Marie Antoinette

It was not nearly as anachronistically stylized as I had expected from watching the teaser trailer I saw a year ago. Sofia Coppola is a good director here, in terms of the composition of her shots, but her writing leaves much to be desired, as I felt the script needed more depth- simply showing how Marie went from a sweet teenager to a spoiled queen because of the shallowness and callousness of court life is not interesting enough in itself to make for a compelling film. As it is, I enjoyed aspects of it, but as the movie went on, my attention started to wane. Without the stylization, I would have been utterly bored. I would definitely watch it again. I have never particularly cared for Kirsten Dunst, but she is very appealing and sympathetic in this role.

Click

Although not wholly unentertaining, it's full of persistent and unnecessary crude humor, the premise about the remote is gimmicky, Kate Beckinsdale looks great but isn't given much to do, and are we really supposed to believe that Sandler is a workaholic architect? The film's view of the future is very American and bourgeois, as if no social upheaval or world war will ever affect the national lifestyle.

Hidden Assassin

It wasn't better than I expected, but it wasn't as dull as I had feared. The premise, while not original, would have been serviceable for a character study, and the direction, while not bad, could have been more effective. But if you like Maruschka Detmers, then it is worth at least one rental. Check out one of the guys playing a Cuban official, he looks like David Arquette- which makes the character very unconvincing!

Faustina

The filmmakers here have avoided the cloyingly sentimental tone that some religious films adopt, but it is still slow, and not really long enough to do justice to Sister Faustina's life as recounted in her diary.

Wasabi

Although much more could have been done with the not very original premise, I still enjoyed it. I like Jean Reno, and I like the Luc Besson style of making films that are French but not arty.

The Good Shepherd

The Good Shepherd was hailed by one critic as “The Godfather of CIA movies" but it is hardly that. One might get that impression because it is directed by Robert De Niro, and produced by Francis Ford Coppola; but De Niro is not the talented director that Coppola is, even though one can see how De Niro goes to imitate Coppola “Godfather” style of shots and editing.

If 2001’s Spy Game moved too fast, The Good Shepherd moves too slow. The story is told in flashback, but I see no particular benefit from this approach; it just confuses the viewer. I think some filmmakers confuse a lack of clarity with subtlety.

The general impression that is left to me is that this is the history of the CIA as filtered through the lens of Hollywood liberalism.

One scene in particular is demonstrative of this: a defector is trying to prove himself, and in a drug-induced haze tells his interrogator that the Russian threat is just a sham, an excuse for the military-industrial complex to perpetuate itself, which sounds a lot to me like the defector was channeling Noam Chomsky by way of screenwriter Eric Roth (Roth co-wrote last year’s Munich, which apparently suffered from a similar questionability of accuracy, a questionability which was able to be overlooked because Spielberg is a much better director than De Niro).

However, the scene is also useful in concretizing a question that is most relevant amid the U.S. government’s current “war on terror”: is it really justifiable, in the pursuit of some ephemeral thing called “national security”, to use the same means as our enemies? To lie, cheat, steal, murder, and torture? To drive a man to insanity in the name of ascertaining his veracity as an asset? It occurred to me that the more you steep yourself in secrets and lies, the less you are able to ascertain the truth, and people in the espionage business, if they ever started out with any idealism, don’t realize this until it’s too late.

Matt Damon and William Hurt are both competant in the roles, as in De Niro in a bit part.
But Angelina Jolie has such a throughly modern personality that although the pain she shows in character is convincing, her presence feels out of date.

Why do “right-wing”government agents always have smirks? I’ll grant you that there are those types, and maybe radical Leftists are simply more humourless, but it feels like caricature, rather than authenticity.

High Tension

I had noticed this film advertised a few years ago, and I had always wanted to see it.
I got the impression it was about two young women escaping and combatting a maniac killer who was after them, and I was expecting a story about courage and loyalty between friends in the midst of horrendous events. There are some ways in which the film could have been about that, but by the end of the story, it becomes clear that the filmmakers never had anything more in mind than a disgusting, frightful slasher film. And the ending they think is so “clever” is not clever at all, despite purported “clues”; the meaning of certain scenes is left begging if their scenario is to be believed.

I saw the unrated French-language version, which included more graphic violence than the R-rated version. The film disturbed and unsettled me. If I had seen the R version it would have been perhaps less so. It’s not that I haven’t seen violence as graphic as this before, but I’ve seen it in R-rated action films, never horror films, and this makes me think that the tone of violence contributes more to the MPAA board slapping films with an “NC-17” rating than the actual violent act.

The only other horror film I’ve actually chosen to see before was 2001’s The Ring (and its sequel, which was not as scary) a far better film, equally disturbing, but not digusting, repulsive, or repellent, and that is because The Ring relies more on the manipulation of mood than a reliance on gore to achieve its effect. Although that’s not a reccomendation on my part to watch The Ring either…

My problem with horror films, why I find them so disturbing, is not the violence per se, but the tone, which inevitably is about the triumph of evil. While evil doesn’t exactly triumph in the end here, it enjoys a considerably greater success than the good.

I’m aghast that people actually consider this film a form of “entertainment”, when I find that it put a burden on my mind and spirit.

I had a feeling it might be like it was, I should have payed attention…


La Veuve de Saint-Pierre

The night before, however, I was treated to “The Widow of Saint-Pierre”, with Juliette Binoche, a film which I thoroughly enjoyed, but which I cannot discuss at length lest I spoil the ending.

As an aside, there are lengthy interviews in the extras section of the DVD, a feature much appreciated. Many DVD extras are simply “making-of” advertisements produced by the studio for marketing purposes while the film is being made and then stuck on the DVD for the same purpose, and primarily consist of the cast and crew saying how everyone on the set was like a family, everyone was so talented, and they all cried at the wrap party, etc., and these interviews are not so much like that, although there is the (obligatory) compliments about one's colleagues.

One can tell from his comments that director Patrice Leconte is a competant director, because he uses his intuition, not gimmicky visual tricks or a theoretical aesthetic.

Especially interesting in the interview with director Emir Kusturica, which led me to discover these very perceptive comments of his on his IMDB page:

I am finished with cities. I spent four years in New York, 10 in Paris, and I was in Belgrade for a while. To me now they are just airports. Cities are humiliating places to live, particularly in this part of the world.

In Serbia a lot of people hate me because they want to westernise, not understanding that the western world is bipolar, with very good things and very bad things. Since they don't have experience of the west, they even believe that western shit is pie.

What you have now is a Hollywood that is pure poison. Hollywood was a central place in the history of art in the 20th century: it was human idealism preserved. And then, like any great place, it collapsed, and it collapsed into the most awful machinery in the world. Why don't I see a Frank Capra today? Because people aren't like this anymore? People haven't changed that much in 60 years.

My purpose is to make a movie to make you warm. To give you some heat. Now, this rational world has become a place where only what is cool is good. Do you cut the movie on the basis of the beat of modernity or the basis of the beat of your own heart?

Pure

Pure is about how a ten-year old boy in the West End of London (played by Harry Eden, in the best child performance I’ve seen in recent memory) deals with the heroin addiction of his mother (played by Canadian actress Molly Parker, who manages to convey both the clarity of sobriety and the fog of a drug high whenever the role requires her to do so).

I liked it, although I do think it could have been edited and directed in such a way that would have given the story a greater emotional effectiveness.

The film was released in Britain in 2002; the only reason the film got released on DVD in the United States here now was because Keira Knightley (who is misleadingly put on the cover art, but thankfully not on the DVD art) has a supporting role as a pregnant waitress, also a junkie, who befriends the boy.

She doesn’t have more than maybe 15 minutes screen time, if that, but it is probably her second best role, the first being “Jackie” in The Jacket, to which there is there is a slight similarity here. It makes me think that perhaps she should aim for roles which require less affability and more bitchiness (although not the psuedo-bitchiness of Domino).

She is 17 years old here (and you can see the acne in certain scenes!), befriending a 10 year old, and I found the friendship interesting because the boy is obviously keen on her in the way that boys sometimes are enamored of a young woman several years older. That happened to me on occasion as a boy, but this is maybe the first time I can recall seeing a film capture that feeling; and since I am keen on Keira as well, so I can understand what the boy feels! (She may be playing a crackhead here, but there are still moments when she’s downright adorable looking.)

Casino Royale

While the Bond character here is appropriately hard-boiled and roguish, he is totally lacking in charm. Daniel Craig does not seem like a upper-class bred spy, but a morally upright thug- or as one critic put it, “more Spetznatz thug than Oxbridge toff”.

The opening sequence is supposed to be about Bond’s second kill, which gets him 007 status. It’s a wasted opportunity, because (a) the first kill is shown intercut with the second, dissapating any tension that would rise by watching a fight, (b) because we have no background as to why he made his first kill or who the victim was, so there is no dramatic significance to the death, and (c) Craig already looks the kind of guy who’s killed someone before.

And Bond killing someone in a restroom that immaculate looking? Was the restroom in Scandanavia? Try having him kill someone in a Texas restroom, and that would be really disgusting. Of course, if someone is gettng killed in a disgusting Texas bathroom, then most likely you’re watching a Tarantino film. But a Scandanavian restroom- how “gritty” is that?

If the producers had wished to do an “origins” film, like Batman Begins, they should have invested more in the screenplay and characters.

There’s not even any opening James Bond fanfare!

The opening credits song is utterly forgettable (as most of them have been recently)- where are the naked silhouetted women? I miss Maurice Binder.

The first two films, Dr. No, and Thunderball, were a bit boring. The film that set the “Bond formula” was Goldfinger, which combined the gadgets, the exaggerated plots and villains, the dry humor, and a hero who was ruthless and could be taken seriously in such a way that was entertaining, but not too serious.

Too many times too many of these elements have been overblown so that the Bond films become parodies of themselves. Since the last film, Die Another Day, was an example of this, the producers have decided to “reboot” Bond, and make their mistakes in quite the opposite direction.

The villains are all colorless craggy faced Eurotrash, and we are treated to the world’s longest poker match, with too much exposition on what is happening for those who play poker and too little for those who don’t.

Q is nowhere to be seen, nor Miss Moneypenny.

And Daniel Craig has no chemistry with his love interest, Eva Green (although this would not be the first time a Bond chemistry has been forced. Besides, why does Bond need a agent to monitor his spending? If a real spy needed money to play in a high-stakes casino game, the optimal way to provide for it is to take it from money which was stolen on a covert operation, which would not be a concern of the treasury department.)

And yet, there is too much of an adherence to the formula for it to be an interesting character study.

All of these things could be overlooked if this were a good action film.
There are two ways one can go with action scenes: to make them visually innovative, or dramatically interesting. Rare is the talent that can do both equally well.

But the action scenes here are prosaically staged, edited, and directed. Especially in the first chase sequence, in which we are not even made privy to what is going on, who Bond is chasing and why- and if we don’t know why, why should we care?

How will it perform?

Well, boxofficemojo.com says:

Down 25 percent, Casino Royale was as impressive as Happy Feet, holding better than James Bond's previous Thanksgiving titles, GoldenEye, The World Is Not Enough and Die Another Day, which each fell over 31 percent on this weekend. Casino Royale captured $30.8 million and, with $94.1 million in 10 days, has sold nine percent more tickets than GoldenEye, the last Bond reboot, through the same point.

But when I went to see it, there were only about seven other people, not so impressive even though it was a matinee showing, and none of them seemed that impressed…

Superman Returns

The long set-up to the point wherein Superman actually returns (from some half-baked venture at finding remnants of his home planet) dissipates the tension instead of building it up. The “money shot” sequence about 30 mintues or so into the film seemed a perfect opportunity for me to re-heat my pasta primavera.

Director Bryan Singer supposedly was trying to emulate and “re-imagine” the 1978 Christopher Reeve classic. One of the great things about that film which he seemed to have forgotten was its humour- this film, by contrast, is not funny, it’s ripe for parody, and it got me to start thinking about all sorts of questions surrounding the Superman premise:

Since he seemingly specializes primarily in stopping disasters (when he could be doing so much else), how does he divide his time?

If he stands for truth, justice, and the American way, what are his politics? Might it not be more likely that such a goody-goody might consider himself a “citizen of the world” and object to American intervention overseas?

Considering the publicity and worldwide awareness he is purported to have gathered, how would it possible for the Fortress of Solitude to remain hidden? Surely some paparazzi must have followed him there?

Does he ever comb his hair differently?

He claims in the film he can hear everything, but if he really did hear everything the cacophony would drive him crazy.

How does he “turn on” the beams from his eyes?

How can he breathe in space?

Is there anything too heavy for Superman? Because he has to lift up a very, very large rock formation toward the end of the film, and it appears that he is straining a bit. It is that just supposed to give the audience a sense of the weightfulness of the object? Or does Superman actually have to exercise a degree of effort to do such things, as it would seem he would have to, if the law of physics have any relevancy.

When did he lose his virgnity, and to whom?

If he concieved a child with Lois Lane, would the child only have half his powers?

Oh yeah, and Superman’s kid in the film is very weird! He reminds me of that preternaturally precocious kid from The Ring movies. Doesn’t the director know kids in movies are supposed to be to cute, especially if they are intended to elicit the sympathy of the audience? Now, I don’t mind the subversion of that convention, but if you’re going to make the kid weird, you should also at least make him interesting as well.

How susceptible is Superman to old age and sickness?

Might the Man of Steel need Viagra someday? Or maybe Enzyte?

Although lead actor Brandon Routh looks the part, he is souless and humourless.

Kevin Spacey at times seems to be trying to imitate Gene Hackman, but I can’t be quite sure that’s what he intended.

Kate Bosworth is miscast as Lois Lane- she hasn’t got Margot Kidder’s spunk, giving instead the same petulant line delivery she did as the surfer in Blue Crush. She’s also way too young for the role. Lane is supposed to be a Pulitzer Prize winner, and Bosworth’s how old? And you can tell she’s not a mother. In the scene where she goes on board Lex Luthor’s submarine, she has her child by the hand, but never once looks at him to see his reactions, whether he is curious, scared, skeptical, and a real mother would never not do that, and a real actor’s director would not fail to point that out to Bosworth.

After being in development hell for over a decade, this is all we get?

I read recently that in one series of Superman comics, Lex Luthor became President of the United States. Now, to have Superman return, and have him find that to be the state of affairs, that would have been far more interesting that the rehashed world-in-peril-from-natural disaster scenario that the scriptwriters decided upon here.

Crank

Without exaggeration, one of the worst films I've ever seen.

I knew from the outset it was going to be bad, once that abominable metal music began.

The premise of the plot has been done before (though I am at a loss to remember titles). The execution could have been played for comedy, satire, drama, or viscerality. Instead, the overheated direction and editing reminded me of a particular CSI: Miami episode about someone re-enacting one of those gang-banger vice-squad type video games, and that is exactly what the film feels like.

I like Amy Smart, who plays the girlfriend, but I was ashamed and embarassed for her that she would stoop to such an undignified level such as she does here and for the sake of what is an artless film.

Jason Statham was truly heroic in The Transporter films, and I was very disappointed in him personally to assent to act in this trash. The amorality of his character is appalling; why does he have to be a hitman? Could he not as easily been made a police officer or a member of the military targeted for assassination? This could have been Transporter 3, which is why I went to watch it and what I was expecting from it.

And I hate the ending- although I could respect the finale if the filmmakers had invested depth to their characters, in the context of such shallowness, it only seals the filmmakers intentions as cheap, gross, jaded, and nihilistic.

More complaints about P+P 2005

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?view=BLOGDETAIL&grid=P30&blog=yourview&xml=/arts/2006/02/15/bfblbafta1.xml

What bollocks. Pride and Prejudice is a crock of shite, devoid of any noticable acting, a risible 'modernised' script and a plot incomprehensible to anyone who wasn't already au fait with the book. The characters were poorly developed, the Bennet sisters were little more than a gaggle of giggling girls, Mr Bennet mumbled his lines - and when he didn't you could clearly tell he wasn't from round there. Keira Knightley an actress? Rubbish. She can't act for toffee - look at all the Jennifer Ehle mannerisms she resorted to in the P&P film - she had no idea how to play her character. I could go on. P&P is one of the worst films I've ever seen and I'm disgusted that I was tricked into buying the DVD of it by the ridiculous hype and uncritical reviews.

Posted by John Monk on February 16, 2006 9:27 AM

Keira Knightley's nomination for an Oscar is (in my opinion) not worthy, especially considering the original performance by Jennifer Ehle, which was exquisite. Knightley's appearance and continual sulky expression did nothing to show the kindly nature of the character Elizabeth Bennet. Her omission from the BAFTA nominations was a reflection of her poor performance as that character, although her acting has to be acknowledged as good in general. Having said that, the fact that Munich received Oscar nominations a plenty is testament to the quality of not only the film, but also the acting; it is a superb film well worthy of acclaim.

Posted by Fiona-Louise on February 16, 2006 11:37 AM

Keira Knightley is a gem and was perfect in P&P! Lord, I loved Colin and Jennifer a decade ago, but let's get over it folks! Different treatment, different times. Keira shines - she may not deserve to win the Oscar (look at the competition) but she earned the nomination.

Posted by N. Pollard on February 16, 2006 11:14 PM

Keira's omission from the BAFTAs really is a disgrace. Shouldn't we be showing our appreciation for a truly beautiful piece of cinema? Keira shines as Miss Bennet, in a way that could only come through a reading of THE BOOK, not of past productions. Let us not forget the very different formats the two productions above named are in. Joe Wright does an admirable job with the story, as do Matthew Macfadyen and the rest of the cast. The voters should be ashamed of themselves.

Posted by M. Lewis on February 17, 2006 11:34 AM

My short essay on acting

Annabeth Gish once said in an interview that the fashion among casting directors these days is to try and find the actual person that was written about in the script.

Harrison Ford, by contrast, has said there are only two types of casting:
casting by type and casting against type.

What can we draw from these two seemingly contradictory statements?

That although someone can be gifted in playing a wide variety of characters, the actors are always limited by their own personalities, and we must content ourselves with what variation they can provide.

This is why Harrison Ford has never played a serial killer.

I remember Ellen Barkin once commenting on how Laurence Olivier was not such a great, because he couldn't anything beyond standard British theatrical.
And it occurred to me at the time that she had a point. Patrick Stewart is a "classy" actor, but can he play a street thug.

I think there is some confusion of acting "range" with acting "skill"

I've read accounts of Jack Nicholson on the set of Terms of Endearment or Winona Ryder on the set of Great Balls of Fire!, both describing how each gave a different line reading for each take. That is skill.

By contrast, Morgan Freeman has played a number of different characters, from pimp to President, from CIA agent to God, to a chauffeur driver at various ages.
That is range.

Freeman is a good example of the "best" actors, because he is able to transcend both class and age between all his roles.

The much-celebrated "character actors" like (the always smug) Kevin Spacey or (the always offbeat) Gary Oldman have not shown themselves capable of this range.

------------------

How much you like someone, and even whether you think them attractive, I think determines whether you consider them a good actor.

For example, Brad Pitt never did much for me as an actor until I saw Meet Joe Black, where he shows range by playing both Everyman *and* the Angel of Death.
But recently, after having (apparently) left his wife (whom I do not even like)
for Angelina Jolie (who I do like) I cannot help but kind of think of him as kind of a lout. And after the fiasco that was Mr. and Mrs. Smith, I am even less charitably disposed.

Tom Hanks used to be one of my favorites, when he was in films like The Money Pit, The Man with One Red Shoe, and Joe vs. the Volcano. Then came Forrest Gump, and Sleepless in Seattle, and, with the exception of Saving Private Ryan, which I like very much, I really haven't cared for any of his films since 1994.
So I think of Tom Hanks now and pull a face.

Sometimes one can overcome one's prejudices.

I've never liked Tom Cruise- everyone says he's such a nice guy in person, and that may be true, but in nearly all his films, he's a controlling, arrogant, aggressive prat. Could he ever play a passive person? Yet...I can respect his acting in Far and Away, Minority Report, Collateral, and The Last Samurai. They are still variations on his arrogant persona, but they are *effective* variations. And Mission Impossible is one of my favorite films, despite Tom Cruise being in it, or maybe yet *because* of it- he is very effective in the role.
-------------------

We have to make a distinction between "best", "most important", and "favorite".

People rarely make these distinctions when talking about films, even less when talking about actors.

For example, one might say Schindler's List is one of the most "important" films of the past 25 years. Does that mean it is also *necessarily* one of the most well-made? Does it mean it is one of your favorites, as in you'd want to watch it over and over? Does it mean it speaks to you personally, or defines for you some ideal or sense of style that you have? Some people are quite honest, and will tell you, say, maybe Roger Corman films are their favorites, but other people are just pretentious, or perhaps haven't though the matter through, and will spout out as their favorites what they think should be their favorites.

With actors, one have to make a distinction between who one likes, who one thinks is attractive, and who one thinks is a good actor, a distinction between "favorite" actors, "hot" actors, and "good" actors.

Several years ago, I once tried to rate my "favorite" actors and actresses this way:

1. Consider all the films the actor has made.
2. Rate the ones you've seen, from 1 to 4 stars.
3. Add the total of the films rated 3 stars or above.
4. Add the total of the films rated 2 and a half stars or below.
5. Subtract the total of no. 4 from no. 3, and then you have your "actors" score.

(Sequels do not count. For example, Mel Gibson only gets a rating for his original portrayal of Martin Riggs.)

Considering that few except perhaps film critics actually ever see all the films of any particular actor, one could argue that the results will inevitibly be distorted but here was my top ten result at the time-

1. Morgan Freeman
2. Mel Gibson
3. Steven Seagal
4. Denzel Washington
5. Samuel L. Jackson
6. Keanu Reeves
7. Harrison Ford
8. Bruce Willis
9. Wesley Snipes
10. Richard Gere, Ving Rhames (tied)

Actually, that's pretty accurate, because if I were to try to narrow it down to five, we'll get Bruce, Samuel, Morgan, Keanu, and Mel- and this is not necessarily because I like them (Bruce and Mel both have their annoying moments, and Samuel can over-do the angry black man schtick, so I guess Morgan and Keanu take top honors)

Of course, there are many other actors I like and/or respect, from the old stars like Cary Grant and James Stewart, British actors like Tom Conti or Colin Firth or Richard Harris, European actors like Jean Reno or Rutger Hauer, or American standbys like Gene Hackman. In most cases, these men have starred in at least one of favorite films, so that probably has something to do with it.

When it comes to who I think is most attractive male actors, the list is again different- Keanu Reeves, Kiefer Sutherland, Ewan MacGregor, Heath Ledger, River Phoenix, Freddie Prinze, Jr., Liam Neeson, Kevin Kline

Favorite female actresses? My scoring system came out like this-

1. Meg Ryan
2. Anne Heche
3. Tamlyn Tomita
4. Lauren Holly
5. Julia Ormond and Kate Winslet (tied)
6. Ally Sheedy
7. Sigourney Weaver
8. Mira Sorvino and Ashley Judd (tied)
9. Selma Hayek and Rene Russo (tied)
10. Neve Campbell and Laura Linney (tied)

This is where the scoring system is weaker, because with most of the actresses the high ratings on only based on mybe two films they did that I really liked, not the entire range of a career. This means either I tend to like male-oriented films, or Hollywood really does give short shrift to women in starring roles- perhaps both. Also, I did the survey in 1999. Doing it over now, I'd probably drop Holly, Sheedy, Weaver, Russo, Linney, Campbell, and add Angelina Jolie, Cate Blanchett, Catherine McCormack, and Rachel Weisz.

"Best" actresses, though? I'm hard-pressed. I don't think much of Meryl Streep. Cate Blanchett is pretty good in terms of range. Winona Ryder, as noted above, is reported to be good at skill but I don't see the evidence of range. Any thoughts on the subject? Should we start a new topic on the board?

Most attractive actresses (not most attractive female celebrities, in which case we'd have to add a few more and drop a few of these)- Jami Gertz, Navi Rawat, Shannon Elizabeth, Keira Knightley, Naomi Watts, Kate Beckinsdale, Evangeline Lilly, Claire Forlani, Rhona Mitra, Piper Perabo, Monica Belucci...

But sometimes there is a inverse relationship to the aesthetic quality and the quality of films. For example, I have never seen anyone with such a resume of crap films as Shannon Elizabeth- I cannot think of a single one which I have liked. But she is totally gorgeous. And Jami Gertz, you know, you could blame it on just having a bad agent, or being too young and not having well-informed tastes, but now that she is older, she should know better, yet still she stars in crap like that Still Standing sitcom.

Oscar wrap-up 2005

Well, it was a very blue-state affair, another orgy of Hollywood self-importance.

The big surprise of the night was that Crash instead Bareback, er, I'm sorry, I mean Brokeback Mountain won for Best Picture, even though director Ang Lee won for Best Director. Usually the best picture is the one directed by the best director, but split occasionally arise as they did last night because directors vote for directors, actors for actors, etc., but everyone in the Academy votes for best film.

I suspect that the whole thing was political, that voting for a film about race, whose message was good (but not especially uncharted territory) was "safer" than voting for a film which acknowledges that people of the same gender can love each other.

And although my opinions about homosexuality may deviate from most members of the Academy, it incenses me they should do such a thing, that they don't have the integrity to stand by their convictions.

Also, while I haven't seen Brokeback Mountain, I strongly suspect it is a very well-made film, more artistically accomplished than Crash. I liked Crash, but it seemed a bit like a TV movie. I also saw Munich, one of the other Best Picture nominees, and that was better than Crash, too.

But I am glad that Crash's writer-director, Paul Haggis, won an award, because he deserves one for the whole first season of Due South.

And I am happy for Rachel Weisz, although I think her best role to date was actually in Confidence. Now hopefully no one will remember her having been in Constantine or the Mummy films, for that matter.

And I am happy for Ang Lee, who deserved awards for Sense and Sensibility and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, and probably deserved an award for Brokeback as well. We will forget about that boring film he did a few years ago, The Hulk.

Typically, people get Academy Awards for things which are not really their best or most memorable work.

Kinsey

Kinsey has good dialogue and is structured well, and Liam Neeson is quite good in the lead role, but the film glosses over the serious deviations in Kinsey's life, and ignores the fact that his methodology was messed up, an error which has led to the justification of many bad ideas, although we can perhaps be grateful that Kinsey's findings did some good in the sense of opening up discussion about sex.

The end credits are in poor taste.

It is interesting to see how much Kinsey was like his father.

Open marriage is not a good idea.

What was the real attitude of the Rockefeller Foundation towards Kinsey's findings?

Munich

There are spies, there are saboteurs, and then there are warriors.

Most espionage thrillers are actually about saboteurs, and they galmourize, simplify, and exaggerate the subject of black ops. But Munich gives the feeling of being real, as it captures the tedium of the process.

The film may be mistitled, as it it not so much about the death of the Israeli atheletes in 1972, but the targeting for assasination of those who assisted in the massacre.

Eric Bana deserved a nomination as he is able to convey to us a transformation of chracter from someone who seem vaguely idealistic to someone deadened by fear and killing. Geoffrey Rush also give another great performance as Bana's case officer in the Mossad.

There have been complaints about the film not being "accurate", and that the persons involved were never consulted, or that the film is too "pro-Israel" or too "anti-Israel".

For me, the most profound line was when one member of the assasination team decides to leave, and tells Bana's character: "It doesn't matter that people have hated us for thousands of generations. What matters is my own righteousnes, and if I lose that, I lose my own soul."

Therese/The Island/Austeria

In the film Therese, about the Roman Catholic saint Therese of Liseux, the filmmakers do not establish their characters well. There are many scenes in which the music seems like it is telling us what what ought to feel (in fact, there may be more dialogue than music!) but how can we be moved? If there is no emotional investment, there is no payoff either. The lead character comes across as whiny and maudlin, but I read her autobiography a long time ago, and she was not like the way they were portraying her. For example, on her deathbed the film's Therese bemoans the fact she can't have a chocolate eclair- what a pious dispostion! but beyond that, I distinctly remember her saying in her writings that she perferred savory dishes to sweet ones! And yet, this film gets approved by the Vatican? Standards must be slacking off for imprimaturs!

The second half of the film, after she enters the convent, is better than the first half. The themes are about the renunciation of the will for God's sake, simplicity of faith, and how one can be used of God just by being oneself, without trying to aspire to "greatness".

Similar problems of character development beset an entirely different sort of film: Michael Bay's semi-obnoxious The Island, kind of a cross between The Matrix, Logan's Run, and The Sixth Day. It could have been made as a meditation on the subject of consciousness. Do people have an innate awareness of both God and sex, or is it possible to weed it out? Would a clone share its parent's memories and inclinations? But these questions are only touched upon, with the main focus being a rip-roaring action film, which would have been fine, if the director's infamous Attention Deficit Disorder Style didn't make everything so bloody hard to follow. As it is, the film, at more than 2 hours, is both far too long, and yet, ironically, the premise is not developed enough.

Austeria is a 1983 Polish film about a Jewish innkeeper who takes in some Hasidic Jews, an Austrian baroness, and a Hungarian hussar fleeing from the Cossacks during World War I. It's very low budget, as I guess it might be before the Fall of Communism in Eastern Europe, but sometimes this is distracting as there are some shots which are out of focus. It's refreshing to see something about European Jewry that's not in reference to the Shoah.

The theme of the film is the struggle between faith and doubt in the midest of persecution, war, and conflicting desires. The doubts of the innkeepers are contrasted with the mysticism of his largely Hasidic guests, who try to chase away their wicked thoughts by praising God.

Organ Transplants and Cellular Memories

In line with the theme of The Island, one might be interested in perusing this article:

http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/CellularMemories.html

According to this study of patients who have received transplanted organs, particularly hearts, it is not uncommon for memories, behaviours, preferences and habits associated with the donor to be transferred to the recipient.

Pride and Prejudice (2005) revisited

When I went to see the film in theaters a few months, I think I was so distracted by my swooning over Keira Knightley, whom I have a bit of a crush on, that I couldn't clearly see the many flaws.

Watching Knightley's performance again, I can hear that her line readings, while not exactly flat, are inadequately nuanced. I think that perhaps as an actress, she's out of her league. In particular, I could detect too much Estuary in Knightley's accent, which is all wrong for the role- why didn't she get a dialect coach? There's a reason the British Academy didn't nominate her.

I think too many critics, probably men, are confusing "charming young lady" with "really good actress". I'm not saying she's a bad actress, but just that she needs a lot more training- there's no better evidence than her shite performance in Domino. I'd know she'd be pissed off to hear someone say that, but she needs to be pissed off, so she gets motivated to be better.

I also discussed with the persons I was watching the film with how much we felt the film was miscast. One thought Rosamund Pike would have made a good Lizzie, but the other and myself disagreed. We all seemed to agree that Clive Owen and Ion Gruffudd, Knightley's co-stars in King Arthur (not a great film but better than this P+P) , would have made better Mr. Darcys, or a Mr. Darcy and a Mr. Bingley, or a Mr. Darcy and Mr. Wickham. They are far sexier and masculine in my estimation.

And Judi Dench even is miscast, seeming nothing so much as an 18th century incarnation of Jean Pargetter.

I also noticed on this viewing that this Mr. Darcy is a total wuss. Twice he confesses to Lizzie "I love you" and I just had to blurt out "I don't believe you!". Whereas Knightley quite believably shifts from favor to disfavor during the course of the film, I realized there's no reason for her to do so, and she winds up making Lizzie look like an idiot!

Now, before the film came out, Keira gave an interview with the London Telegraph where she said

"Filmmakers tend to go for that slightly more androgynous look these days, which is lovely, but one of the most romantic things in the world is a manly man"

but, excuse me, Matthew Macfadyen seems to be exactly part of that whole generation of Generic Boring White Guy that I think Keira is talking about, guys who are indistinguishable from each other by their lack of personality.

For example, I remember Milla Jovovich and Michelle Rodriguez very vividly from Resident Evil, but their white guy co-stars are a blur in my mind. And it's not as if it was such a great film that it could afford bad casting decisions as well.

Same goes for Angelina's co-stars in the Tomb Raider films, Daniel Craig and Gerard Butler. I know their names now, as a result of the first being cast as the new Bond (wrong choice), and the second because of Phantom of the Opera, but their performances in the Tomb Raider films were bad and utterly forgettable.

People these days seem so much less interesting than they used to be. It took me a long, long time to distinguish or even register the cast of American Pie. But back when I was a kid, there was no way that one could confuse Emilio Estevez, Molly Ringwald, Ally Sheedy, Judd Nelson, and Anthony Michael Hall. I know they were playing "types" but so were the American Pie kids, but I still got them confused.