Latino movie reviews and quick takes on new releases

Ted Faraone

By

2008/10/02 at 12:00am

Blindness (Movie Review)

10.2.2008 | By |

Rated: R for violence including sexual assaults, language and sexuality/nudity.
Release Date: 2008-10-03
Starring: Don McKellar
Director(s):
Distributor:
Film Genre:
Country: USA
Official Website: http://blindness-themovie.com/

Go to our film page

Blindness

Anyone who has problems with cinematic squalor should avoid “Bilndnessâ€, helmer Fernando Meirelles vehicle for Julianne Moore released via Miramax.  Much of it is set in a detention center for the newly blind, a facility lacking doctors, nurses, and even janitors.  After what appears to be a couple of months, judging by Moore’s roots, it — and the cast – get pretty filthy.
 
An unexplained epidemic of blindness overcomes a deliberately unidentified cosmopolitan city.  Authorities quarantine the blind, surrounding them with trigger-happy guards.  Among the first to suffer blindness are an eye-doctor (Mark Ruffalo) and a wealthy Japanese (Yusuke Iseya).  When police arrive to arrest the eye-doctor, his wife (Julianne Moore), who can see, feigns blindness and insists on joining him in detention.  There follows a sort of Milgram Experiment in human depravity among the detainees.  Hierarchies develop.  Villains are totally villainous.  Good guys, including the characters played by Ruffalo and Moore, are at turns fearful, courageous, smart, stupid, hopeful, hopeless, resentful, and angry.  Meanwhile, the outside world collapses as blindness spreads.  We know this because an old man with an eye patch (Danny Glover) has smuggled in a radio.
 
The bad guys commandeer the food, holding it for ransom.  Once the good guys run out of valuables, the bad guys demand their women.  Moore’s character (nobody has a name) leads a revolt in a sort of perverted Lysistrata without the jokes – foreshadowed by repeated shots of a sharp scissors.
 
Meirelles directs with a sort of moral neutrality. The asylum of the blind, like much of the rest of the picture, is shot with multiple cameras to good effect. One feels more like a voyeur than part of a theater audience.  Moore gets kudos for portraying a sighted person who has to act blind to fool her captors.
 
In the final reels the captives escape detention only to find the entire city, if not the world, has succumbed to blindness.  The electricity failed, shops are looted, trains no longer run, and hungry dogs eat the dead.  Yet amid a sudden rainstorm a sort of community develops as blind people, weeks without clean water or sanitary services strip and wash in nature’s shower.  It presages an ambivalent conclusion, almost holding the mirror up to the audience.
 
“Blindness,†an adaptation of Portuguese author José Saramago’s novel by Don McKellar (who also plays a blinded thief) is not easy to watch.  Because most trappings – backstory, names, a recognizable setting, an explanation for the epidemic – in other words most of the context – are stripped away – attention is focused on a compelling if unpleasant story, which feels shorter its 120 minute length.
 
Tech credits are excellent.  Lensing by César Charlone and editing by Daniel Rezende shine.  Special mention goes to production designers Matthew Davies and Tulé Peak.  Pic is rated R due to nudity (the blind can’t see each other naked), sex, and violence.

Ted Faraone

By

2008/09/22 at 12:00am

Nights in Rodanthe (Movie Review)

09.22.2008 | By |

Rated: PG-13 for some sensuality.
Release Date: 2008-09-26
Starring: Ann Peacock, John Romano, Nicholas Sparks (novela)
Director(s):
Distributor:
Film Genre:
Country: USA, Australia
Official Website: http://nightsinrodanthe.warnerbros.com/

Go to our film page

Nights in Rodanthe

“Nights in Rodanthe†could have been a world class chick flick on the order of “Now Voyager.â€Â  It has everything going for it:  Beautiful photography, a tear-jerker plot, and a great cast.  Instead it barely makes the “Lifetime Original Movie†cut.  The adaptation of Nicholas Sparks’ eponymous novel (by Ann Peacock and John Romano) squeezes every moment of angst and despair until the audience cries “uncle.â€
 
Diane Lane as Adrienne Willis, mother of two, separating from womanizing Jack (Chris Meloni), delivers a nuanced performance that aspires to Vanessa Redgrave’s territory.  Richard Gere as middle-aged Dr. Paul Flanner neatly captures the emotional disconnection, impatience, and intellectual arrogance of many successful careerists.  Viola Davis (Jean) as Adrienne’s sexy best friend steals her every scene.  Lensing by Affonso Beato is top notch, and a hurricane, which marks pic’s turning point, is so real that one wants to run for higher ground.
 
A coincidence puts Adrienne and Paul together as sole residents of a beachfront inn on the island of Rodanthe on the outer banks of North Carolina.  Adrienne gave up a promising career as an artist to marry Jack.  Paul abandoned surgery after losing a patient on the table.  He’s at the inn because of a summons to the island from the dead patient’s husband (Ted Manson).  She’s there because she promised to spell Jean, who is off to Miami.  His family has fallen apart.  Hers is in danger of doing so.  The pair fall for each other.  Paul heads to South America to re-connect with his son, a physician, who runs a clinic for the poor – after a contrived emotional showdown with Adrienne over his handling of the widower.
 
The rest of the story is told through love letters and another contrived scene:  Paul misses a dinner date with Adrienne on his return from South America.  The next morning she answers her door to find Paul’s son (James Franco) with a box of his dad’s belongings.  Franco’s voiceover of sepia tinted scenes of dad working with him in the mountain clinic (culminating in a fatal mudslide) could have ended the flick.  Instead, it goes on for another agonizing reel, in which Adrienne’s despair is milked dry.  Blame helmer George C. Wolfe and editor Brian A. Kates.  Not even Lane can lift the platitudinous dénouement off the ground.  All main characters are redeemed, but at what a cost!  And it is borne by the audience.
 
But wait!  There’s more!  A final scene appears to have been tacked on in the interest of a happy ending.  It is set up by a couple of script references to wild horses on Rodanthe.  They appear not a moment too soon.
 
The 97 minute Warner Bros. release carries a PG-13 rating due to some sexual content.

Mack Chico

By

2008/09/19 at 12:00am

Ghost Town (Movie Review)

09.19.2008 | By |

Rated: PG-13 for for some strong language, sexual humor and drug references.
Release Date: 2008-09-19
Starring: David Koepp, John Kamps
Director(s):
Distributor:
Film Genre:
Country: USA
Official Website: http://www.ghosttownmovie.com/

Go to our film page

Ghost Town

Ghost Town is one of those romantic comedies that never quite clicks. At times, its humor is effective, provoking chuckles and laughs. At other times, the comedy feels forced and awkward. The romantic element is equally hit-and-miss. The chemistry that emerges between the leads during the film’s second half is largely absent from the first 45 minutes. And the premise, rich with promise and pregnant with possibilities, is reduced to a plot device that allows Ghost Town to turn into a low-rent, modern-day version of A Christmas Carol.

The movie’s opening scene is a winner, with philanderer Frank Herlihy (Greg Kinnear) having a phone conversation with his wife, Gwen (Téa Leoni), who has just discovered he’s having an affair. Frank wraps up the call just as the curtain falls on his time on Earth. Director David Koepp orchestrates his end brilliantly, with a sleight-of-hand that is both funny and surprising. However, instead of making his way to the next life, Frank finds himself stuck in Manhattan as a ghost. He can see and hear everything, but is invisible and unable to do more than observe. Enter Bertram Pincus, D.D.S. (Ricky Gervais), the most unpleasant dentist in the city.

Ghost Town’s comedy is maddeningly inconsistent. Masterful sequences such as the opening one in which Frank meets his demise are interspersed with episodes that not only don’t work on a comedic level, but run on for too long. Consider, for example, an interchange between Bertram and his doctor (played by Kristen Wiig) in which both continuously interrupt each other. Like a bad, unfunny segment of Saturday Night Live, this drags on seemingly without end, becoming increasingly frustrating with every new interruption. Comedy is supposed to be funny, not annoying.

Those who take a glass half-full approach to Ghost Town will probably enjoy it the most. There is romance, there is comedy, and there is a feel-good ending. For some, those things will be enough, and the fact that they’re not as well developed or effectively nurtured as they might be will not be a significant detraction. Ultimately, however, the movie cries out for an offbeat approach such as the one Marc Forster utilized in Stranger than Fiction. Ghost Town’s unwillingness to escape from a safe orbit keeps the movie trapped in mediocrity.

Mack Chico

By

2008/09/17 at 12:00am

Appaloosa (Movie Review)

09.17.2008 | By |

Appaloosa, based on the book by Bostonian writer Robert B. Parker, is not your Clint Eastwood western. It is unconventional, caustic, and dare I say, peculiar. Ed Harris, who directed, co-wrote and stars in the film missed an opportunity at creating an Oscar worthy film, if only he would have altered the novel’s story a bit.

The plot is about ruthless rancher, Bragg (Jeremy Irons), and his gang who shoot up the town of Appaloosa whenever they get the urge.  When three of the hired hands kill a man and rape his wife, the local marshal goes out to Bragg’s ranch and gets gunned down in cold blood. Virgil Cole (Ed Harris) and Everett Hitch (Viggo Mortensen) are the exact problem solvers the town needs since they are “policemen” who do the dirty work no one else will do. The city aldermen hire them to bring Bragg to heel. Cole agrees to the job, and so the war begins. Somewhere along the way Cole falls in love with a harlot piano player (Renée Zellwegger) and tensions begin to flare amongst the men.

Overall, Appaloosa is not a bad movie, but just like the book, it was not laid out coherently. There are moments when you do not understand the character’s decision making, thus, making you question the entertainment value.

Nevertheless, the film’s best trait is the back and forth dialogue between Mortensen and Harris, and in some instances, Irons. The acting is sincerely superb, with the exception of Ms. Zellwegger, who just like in Clooney’s ‘Leatherheads’, brings the movie to a low. In addition, she has not been looking her best these days and is evident in close ups. I wonder if Harris has something against her, because there were a bevy of those. Coincidently, one of Parker’s most used (debatably over-used) themes is that of a good man loving a bad, feeble woman, one that Harris obviously agrees with. While juggling that theme with the war against Bragg, something does get lost. A little disinterest kicks in, as well as wariness.

Thankfully, Viggo’s presence, appearance and demeanor make up for the brief incongruous periods. To be frank, if the film dealt more with Hitch than Cole we could be talking about an Oscar candidate for best picture and actor for Mortensen. If only Harris would have adapted the novel rather than be so faithful to the book.

Mack Chico

By

2008/09/10 at 12:00am

The Women (Movie Review)

09.10.2008 | By |

Rated: PG-13 for sex-related material, language, some drug use and brief smoking.
Release Date: 2008-09-12
Starring: Diane English, Clare Boothe Luce (obra)
Director(s):
Distributor:
Film Genre:
Country: USA
Official Website: http://www.thewomenthemovie.com/

Go to our film page

The Women

The new film ‘The Women’, a remake of George Cukor’s 1939 film starring Joan Crawford, is an aspirational, entertaining, yet predictable dramedy about a group of powerful women who deal with life’s issues, particularly the male kind. Sound familiar? No, not a complete rip-off from Sex and the City, but enough parallels to make it eerily similar.

 

It’s set in New York City’s modern whirl of fashion and publishing. The story circles around Mary Haines (Meg Ryan), a clothing designer who has it all – except a faithful husband. Her best friend, Sylvie Fowler (Annette Bening), a high powered editor of a magazine, accidentally finds out from a manicurist that a sultry ‘spritzer girl’ (Eva Mendes) at Saks Fifth Avenue perfume counter is sleeping with Mary’s husband. The rest of the girlfriends rally behind her until their own friendships are tested to the breaking point.

 

The all-star cast of, Eva Mendes, Meg Ryan, Annette Bening, Candace Bergen, Bette Midler, Jada Pinkett Smith, Debi Mazar, Carrie Fisher and Debra Messing, gives the audience a chance to see a balance between good acting and entertainment. The film is basically a comeback vehicle for Meg Ryan whose classic romantic comedies of the past are now just classic nostalgia fare and a reminder of the current state of the neglected genre. She has not wanted to be stereotyped as the cute girl who can only play romantic roles, but one who can portray all types of characters. As of late, she has been in the thriller business. Unfortunately for her, the risk-taking has not paid off. ‘The Women’ will definitely get her back in the lips of directors and producers as it highlights her acting strengths and her charm.

 

Outside of the nonexistent casting of a man, and feeble acting by Ms. Mendes, there isn’t much to say negatively of the film. The rest of the cast contributes magnificently to their parts, Some standouts are Candace Bergen as Meg’s mother and Cloris Leachman as the high class housekeeper.

 

What I liked from this film is that even though it is pure estrogen entertainment, it manages to capture what women go through at the hands of callous and insensitive men with a twist of justice served. Most of us have either been a part of that of have heard of someone who has. A word to all women, us men can also identify with the chick flick sensibilities.

 

Alex Florez

By

2008/08/28 at 12:00am

Traitor (Movie Review)

08.28.2008 | By |

Rated: PG-13 for intense violent sequences, thematic material and brief language.
Release Date: 2008-08-27
Starring: Jeffrey Nachmanoff,
Director(s):
Distributor:
Film Genre:
Country: USA
Official Website: http://traitor-themovie.com/

Go to our film page

Traitor

We know someone is either betraying a friend, a country or a principle – that we obviously get from the title. But who and why is something that’s buried deep enough in the film to keep us guessing and wondering how clever the filmmakers can actually get with this.

In some ways, ‘Traitor’ is the classic espionage film that mixes and matches modern day headlines to construct a plot where Americans continue fighting terrorism all across the world.  To its credit however, it manages to personalize the story of its protagonist to a certain degree, stripping the film of the politically sententious rhetoric that so often make these films come across as propaganda.

Deceptively, Don Cheadle (Hotel Rwanda, Crash) plays Samir Horn, a former U.S. military operative who is linked to illicit activities in the middle east.  When an FBI agent (Guy Pearce) heads the investigation, he begins to track Horn’s every move slowly uncovering the truth behind the massive conspiracy he’s been a part of.

Ultimately, the film is about a man trying to do the right thing for the right reasons, or his own convictions, but also about how wrong things can go in the process.  In Traitor, that man just happens to be a Muslim American who finds himself in the middle of the conflict with hard decisions to make.  However dangerously close the films comes to being about religious extremism and how far people will go for what they believe in, it is very careful with its commentary on the matter. 

With a story that’s so rooted in politics and religion, the filmmakers actually manage to say very little about either subject. Both a good and a bad thing depending on how you look at it.  Its moral ambiguity may frustrate some but alleviate others just tuning in to watch bombs being disarmed at the last possible second.

The film’s strong performances (save for Jeff Daniels as the veteran CIA contractor with a personal agenda) almost do the impossible: make it cliché-proof.  Unfortunately, it is what it is: another spy thriller mirroring the ever present war on terror.

 

Alex Florez

By

2008/08/21 at 12:00am

Death Race (Movie Review)

08.21.2008 | By |

Rated: R for strong violence and language.
Release Date: 2008-08-22
Starring: Paul W.S. Anderson
Director(s):
Distributor:
Film Genre:
Country: USA
Official Website: http://www.deathracemovie.net/index.php

Go to our film page

Death Race

A remake of Roger Corman’s 1975 cult action film starring David Carradine and Sylvester Stallone, Death Race pumps even more adrenaline and senseless gore into a film that seems more like a video game adaptation than a ‘B’ movie remake.

Set in the not so distant future, Death Race tells the story of Jensen Ames (Jason Statham), a former speedway champion turned blue collar worker who is framed for a gruesome murder.  He soon realizes however, it’s all been part of a plot to coerce him into participating in the world’s most popular televised sport: a car race set in a maximum security prison in which the inmates must brutalize and kill one another in order to win. If they are lucky to finish the race alive and in first place, then they’ll also gain their freedom.

Despite all the action, the film attempts to make its subtle satirical jabs at our culture – the one that can’t enough reality television, extreme fighting competition, and violent video game titles.  One in particular, ‘Twisted Metal’ certainly comes to mind as a game which essentially shares the same premise as the movie.  But like those video games, Death Race’s plot is thin and lacking the emotion necessary to really push a story forward.  In this film, its all about outfitting cars with weapons you pick up along the way and blowing up your competitors off the tracks.

For Statham, its a no brainer role, as he slowly turns into the Jean-Claude Van Damme of our era, funny accent and all. For Joan Allen however, this might be her worst mistake as a professional actress.  Allen playing the role of the Warden who organizes the race is as believable as the film’s own premise.  One pleasant surprise is the addition of Natalie Martinez, the rookie cuban american actress, who teams up with Statham playing ‘Case’, his ‘navigator’.  Giving the film its sexiness, I’m sure we’ll be seeing much more of her in these Angelina Jolie/female action star type roles.

Although a case can be made that these days, video game have evolved with much more complex story-lines, there will always be a great appetite for the ‘shoot em up’ types games where users can’t wait for the next level to keep smashing the buttons on their controllers.  For those type of people, Death Race is must.

 

Alex Florez

By

2008/08/21 at 12:00am

The House Bunny (Movie Review)

08.21.2008 | By |

Rated: PG-13 for sex-related humor, partial nudity and brief strong language.
Release Date: 2008-08-22
Starring: Karen McCullah Lutz, Kirsten Smith
Director(s):
Distributor:
Film Genre:
Country: USA
Official Website: http://www.thehousebunny.com/

Go to our film page

The House Bunny

From the get-go ‘The House Bunny’ wants you to believe it’s a post-modern fairy tale comedy set on a college campus. Only when it nearly forgets what the moral to its story is, it almost becomes the ‘makeover’ episode from a daytime talk show.  In fact, I’m inclined to say it turns the word ‘makeover’ into a genre.

Leading the way is Anna Faris (Scary Movie), who steps into Shelley Darlingson’s pumps as a stereotypical blond Playboy bunny who is kicked out of Hugh Hefner’s mansion. But soon enough she finds a new home at an awkward sorority where the girls are dull, unpopular and desperate for pledges in order to keep the dean from taking away their house.  Predictably however, Shelley takes it upon herself to transform the girls into beauty queens and become the most coveted group to be around.

The ‘girls’, played by stars on the rise, Emma Stone (Superbad), Kat Dennings (Charlie Bartlett), Katharine McPhee (American Idol), Rumer Willis (Bruce and Demi’s eldest) and a few others, are so surprisingly likable during their pre-makeover stage that you’d almost wish they didn’t undergo any treatment.  Emma Stone in particular, works the ‘bookworm’ role so charmingly well, she steals more than one scene clearly meant for Faris to carry, who can’t seem to hide how hard she tries for every laugh. 

The pitfall here is that for too long a period, the film paints vanity in such a great light, that it sends mixed signals to the audience about the message the filmmakers want to convey. Is being beautiful on the outside really that important to get ahead in life? Well, for most of the film, they make you think so.  Of course, that’s no message for a fairy tale to send – Shelley must learn that what boys really like is what’s on the inside. And so begins a mad and sloppy dash during the second half of the film to make things right.  

One opportunity that the filmmakers certainly missed was to demystify the famous Playboy mansion. It does nothing to change or add to the widely held and fixed idea we all have of the estate.  Instead we’re limited to some Hugh Hefner cameos and a thinly put together subplot involving Shelley’s banishment.

Nevertheless, this female driven comedy has its appeal as screenwriters Karen McCullah Lutz and Kirsten Smith (Legally Blonde) take parts from ‘The Revenge of the Nerds’ lore and attempt to make it their own. 

 

Alejandro Arbona

By

2008/08/16 at 12:00am

Tropic Thunder (Movie Review)

08.16.2008 | By |

*Updated December 2025

Tropic Thunder, the new comedic vehicle by Ben Stiller and his pals, kicks off with an assault on the audience so unexpected and so enormously funny that it takes you totally by surprise and disarms you completely. Unfortunately, though Tropic Thunder is pretty good at several other points, this sequence ends up being the funniest in the entire movie.

Read More

Alex Florez

By

2008/08/13 at 12:00am

Vicky Cristina Barcelona (Movie Review)

08.13.2008 | By |

Rated: PG-13 for mature thematic material involving sexuality, and smoking.
Release Date: 2008-08-15
Starring: Woody Allen
Director(s):
Distributor:
Film Genre:
Country: USA, Spain
Official Website: http://vickycristina-movie.com/

Go to our film page

Vicky Cristina Barcelona

Not so long ago, New York based director (at that time, anyway) Woody Allen once confessed to us that the reason there are never any prominent hispanic characters in any of his films is because he sticks to what he knows.  Meaning of course, old Jewish families, upper class Manhattanites and chaotic love affairs that usually flirt with death.  So what does Allen now know about Catalonia and Spanish culture in general that prompts him to set his latest film on the mediterranean coast? Other than that they will finance his films?

To answer my own question, I think the appeal for Allen has been the idea that such sexual promiscuity and emotional confusion also exists outside the realm of New York and in practically every single corner of the globe.

Vicky Cristina Barcelona, his first and most likely last film to be set in Spain, pits Scarlett Johansson (Cristina) and Rebecca Hall (Vicky) as two American friends who decide to spend their summer in Barcelona.  Cristina, more of a wandering spirit, is always on the lookout for adventure, while Vicky on the other hand, is much more sensible and committed to her fiance back home.

But their radically different attitudes towards love are tested when they meet Spanish painter Juan Antonio (Javier Bardem) and his volatile ex-wife Maria Elena (Penélope Cruz).

A case can be made that Allen has made this same film 35 times over (excluding the ‘early funny ones’). As usual, you’ll find plenty of sarcasm, infidelity and yes, a few rounds fired from a gun.  But the plot only sizzles when Penelope Cruz joins the cast.  Her turbulent behavior is wildly reminiscent of Judy Davis’ brilliant performance in Allen’s Deconstructing Harry (1997). 

Unfortunately, in this film, Cruz is the catalyst for an event that never arrives. The sense that something absurd, tragic and utterly hilarious would take place in the end, the way it did in Crimes and Misdemeanors (1989) for instance, kept building throughout the film. Instead, it moves right along, one lustful scene after another, wondering what sort of statement it wants to make about ‘love’ that it hasn’t already.

 

Then there’s the mysterious voice over which threads the film together. Totally unnecessary given that it doesn’t really explain anything nor does it provide any insight from an omniscient point of view.

The movie’s funniest moments, without question, rely on the chemistry between Bardem and Cruz, giving way to the little momentum the film manages at times – making Johansson and Hall seem out of touch with the whole ‘Woody Allen genre’.

Hispanics however, will marvel at how well Allen’s neurotic language translates in Spanish. While most of the film is spoken in English, the few scenes where Bardem and Cruz exchange a few words in, are hysterical.  More evidence that these days, the international community seems to get Woody more than we do.

 

Select a Page