Please enable javascript to view this site.

Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image

Reviews for DVD Releases

Jack Rico

By

2009/12/15 at 12:00am

G-Force

12.15.2009 | By |

Rating: 3.5

Rated: PG for some mild action and rude humor.
Release Date: 2009-07-24
Starring: Cormac Wibberley, Marianne Wibberley
Director(s):
Distributor:
Film Genre:
Country:USA
Official Website: http://disney.go.com/disneypictures/gforce/

 Go to our film page

I have to hand it Jerry Bruckheimer, is there anything this man can’t do? I never thought he could pull off a family animation film and he has without a flaw. ‘G-Force,’ Disney’s new animated 3-D movie experience is a wonderful and fun film that kids as well as parents can enjoy. My wife who is in her 40’s loved it and laughed intensely throughout the film, particularly, at Tracey Morgan’s guinea pig character ‘Blaster’.

The story is about a team of specially  trained secret agent guinea pigs that take on a mission for the US government. They’re dispatched to stop a diabolical billionaire, who plans to taking over the world with household appliances. A bit ridiculous, right? Yes, but it’s made for infantiles.

The voices here are top notch, except for Penélope Cruz who seemed uncomfortable voicing animation. I always have thought that is a talent very different from being in front of a camera and not everyone will equate their on-screen performances with their off-screen performances. Tracey Morgan was the highlight, but it was Nicolas Cage who surprised everyone by changing his voice for the mole character ‘Speckles’. The voice was unrecognizable. On a interesting note, at a press conference, Cage spoke about how his kids didn’t know he voiced the character, and the same goes for all his work, because he wants to shield them from his celebrity. Essentially, he implied that his children have no idea he’s a big time Hollywood superstar and will do everything from them ever knowing. Interesting, huh?

The 3-D experience was the best I’ve ever seen, and I’m not just saying that. Kids are so lucky that this film was made for them and not adults. The director Hoyt Yeatman, a visual effects guru, personally told me that he finished rendering the film just last week. Are you kidding me?! Not to get too technical, but the reason for such an onerous task is the attention to detail. According to Yeatman, the rendering took years with several hundred people working on it. If this isn’t a labour of love than I don’t know what is, but it shows and we’re all lucky for it.

Overall, I thought the film was funny, visually pleasing, and the pacing was never dull or incongruent. ‘G-Force’ is made for kids, but parents are going to be pleased applauding right into first place at the box office. Funny enough, I asked Jerry Bruckheimer if there was a sequel in the works and he said, “If we fill the seats with happy customers, we’ll do another one”. That’s not going to be a problem.

Alex Florez

By

2009/12/14 at 12:00am

Taking Woodstock

12.14.2009 | By |

Rating: 2.5

Rated: R for graphic nudity, some sexual content, drug use and language.
Release Date: 2009-08-28
Starring: James Schamus
Director(s):
Distributor:
Film Genre:
Country:USA
Official Website: http://www.filminfocus.com/focusfeatures/film/taking_woodstock

 Go to our film page

I’ve always felt that Taiwanese filmmaker Ang Lee can do anything.  A director as versatile as they come, Lee refuses to be pigeonholed to any one genre and be restricted by the technological challenges of a film.

Think about this: Lee has gone from the experimentation and liberalism that defined the 1970s (Ice Storm, 1997), to the adventures of a young woman in feudal China (Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, 2000), to the biggest and baddest hero of the Marvel universe (Hulk, 2003) to an Oscar award winning cowboy drama (Brokeback Mountain, 2005).  How’s that for range?

But fearlessly stepping out of your comfort zone has its risks. Lee has made his share of forgettable movies and with ‘Taking Woodstock’ he maybe adding to that list.

Based on the memoirs of Elliot Tiber, the comedy stars Demetri Martin as Elliot, who inadvertently played a role in making 1969’s Woodstock Music and Arts Festival into the famed happening it was.  When his parents are in danger of losing their dumpy motel in the Catskills, Elliot offers it up to the festival promoters to generate some much needed business. 

In the end however, the film is about the peculiar relationship with his overbearing parents.  The rock n’ roll, the drugs, the mud slides, and everything else we’ve come to know about Woodstock plays second fiddle and is ultimately nothing more than a backdrop, a setting for what is otherwise a family drama with very little at stake. 

Regrettably, something about the performances doesn’t seem as sincere as some of the others we’ve seen in other movies set in that time period.  But I won’t pin all the blame squarely on the actors.  Mr. Lee stumbles but doesn’t fall.

Jack Rico

By

2009/12/08 at 12:00am

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

12.8.2009 | By |

Rating: 3.0

Rated: PG for scary images, some violence, language and mild sensuality.
Release Date: 2009-07-15
Starring: Steve Kloves
Director(s):
Distributor:
Film Genre:
Country:USA
Official Website: http://harrypotter.warnerbros.es/

 Go to our film page

‘Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince’ is the sixth film in the J.K Rowling literary series that refers to a ‘prince’ who is revealed in the movie’s final scenes. In a very beautifully shot film by cinematographer Bruno Delbonnel    and director David Yates, this sixth entry  is long and not very entertaining, rather dull and slow paced. Its duration of more than 2 hours and 30 minutes felt eternal, never ending. Once my body begins to fidget in my seat, its an evident sign I am not interested in the story.

Yes, about the story… Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) is once again thrusted into the world of the dark lord Voldemort who has chosen Draco Malfoy (Tom Felton) to be his killer on Earth. It’s up to Dumbledore to take Harry under his wing and prepare him for what will be his ultimate battle. Betrayal, death and romance is what is established in this film.

Let it be known that the story adapted to the screen is perhaps the movie’s only flaw. The acting is charming and the characters are likable, especially Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint), who is at his best here. In what was once its best attribute, the special effects or CGI are beginning to wane. At times, Potter and his friends looked like cutouts from a cereal box. Let’s see what the 2 last installments will look like next year.

This sixth part is just a tease to the final chapter in what we all hope will be the best of the Harry Potter film series. I think it’s a bit too deep for kids, but adults still treat this series as family fare. Action is definitely anticipated in order to revive it from the blandness witnessed from this otherwise gratifying saga.

Jack Rico

By

2009/12/08 at 12:00am

Public Enemies

12.8.2009 | By |

Rating: 3.0

Rated: R for gangster violence and some language.
Release Date: 2009-07-01
Starring: Ronan Bennett, Ann Biderman
Director(s):
Distributor:
Film Genre:
Country:USA
Official Website: http://www.publicenemies.net/

 Go to our film page

“Public Enemies” is a romanticized account of the last 15 months of bank robber John Dillinger, America’s first “Public Enemy Number One”.  At 143 minutes, it feels as if one has seen it in real time.  Pic, which follows Dillinger from March 1933 to July 1934, when he was killed by G-Men in an ambush leaving Chicago’s Biograph Theater, depends largely on Johnny Depp’s star power as Dillinger.  Depp is compelling.  Also compelling are Christian Bale as G-Man Melvin Purvis who led the trackdown, and Marion Cotillard (“Piaf”) as Dillinger’s love interest, Billie Frechette.  Making FBI founder J. Edgar Hoover out to be a self-serving careerist is easy, but at least Billy Cudrup attacks the caricature with gusto.  His advice to Purvis to follow Italian Fascists and “take the white gloves off” is priceless.  Diana Krall does a superb but uncredited “Bye, Bye, Blackbird” in the scene where Dillinger and Frechette meet.
 
There is a problem in retelling history on screen.  Most already know the ending. Dillinger’s story has been retold in no fewer than five theatrical and TV movies since 1945.  In the interest of drama, helmer Michael Mann (who also gets screenwriting credit) and writers Ronan Bennett and Ann Bidermann take liberties with facts and timeline.  The doomed romance between Dillinger and Frechette gets as much screen time as the robberies and gunfights – which seem to use as much ammo as the Bosnian war.
 
Pic hinges on moments brought to life by key players – mostly Depp and Cotillard. Their scenes together fairly radiate love.  Depp delivers a finely nuanced Dillinger (full of loyalty, bravado, charm, even compassion) who is ultimately very sympathetic… for a killer.  This is in keeping with the era wherein Dillinger was revered as a sort of Robin Hood by many.  Cotillard’s Frechette takes a beating for him under interrogation, the halting of which is a redeeming moment for Purvis.  There is a suggestion that the G-Men had help in ambushing Dillinger from Frank Nitti’s (Bill Camp) gang.  John Ortiz as Phil D’Andrea, Nitti’s chief bookie provides a clue:  The gambling racket, he explains to Dillinger, rakes in more cash in one day than Dillinger stole in his most lucrative bank job.  Having Dillinger around can draw attention from the law.  Ultimately Dillinger, hiding in plain sight, is ratted out by madam Anna Patzky (Emilie de Ravin) in an effort to stave off deportation to her native Romania, an act which pic ties to Nitti’s gang.
 
Tech credits are excellent except for sound recording.  Several key lines of dialogue are inaudible.  The heavy Midwestern accents don’t help.  Period costumes, settings, and props do the trick but for the automobiles.  It is doubtful that G-Men drove Pierce Arrows.  The make was more likely to be found in the White House garage.
 
It would be nice to give filmmakers credit for making Dillinger’s final movie at the Biograph “Manhattan Melodrama,” a gangster flick in which Clark Gable bravely faces execution, but this is one instance where they stuck to facts.
 
“Public Enemies,” based on the book by Bryan Burrough (“Public Enemies: America’s Greatest Crime Wave and the Birth of the FBI, 1933-34”) is rated “R” largely for violence.  There is some sexual content and a bit of innuendo.

Jack Rico

By

2009/12/01 at 12:00am

Terminator Salvation

12.1.2009 | By |

Rating: 3.0

Rated: PG-13 for intense sequences of sci-fi violence and action, and language.
Release Date: 2009-05-21
Starring: Paul Haggis, Shawn Ryan, Jonathan Nolan
Director(s):
Distributor:
Film Genre:
Country:UK, Germany, USA
Official Website: www.terminatorsalvation.com

 Go to our film page

Terminator: Salvation does not seem like a Terminator movie, at least when compared to what we have experienced from filmmakers James Cameron (The Terminator, Terminator 2: Judgment Day) and Jonathan Mostow (Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines). This fourth Terminator is a different breed with a divergent feel, almost as if director McG (née Joseph McGinty Nichol) had decided to fuse Cormac McCarthy’s The Road with Transformers. Gone (at least mostly) are the time travel paradoxes and the concept of a single, indestructible villain. In their place is a futuristic war movie. With its idea of an insurgency striking against an implacable evil empire, there’s more than a little Star Wars in Terminator: Savlation, although not even at its Empire Strikes Back bleakest was Lucas’ series this dark.

 

For the first occasion in four movies, Terminator: Salvation does not move back and forth in time. Excepting a prologue in 2003, it stays rooted in 2018. This is a period not explored in previous installments of the cinematic series. Of course, after all of the muddying of the past that transpired in the second and third Terminator films, it’s no longer clear how much of the “established” future remains valid. As in Star Trek, we’re dealing with an alternate universe, so all bets are off. Will John Connor really become the legendary leader of a human resistance that overcomes the machines (as indicated in The Terminator)? Will he be killed by a T-800 that is subsequently re-programmed by his wife (as established in T3)? One of the problems with introducing time travel is that standard rules no longer apply. Filmmakers can do anything they want.

 

The screenplay for Terminator: Salvation went through a significant number of re-writes. It is credited to John Brancato & Michael Ferris, but was polished by the likes of Jonathan Nolan (who buffed it after Christian Bale came on board) and Paul Haggis. The result shows the effects of many fingerprints (too many subplots with too few payoffs), but it is more ambitious than the storyline for T3, which followed the basic “Cameron formula” established in the first two entries. Unfortunately, despite several rousing action sequences (involving cars, trucks, motorcycles, giant Transformers-like robots, and flying hunter-killers), the first two-thirds of Terminator: Salvation are rambling and disjointed. The final 30 minutes (or so) compensate for the deficiencies of what comes before. The climax is great – non-stop, kick-ass action and a surprise or two.

 

In 2018, John Connor (Christian Bale) is not yet the worldwide head of the human resistance. He is, however, one of many local leaders and the voice of the resistance on the radio. His superiors, led by the uncompromising General Ashdown (Michael Ironside), believe they have created a weapon that can shut down the machines if it’s brought to bear at a close enough range. Connor volunteers to test it. While doing this, he has a secondary objective: locate a younger version of his father, Kyle Reese (Anton Yelchin), who has been targeted by the machines for termination. Reese is skulking around the ruins of Los Angeles when he joins forces with a mysterious stranger named Marcus Wright (Sam Worthington), who is headed for San Francisco, the heart of the machine empire. Reese’s partnership with Marcus doesn’t last long – the machines capture the teenager, leaving Marcus with the job of finding John Connor to mount a rescue operation.

 

The weakness of the film results from the lack of a central villain. Random T-600 Terminators pop up from time-to-time, only to be dispatched rather quickly (although not necessarily easily – they are tough to destroy). There is conflict between Connor and Marcus, but neither is a bad guy; in fact, their goals align. Action movies need strong antagonists. The engine that drove the three previous Terminator movies was the threat represented by the time-traveling killers. With that missing, Terminator: Salvation has trouble locking onto a target. When does it snap into focus? When the T-800 makes its first, dramatic appearance. Suddenly, there’s a recognizable villain and a clear goal. All is right with the world.

 

McG, knowing his audience and being a fan, tosses out Easter Eggs. Composer Danny Elfman employs Brad Fiedel’s signature score at several key points. The first words uttered by Kyle Reese are: “Come with me if you want to live.” Later, Connor deadpans, “I’ll be back.” Linda Hamilton provides vocal work for when her son listens to the taped journals she recorded for him back in the 1980s. And Arnold Schwarzenegger is back, after a fashion, in the role that catapulted him to the action megastar stratosphere. When his character, who exists here as the result of digital mapping and effective editing, stepped onto the screen, the audience erupted. There’s no doubt this is the high point of Terminator: Salvation. It argues that if Schwarzenegger wants to return to the franchise after he leaves political office, the fans will welcome him back. In fact, one could argue that the actor’s absence is a hole McG can’t plug. The action sequences are pulse-pounding, the special effects are top-notch, and the post-apocalyptic atmosphere is palpable, but we’re kept waiting until the end for the real Terminator to show up.

 

Bale is suitably intense as Connor. This is a solid portrait of obsession and Bale dominates the screen. He’s more of a force here than in his Batman movies, but that’s to be expected since there’s no cowl and cape involved. Sam Worthington, a relatively new face to North American audiences, is an effective foil for Bale, although his American accent could use a little work. Perhaps the biggest surprise is Anton Yelchin. Although I wasn’t impressed by Yelchin’s version of Chekov in Star Trek, he nails Kyle Reese. It’s as if someone de-aged Michael Biehn 35 years and put him to work. Bryce Dallas Howard takes over for Claire Danes as Connor’s love interest, although she has little more to do than stand in the background holding her pregnant belly. Moon Bloodgood, as one of Connor’s underlings, has the “action female” role, although she’s no Linda Hamilton when it comes to physicality.

 

By radically destaturating color, sometimes to the point where scenes are almost black-and-white, McG develops a strong post-apocalyptic aesthetic. It’s a lot like the (recent) TV series Battlestar Galactica, where everything was dark and grimy, and bright colors rarely made appearances. One could argue that McG overdoes it a little, but he’s clearly not averse to traveling down potentially unappealing roads. The faux note of hope injected at the film’s end does little to dispel the fact that, if the humans win the war, the price is going to be astronomical.

 

Perhaps the ultimate problem with making more Terminator movies is that the entire story was told by Cameron in the first two movies and the subsequent sequels, including this one, have been struggling to explore corners where the time travel contrivance allows for flexibility and interpretation. Terminator: Salvation, like its immediate predecessor, is enjoyable and contains some top-notch action sequences, but it seems extraneous. This is everything a good summer movie should be and, while it does not dishonor the Cameron chapters of the saga, neither does it prove to be an indispensable adjunct to them.

Jack Rico

By

2009/12/01 at 12:00am

Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian

12.1.2009 | By |

Rating: 2.5

Rated: PG for mild action and brief language.
Release Date: 2009-05-22
Starring: Robert Ben Garant & Thomas Lennon
Director(s):
Distributor:
Film Genre:
Country:USA, Canada
Official Website: http://www.nightatthemuseummovie.com/

 Go to our film page

 

Ben Stiller’s new sequel ‘Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian’ is a perfect example of a motion picture that exists exclusively because its predecessor made a lot of money. And, like most movies that fit into that category, the filmmakers have been careful not to change the formula. The hope is that those who enjoyed the first installment will appreciate the sequel. I almost fell asleep. Nevertheless, this film is for families, but more particularly, the kids.

The plot is full of imagination – security guard Larry Daley infiltrates the Smithsonian Institute in order to rescue small men, Jedediah and Octavius, who have been shipped to the museum by mistake –  but it is so childish that you slowly become annoyed at the story, the characters and the movie as a whole.

Ben Stiller put forth some effort in the first Night at the Museum; here he’s just going through the motions, like almost everyone else. The exception is Amy Adams, who believes she’s in a better movie than the one she actually is participating in.

I suppose kids will enjoy Night at the Museum 2; it’s pitched at those with approximately a first-grade education, and they will likely appreciate its limited roster of laudable qualities. Adults have the choice of either admiring the scenery or taking a nap. There’s not much else worth doing.

Jack Rico

By

2009/11/24 at 12:00am

Angels & Demons

11.24.2009 | By |

Rating: 2.5

Rated: PG-13 for sequences of violence, disturbing images and thematic material.
Release Date: 2009-05-15
Starring: Akiva Goldsman
Director(s):
Distributor:
Film Genre:
Country:USA
Official Website: http://www.sonypictures.com.mx/Sony/HotSites/Mx/angelesydemonios/

 Go to our film page

The Da Vinci Code was such good, clever cinematic entertainment, that expectations for ‘Angels & Demons’ to either match or exceed its success were crucial. Regrettably, neither came true. The contrivances and absurd coincidences of the clues are so predictable and telegraphed that it zapped all the fun out of the film. This new effort by Ron Howard and Tom Hanks falls short of their talents and abilities. Hanks not only phoned in his performance, it looked like he created a cartoon version of his character Robert Langdon.

‘Angels & Demons,’ published in 2000 by author Dan Brown, sees Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) summoned to a Swiss research facility to analyze a cryptic symbol seared in the chest of a murdered physicist. What he discovers is a deadly vendetta against the Catholic Church by a centuries-old underground organization called the Illuminati to turn half of Rome into a wasteland.

Here’s the good and the bad with ‘Angels & Demons’: Entertainment vs. Implausibility.

Let me explain…the bad is that this film is ‘The Da Vinci Code’ on steroids, it’s so over-the-top. The clues are never ending and they are too easy to create any suspense. Also the acting was, for some reason or other, below par. Perhaps the cast’s uninspired efforts were a byproduct of shooting in a studio lot as opposed to Vatican City, which did not give any clearance to film on its premises. No wonder you saw so much CGI this time around. Finally, the ending takes a turn to the absurd, fully confirming that corporate studio heads prevailed by creating a film for the ‘everyday joe’ and not the literary fans of the book.

The good can be described in the beautiful and elegant camerawork of cinematographer Salvatore Totino, and a captivating story that tells of the mysteries inside the holy Vatican City. There are many scenes that are very entertaining to watch and delight in.

Still, the bad outweighs the good and the preposterous plot outweighs everything. If you’re a fan of the book you’ll be entertained but disappointed, and if you’re not, the same thing.

Jack Rico

By

2009/11/23 at 12:00am

Funny People

11.23.2009 | By |

Rating: 2.0

Rated: R for language and crude sexual humor throughout, and some sexuality.
Release Date: 2009-07-31
Starring: Judd Apatow
Director(s):
Distributor:
Film Genre:
Country:USA
Official Website: http://www.funnypeoplemovie.com/

 Go to our film page

‘Funny People’ does not live up to the Apatow hype. It never even gets close to what his two previous fantastic films achieved in the genre of comedy. Much of its demise is attributed to its story which is told in a choppy and uneven manner. There’s some good material here, but the movie rambles more than the human attention span can tolerate.

The premise is succint. It’s about a famous comedian (Adam Sandler) who has a near-death experience and then goes through a self exploration phase which will make him see the world in a whole different light. Seth Rogen, Leslie Mann, Jonah Hill and newcomer Aubrey Plaza, of Puerto Rican decent, also star.

I have to admit, by looking at the trailer, I thought ‘Funny People’ was going to be a critically acclaimed film worthy of an Oscar, if it was executed correctly. Regrettably, it never quenched my personal expectations. Is it all bad? Absolutely not. There are some very funny moments, but they are dispersed all over the story like broken glass. It’s refreshing to see Apatow branching out and trying something off the beaten path but, in this case, his sense of ambition may have caused him to lose his way. It’s a brave move that is partially undone by pacing problems and a lack of focus. ‘Funny People’ clocks in at nearly 2 1/2 hours, and that’s too long for any comedy.

 

Most of you might not know of Puerto Rican comedian Aubrey Plaza, but you will after this movie. In her short and underdeveloped role, Aubrey’s shy, witty demeanor made her on-screen presence a memorable one.

If you’re a fan of Adam Sandler and Judd Apatow’s sexually charged joke marathons, there is some of it here for you to enjoy, but overall, the film is no doubt a drama that might turn off hardcore loyalists.

Mike Pierce

By

2009/11/23 at 12:00am

Four Christmases

11.23.2009 | By |

Rating: 3.0

Rated: PG-13 for some sexual humor and language.
Release Date: 2008-11-26
Starring: Matt Allen, Caleb Wilson
Director(s):
Distributor:
Film Genre:
Country:USA
Official Website: http://www.fourchristmasesmovie.com/

 Go to our film page

It’s still the #1 movie at the box office. What movie am I talking about you may ask?? Four Christmases, starring Vince Vaughn and “Sexy Cute” Reese Witherspoon. It has a great cast such as Robert Duvall, Sissy Spacek, John Voight, Tim McGraw, Jon Favreau, and more!

The movie starts off with a couple who are totally in love, but soon find out  that they REALLY don’t KNOW each other. The Christmas holidays roll around…instead of hanging with their family, they decide to lie…once again…to plan a trip to Fiji…but the weather messes everything up so they are forced to visit their 4 seperate families…and these families are nuts.

If you happen to “family hop” during the holidays – you’ll definately can relate. (lol)

You sure laugh a lot and during these hard times – we all could use it.

Jack Rico

By

2009/11/20 at 12:00am

The Limits of Control

11.20.2009 | By |

Rating: 1.5

Rated: R for graphic nudity and some language.
Release Date: 2009-05-01
Starring: Jim Jarmusch
Director(s):
Distributor:
Film Genre:
Country:Spain
Official Website: http://www.thelimitsofcontrol.com/

 Go to our film page

The quirky Ohio film director, Jim Jarmusch, known for his abstract, philosophical and excessively drawn out scenes, uses Spain as a beautiful backdrop in his new crime thriller ‘The Limits of Control’. The movie could be summed up as a deliberate banal and phlegmatic effort. There is barely any dialogue to push the story and the ending offers very little interest or excitement.

The minimal storyline concerns an unnamed assassin (Issach De Bankolé) who spends most of the film moving from location to location throughout Spain, collecting the information and equipment he requires to complete his latest assignment, the assassination of an American corporate bigwig (Bill Murray). He meets most of his contacts in cafes, although one woman (Paz de la Huerta) spends a few days nude with him in various hotel rooms. The film is based on a William S. Burroughs essay, a Rimbaud poem and vintage crime films, particularly John Boorman’s 1967 classic “Point Blank.”

It’s obvious after the first half of the film that Jarmusch intends to create a parable between the clashing of bohemianism and capitalism meant to be viewed as how corporate america has suppressed the highly intellectual culturati. The scant dialogue supports this theme by touching upon subjects as art, music, literature, cinema, science, sex, and hallucinations. Regrettably, the words are vapid and random as is the essence of the film. The resulting riddle won’t do anything to broaden the filmmaker’s loyal fan base as his many followers will be left feeling as alienated as his central character.

Noteworthy is Jarmusch’s new exploration of the Spanish and Hispanic culture. The first words uttered in the film are “Usted no habla español, verdad?” (You don’t speak Spanish, correct?) which is a phrase that is consistently used by the several diverse and bizarre characters as an introductory code when they all initially meet our protagonist.  There are also some droll scenes that are mostly spoken in Spanish, as well as a long Flamenco sequence where a Spanish song is highlighted. The Hispanic theme also permeates into the casting choices with the hiring of acclaimed Mexican actor Gael Garcia Bernal and Spanish American actress Paz de la Huerta. Bernal’s performance is not a stretch of his acting abilities, but his showing is merely a decision to work with one of his favorite directors.

‘The Limits of Control’ is tedious, excessively sober and vastly abstract for the common moviegoer. An offense that needs to stopped and that perhaps never will.

Select a Page