10

Gosford Park (2001)

Good elements, but not for everyone

[5/10 · 12 July 2002]

Having watched this movie, I can't deny that there is something there. The settings, the good representation of the period, the performances, all of that worthy of a good movie. The problem is that is very slow. It's like watching a painting. You may appreciate the beauty, but not the reason or the intention. If this movie is supposed to work as a murder mystery drama, you'll become too numb to care. And in fact, the `mystery' is solved to us without no complications, so there is no real emotion or suspense in it. What really interested me (and that may be an indication that the appeal should be somewhere else than the `mystery' department) was seeing how good the relations of two worlds –masters and servants- are depicted, with their differences, their contradictions, but the unavoidable need to coexist. Two opposites worlds acting together. But not enough to recommend, except, of course, if you really can appreciate a good painting.

The Virgin Suicides (1999)

Mysteriously good

[9/10 · 30 December 2001]

I gave this one a 9. I really liked this movie because it does a good job of telling a little story. How good it does it is shown by the fact that, through the movie, you really feel what the boys feel about the Lisbon girls, I mean, you will be as drawn to their beauty, but mystified by their personalities as well, while, on the other hand, you also get to know the struggle of the girls, and be suffocated by their circumstances, just like they are. That, in a few words, along with a good story, it's excellent acting and direction, and I'm really happy that director Sofia Coppola is finding a true vocation. Great 70's sound track too!.

Planet of the Apes (2001)

What have you done, Mr. Burton?

[1/10 · 31 July 2001]

One of my friends I went to see the movie with, asked me, at the very beginning of this new version, if it had any resemblance to the original. He hadn't seen it. It was right at the time the starship of the movie's hero landed in the strange land. And I told him that yes, more or less, at this point, the movies were pretty much the same. Right there and then, similarities just vanished. The starship of this new version landed, and then the new version began to orbit around the old one, as tough admiring its excellency, but never getting into its atmosphere. The thing is that this new movie remind me of the old one over and over again, not because the latter is revived, but because its essence completely absent, and I missed it. Where the original gave us a science fiction story with RATIONAL twists of imagination, the new one develops as a succession of events that happen just because somebody said so. And when things happen just because they have to, the wonder of science fiction disappears, and we are left with a boring movie. And I heard about the `surprise' ending before I saw the movie. It is surprising, all right, but for the wrong reasons. Just when you think that nothing could be worse, well, it does. At this point, the new version just decides to give up the orbiting and finally heads for the space of oblivion. This ending leaves interrogations, not about the argument, but more like `What was Tim Burton trying to accomplish with that?'. I admire the fact that Tim Burton wanted to do something different, not just copying the original version. I mean, he dared to go against the odds and try and build something new inspired by a true classic. But as expected, he has only shown, once again, that you better don't mess with classics of that caliber.

Silent Tongue (1993)

Worth a try

[7/10 · 30 December 2000]

Well, I agree this movie works like those very obscured movies from Europe that leaves you with more questions than answers. But that's the appeal of it. I mean, it's very strange, but you have to understand that the story revolves within a surreal context that the creators want to transmit (just to mention, a talking corpse that you could interpret that works like the conscience of all involved). If you let yourself be immersed in that context, you'll enjoy this movie. It goes beyond that just a `Western' (don't be mislead but such a qualification). Many of the weird images that the movie shows will stick with you, and that, for me, it's a plus for a movie. Please, don't ever see it if you're only in the mood to see clear-straight message movies. Any kind of mood you're in though, you can only appreciate the good job done by all the actors, specially by River Phoenix.like a reminder that he was posed for better things than some of the movies that he made. If you're a River Phoenix fan (or simply a good actor's fan) you won't help by being moved by such a convincing performance, and think of what could have been. I give the movie a 7, and that in my book means a good movie that worths a try. You must be the judge, which means, you must see it.