When you sit down and read a good thriller novel, you know you're on to something good when you just can't stop turning the pages. That's how I felt when I read Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code when it was published in 2003. And I thought to myself, "wow, this is going to be a great movie!"
Well, on second thought, I don't know if it would have been possible to make a great movie from this book, and still satisfy the fans of the novel. But to its credit, the film adaptation is indeed very true to the book, and I suppose that is ultimately its trouble.
Don't get the wrong idea; I thoroughly enjoyed the movie. But sometimes in being faithful to a book, a movie can become, well, less than cinematic, and unfortunately, I think that is this film's trouble. There are plenty of thrills and some nice actions bits, but just like the book, the movie pauses every so often to explain things at length, and to recap what's going on with the plot. And in doing so, the plot itself simply grinds to a halt momentarily. Just like the book, though, you know the plot is going to pick up again with a vengeance--and it does--but those "explainer" scenes sure can seem like a drag when you're waiting for the chase to resume.
The actors seem just a little too comfortable, given, as the movie says, that they suddenly find themselves in the midst of a centuries-old war centered on the very essence of Christianity and the Catholic Church itself. Tom Hanks looked like he was playing, well, Tom Hanks. As Robert Langdon, Hanks may as well have been having a conversation with an old friend on the back porch of his summer place rather than being chased around Europe as a man wanted for murder.
There is bit early in the movie, when we meet Langdon for the first time, as he is giving a lecture in Paris on "symbology". When someone in the audience says a slide he is showing looks like the devil's pitchfork, Langdon simply says, "Poor Poseidon" (who's trident was corrupted into the devil's pitchfork). And I couldn't help but think that it was a rather prescient jab on the part of the filmmakers at one of their summer rivals, Wolfgang Petersen's "Poseidon". At least these guys know how to have a little fun with their movie.
On the whole, though, this movie was a lot of fun, and as long as you don't take things too seriously, it's a fun little jaunt. Just be prepared to pay attention to a lot of detailed plots explanations along the way.
Sunday, May 21, 2006
Saturday, May 13, 2006
Poseidon
Wow. I remember distinctly thinking about 20 minutes into "Poseidon" that it would have been a better idea to make this script into an animated feature rather than a live action one. On the other hand, even good animated stories take the time to develop characters and make us care about their fates.
With virtually no development of any of the characters, this movie comes across as the ultimate distillation of an action movie into a frantic, non-stop mess. A few minutes later in the screening, I had another thought: what makes a bit of action significant in a story is the build-up to it, and the aftermath, but not so much the sight of the action itself. Wolfgang Peterson, unfortunately, substitutes breathtaking pace for the building of suspense that could have resulted if he had bothered to make us care about the characters, or even if he had made the slightest attempt to get some semblance of meaningful, non-chesseball performances from his actors.
Usually, I go into big, summer movies with low expectations, and I am at least not let down. But Poseidon is so dreadfully off the mark in almost every aspect that was impossible not to laugh--and I was not alone--at what should have been emotionally wrenching moments.
To be fair, it was not all Mr. Peterson's fault. Had he bothered to get a decent draft of the script prior to shooting, he could have avoided most of the trouble this film exhibits. In film schools around the country, and perhaps the world, instructors decry those students who are so gung-ho to get behind the camera and direct that they ignore the story, which should be the building block of the film in the first place. Mr. Peterson, so intent on wowing us with special effects and other technical wizardry, appears to have not the slightest concern for the ridiculous utterances that spew forth from the mouths of his characters. All the more surprising from the director who dazzled us with "Das Boot". Come to think of it, "Das Boot" was virtually devoid of special effects, perhaps because it was a lower budget effort for a fledgling director, and as a result, he was forced to tell a compelling story, one in which we came to care very much for the fate of the trapped submariners. Not so in "Poseidon". As the surviving passengers make their way to the top--er, the bottom--of the capsized ship, they are, one by one, dispensed with by falling debris, walls of water, etc, etc, and the truth is, no one really cares. You would not be at fault if you thought, oh well, that's one less person the rest have to worry about.
And poor Richard Dreyfuss, a veteran who must have simply been desperate for some work, any work. Granted, his character is so poorly drawn that he has little to build upon, but still, I winced during his introductory scene, and found it difficult not to laugh as his life crisis unfolds. Poor guy. What it must be like to have had such a lengthy career, only to be cut off at the knees with a movie as silly as "Poseidon".
With virtually no development of any of the characters, this movie comes across as the ultimate distillation of an action movie into a frantic, non-stop mess. A few minutes later in the screening, I had another thought: what makes a bit of action significant in a story is the build-up to it, and the aftermath, but not so much the sight of the action itself. Wolfgang Peterson, unfortunately, substitutes breathtaking pace for the building of suspense that could have resulted if he had bothered to make us care about the characters, or even if he had made the slightest attempt to get some semblance of meaningful, non-chesseball performances from his actors.
Usually, I go into big, summer movies with low expectations, and I am at least not let down. But Poseidon is so dreadfully off the mark in almost every aspect that was impossible not to laugh--and I was not alone--at what should have been emotionally wrenching moments.
To be fair, it was not all Mr. Peterson's fault. Had he bothered to get a decent draft of the script prior to shooting, he could have avoided most of the trouble this film exhibits. In film schools around the country, and perhaps the world, instructors decry those students who are so gung-ho to get behind the camera and direct that they ignore the story, which should be the building block of the film in the first place. Mr. Peterson, so intent on wowing us with special effects and other technical wizardry, appears to have not the slightest concern for the ridiculous utterances that spew forth from the mouths of his characters. All the more surprising from the director who dazzled us with "Das Boot". Come to think of it, "Das Boot" was virtually devoid of special effects, perhaps because it was a lower budget effort for a fledgling director, and as a result, he was forced to tell a compelling story, one in which we came to care very much for the fate of the trapped submariners. Not so in "Poseidon". As the surviving passengers make their way to the top--er, the bottom--of the capsized ship, they are, one by one, dispensed with by falling debris, walls of water, etc, etc, and the truth is, no one really cares. You would not be at fault if you thought, oh well, that's one less person the rest have to worry about.
And poor Richard Dreyfuss, a veteran who must have simply been desperate for some work, any work. Granted, his character is so poorly drawn that he has little to build upon, but still, I winced during his introductory scene, and found it difficult not to laugh as his life crisis unfolds. Poor guy. What it must be like to have had such a lengthy career, only to be cut off at the knees with a movie as silly as "Poseidon".
Tuesday, May 09, 2006
Mission: Impossible III
Sometimes I go to the movies to be moved by an emotionally real and touching story. I have even been known to cry in a theatre, then sit through the credits, and I mean ALL they way through the credits, to let my eyes dry before going out in public again.
But sometimes, I go to the movies to eat popcorn and have my block busted. Know what I mean?
Mission: Impossible III fits that latter bill perfectly. It is an action movie in the proper sense of the term: the movie is essentially one action set-piece after another, with interstitial material to give you just enough character background to care, and just enough plot details to keep you interested.
And yes, the set-pieces build in intensity from one to the next, climaxing in an incredible sequence atop the skyscrapers of Shanghai.
You will perhaps scoff at some of the moments, where something incredible happens, either by chance or by design of Ethan Hunt and his team, but, hey, this is not The Searchers, this is a modern-day action thriller, and director JJ Abrams, making his feature debut, is already at the top of his game. He knows not to take himself, or this movie, too seriously. But he takes both seriously enough, and the result is a very, very satisfying movie experience.
Tom Cruise and Phillip Seymour Hoffman are both outstanding in their roles, respectively, as hero and villain. The rest of the cast are solid, if not outstanding. Technically, this film is close to flawless. The pacing, as I have said, is perfect for an action movie. You go, go, go in an action sequence, then catch your breath for a moment or two, and then go, go, go all over again.
You will be thrilled. You will be tempted to cheer, or at the very least, to applaud certain moments. You will laugh. But you most certainly will not cry.
But sometimes, I go to the movies to eat popcorn and have my block busted. Know what I mean?
Mission: Impossible III fits that latter bill perfectly. It is an action movie in the proper sense of the term: the movie is essentially one action set-piece after another, with interstitial material to give you just enough character background to care, and just enough plot details to keep you interested.
And yes, the set-pieces build in intensity from one to the next, climaxing in an incredible sequence atop the skyscrapers of Shanghai.
You will perhaps scoff at some of the moments, where something incredible happens, either by chance or by design of Ethan Hunt and his team, but, hey, this is not The Searchers, this is a modern-day action thriller, and director JJ Abrams, making his feature debut, is already at the top of his game. He knows not to take himself, or this movie, too seriously. But he takes both seriously enough, and the result is a very, very satisfying movie experience.
Tom Cruise and Phillip Seymour Hoffman are both outstanding in their roles, respectively, as hero and villain. The rest of the cast are solid, if not outstanding. Technically, this film is close to flawless. The pacing, as I have said, is perfect for an action movie. You go, go, go in an action sequence, then catch your breath for a moment or two, and then go, go, go all over again.
You will be thrilled. You will be tempted to cheer, or at the very least, to applaud certain moments. You will laugh. But you most certainly will not cry.
United 93
Well, there is not a lot to say about this movie, except that there is probably no better way to imagine what that fatal plane ride must have been like for the passengers aboard United 93 than to see this film.
Writer-director Paul Greengrass very thoroughly researched even the minutest of details to accurately portray the events of the morning of September 11, 2001. And the film is made in such a way that you would be forgiven for thinking just for a moment that he somehow had cameras in place to record the actual unfoldings of that terrible day. It's just that real.
Mr. Greengrass should also be praised to the skies for avoiding the temptation to "set up" all the characters in that saccharine manner we have seen in so many disaster movies: the fights at home with the spouse, the making of plans for the weekend, etc., as the doomed characters rush out the door, late for their flight. None of that is present here, and in fact, there is scarcely anything in the way of the kind of character introductions most movie-goers are accustomed to, and to be honest, it is very refreshing. Granted, everyone knows what happened to United Airlines flight 93 that day, so the conventions of traditional narrative storytelling are appropriately dispensed with.
That is not to say the film doesn't grab you and hold you for the duration. Once the flight takes off in the film, the events unfold in real time, just as they did in real life. You feel, as the victims and personnel on the ground did, at first a sense of confusion, then a sense of realization, as passengers get word of the terror unfolding at the World Trade Center, and finally of doom, as the passengers realize they are probably bound for the White House or the Capitol. Then, just like that, with no fanfare nor artificial bravery, nor phony heroic speeches, the passengers of flight 93 take action. And the knot in your stomach tightens a little more.
I was fascinated to learn during the end credits that many of the ground personnel--flight controllers, military duty officers and the like--who were involved with flight 93 played themselves in the movie, further adding to the realism of the experience.
After I saw the movie, a friend and I talked about whether we would have been fearless enough to stand up to the hijackers on that flight, had we been in the victims' shoes. Honestly, I don't know. I would like to think so, but I just don't know. These are the kinds of things this film makes you think about.
When this movie opened, there were stories in the press of couples outside movie theatres debating whether to see it. Understandably, reliving that morning through the prism of this one chapter will make many uncomfortable. That's as it should be, for everyone knows how this story ends. But for those who want a vivid, unadorned, documentary telling of flight 93, this movie is brilliant.
Writer-director Paul Greengrass very thoroughly researched even the minutest of details to accurately portray the events of the morning of September 11, 2001. And the film is made in such a way that you would be forgiven for thinking just for a moment that he somehow had cameras in place to record the actual unfoldings of that terrible day. It's just that real.
Mr. Greengrass should also be praised to the skies for avoiding the temptation to "set up" all the characters in that saccharine manner we have seen in so many disaster movies: the fights at home with the spouse, the making of plans for the weekend, etc., as the doomed characters rush out the door, late for their flight. None of that is present here, and in fact, there is scarcely anything in the way of the kind of character introductions most movie-goers are accustomed to, and to be honest, it is very refreshing. Granted, everyone knows what happened to United Airlines flight 93 that day, so the conventions of traditional narrative storytelling are appropriately dispensed with.
That is not to say the film doesn't grab you and hold you for the duration. Once the flight takes off in the film, the events unfold in real time, just as they did in real life. You feel, as the victims and personnel on the ground did, at first a sense of confusion, then a sense of realization, as passengers get word of the terror unfolding at the World Trade Center, and finally of doom, as the passengers realize they are probably bound for the White House or the Capitol. Then, just like that, with no fanfare nor artificial bravery, nor phony heroic speeches, the passengers of flight 93 take action. And the knot in your stomach tightens a little more.
I was fascinated to learn during the end credits that many of the ground personnel--flight controllers, military duty officers and the like--who were involved with flight 93 played themselves in the movie, further adding to the realism of the experience.
After I saw the movie, a friend and I talked about whether we would have been fearless enough to stand up to the hijackers on that flight, had we been in the victims' shoes. Honestly, I don't know. I would like to think so, but I just don't know. These are the kinds of things this film makes you think about.
When this movie opened, there were stories in the press of couples outside movie theatres debating whether to see it. Understandably, reliving that morning through the prism of this one chapter will make many uncomfortable. That's as it should be, for everyone knows how this story ends. But for those who want a vivid, unadorned, documentary telling of flight 93, this movie is brilliant.
Friday, March 24, 2006
Thank You For Smoking
When I was just out of college, I worked for 18 months or so in a congressional office in Washington, DC, and was able to get a good first-hand look at how politics work in America. One of the more interesting aspects is how lobbyists shower members of Congress with attention and favors, such as tickets to Redskins or Orioles games, in exchange for legislative assistance on matters important to their cause.
For instance, I went to an Orioles game once, courtesy of the Tobacco Institute, the association of cigarette manufacturers that lobbies for all things pro-smoking. Not too long after that, the Congressman I worked for was scheduled to ask questions at a hearing on outlawing smoking on commercial airline flights. The witness was a representative from the Tobacco Institute, and because of that, it came as a shock (but shouldn't have, in retrospect) that the questions my boss asked were carefully worded softballs that had been written out and faxed to our office by--you guessed--the Tobacco Institute.
That was a real lesson for me, but pales in comparison to the actions of Nick Naylor, the chief lobbyist for the fictionally equivalent Academy of Tobacco Studies in "Thank You For Smoking". Nick is the boldest, brashest, most despicable kind of guy you could imagine, and yet, you really root for the guy. As he explains to his pre-teen son, the trick to winning an argument is to sidestep. The reason chocolate ice cream isn't better than vanilla, he goes on to explain, is that the freedom to be able to choose any flavor you want is even better. And so it goes.
"Thank You for Smoking" takes us on a delightfully wicked and sharp satirical journey through the life of one of the sleaziest professions in Washington: the paid spin-meister. And Aaron Eckhardt was simply born to play this role. Rob Lowe should win an Oscar for best minor featured role for his turn as a Hollywood superagent whom Nick approaches for some strategic product placement help to boost Big Tobacco's image among consumers.
Thanks to a deft adaptation of Christopher Buckley's novel, writer and director Jason Reitman's debut feature film sails along smoothly and effortlessly, never bogging down, but being careful to allow some breathing room in just the right places.
The pic does not attempt to make serious points about the dangers of tobacco or the evil of tobacco lobbyists, and it will certainly not get an Oscar nod for Best Picture (though it is far better than some of last year's nominees). But taken in the context of its realm--the political satire--"Thank You for Smoking" is really as good as it gets.
For instance, I went to an Orioles game once, courtesy of the Tobacco Institute, the association of cigarette manufacturers that lobbies for all things pro-smoking. Not too long after that, the Congressman I worked for was scheduled to ask questions at a hearing on outlawing smoking on commercial airline flights. The witness was a representative from the Tobacco Institute, and because of that, it came as a shock (but shouldn't have, in retrospect) that the questions my boss asked were carefully worded softballs that had been written out and faxed to our office by--you guessed--the Tobacco Institute.
That was a real lesson for me, but pales in comparison to the actions of Nick Naylor, the chief lobbyist for the fictionally equivalent Academy of Tobacco Studies in "Thank You For Smoking". Nick is the boldest, brashest, most despicable kind of guy you could imagine, and yet, you really root for the guy. As he explains to his pre-teen son, the trick to winning an argument is to sidestep. The reason chocolate ice cream isn't better than vanilla, he goes on to explain, is that the freedom to be able to choose any flavor you want is even better. And so it goes.
"Thank You for Smoking" takes us on a delightfully wicked and sharp satirical journey through the life of one of the sleaziest professions in Washington: the paid spin-meister. And Aaron Eckhardt was simply born to play this role. Rob Lowe should win an Oscar for best minor featured role for his turn as a Hollywood superagent whom Nick approaches for some strategic product placement help to boost Big Tobacco's image among consumers.
Thanks to a deft adaptation of Christopher Buckley's novel, writer and director Jason Reitman's debut feature film sails along smoothly and effortlessly, never bogging down, but being careful to allow some breathing room in just the right places.
The pic does not attempt to make serious points about the dangers of tobacco or the evil of tobacco lobbyists, and it will certainly not get an Oscar nod for Best Picture (though it is far better than some of last year's nominees). But taken in the context of its realm--the political satire--"Thank You for Smoking" is really as good as it gets.
Thursday, March 09, 2006
Aquamarine
This is a breezy little number about two teen girls who live on the beach in Florida. Claire and Hailey are best buds, and in five more days, summer will be over, and they will be separated when Hailey and her mother move to Australia. Naturally, they have a crush on the totally hot lifeguard, Raymond, and would just about die if he were to pay either of them even the slightest bit of attention. Soon enough, a big storm hits, and what washes up into the swimming pool but an enticing--you guessed it--mermaid? Come to think of it, aren't all mermaids enticing?
The mermaid, aptly named Aquamarine, has her own problem, which is to prove to her father that she can find true love, and therefore escape a forced marriage. Aquamarine tries to convince the two girls to help her pursue Raymond, with the goal being that if he says he loves her within three days, then Aquamarine won't have to go through with her nuptials. Of course, the two girls are loathe to assist in such a plan, since they have their eyes on him, but Aquamarine makes it worth their while: anyone who does a mermaid a favor gets a free wish, and the girls instantly agree that their wish will be to never be separated. And then, we are off to the races.
I have to admit that I was moved at points by this story, which is targeted, I need not say, at a demographic of which I am most assuredly not a member. But the deft storytelling on the part of the director hits just the right notes while avoiding the sledgehammer to drive home the obvious or, what is sometimes worse, to over-sentimentalize story beats. And there are some delightful touches, as when Claire bribes the bandleader at the beachfront hangout into playing a particular song to which Aquamarine and Raymond ought to be able to have their first dance. Claire's currency for the bribe? A plate brimming over with a HUGE piece of chocolate cake. Claire doesn't make a big deal over the cake--in fact she never even mentions it--but nevertheless it is a perfect reflection of what a teen girl would think would win over an adult. "Aquamarine" is loaded with clever and understated moments like this, and they are what make the movie all the more charming.
To be sure, this is a light comedy-fantasy aimed at tweener girls, but the screenplay has just enough heft and seriousness of purpose, combined with an astute grasp of the feelings of 14-year-old girls, that it goes just a little deeper than I expected. Girls, don't worry. This is not "Howard's End." But it is a pleasing and ultimately satisfying tale of two girls who mature to their ages and circumstances when confronted with an emotionally challenging situation, and they have a lot of fun and more than a few good laughs along the way. Ultimately, everone's wish is satisfied, but not at all in the way you would expect them to be.
Technical contributions are satisfactory, but the cinematography is uneven and a little on the shiny side. Special effects are generally good, though in one important scene, the use of a green screen background (i.e., modern day rear-projection) is glaringly obvious. Certain lines of dialog are obviously looped, but lively scoring added to the most important moments without calling too much attention to itself.
The mermaid, aptly named Aquamarine, has her own problem, which is to prove to her father that she can find true love, and therefore escape a forced marriage. Aquamarine tries to convince the two girls to help her pursue Raymond, with the goal being that if he says he loves her within three days, then Aquamarine won't have to go through with her nuptials. Of course, the two girls are loathe to assist in such a plan, since they have their eyes on him, but Aquamarine makes it worth their while: anyone who does a mermaid a favor gets a free wish, and the girls instantly agree that their wish will be to never be separated. And then, we are off to the races.
I have to admit that I was moved at points by this story, which is targeted, I need not say, at a demographic of which I am most assuredly not a member. But the deft storytelling on the part of the director hits just the right notes while avoiding the sledgehammer to drive home the obvious or, what is sometimes worse, to over-sentimentalize story beats. And there are some delightful touches, as when Claire bribes the bandleader at the beachfront hangout into playing a particular song to which Aquamarine and Raymond ought to be able to have their first dance. Claire's currency for the bribe? A plate brimming over with a HUGE piece of chocolate cake. Claire doesn't make a big deal over the cake--in fact she never even mentions it--but nevertheless it is a perfect reflection of what a teen girl would think would win over an adult. "Aquamarine" is loaded with clever and understated moments like this, and they are what make the movie all the more charming.
To be sure, this is a light comedy-fantasy aimed at tweener girls, but the screenplay has just enough heft and seriousness of purpose, combined with an astute grasp of the feelings of 14-year-old girls, that it goes just a little deeper than I expected. Girls, don't worry. This is not "Howard's End." But it is a pleasing and ultimately satisfying tale of two girls who mature to their ages and circumstances when confronted with an emotionally challenging situation, and they have a lot of fun and more than a few good laughs along the way. Ultimately, everone's wish is satisfied, but not at all in the way you would expect them to be.
Technical contributions are satisfactory, but the cinematography is uneven and a little on the shiny side. Special effects are generally good, though in one important scene, the use of a green screen background (i.e., modern day rear-projection) is glaringly obvious. Certain lines of dialog are obviously looped, but lively scoring added to the most important moments without calling too much attention to itself.
Monday, March 06, 2006
Oscars: Party Crasher
In a move that apparently took everyone by surprise, "Crash" won best picture over the favored "Brokeback Mountain" at last night's Academy Awards.
I have to admit that I thought "Brokeback Mountain" was, hands down, the best directed movie of the nominees. I could make a very strong case for "Munich"--after all, no one has mastered the craft better than Spielberg--but in the end, I thought Ang Lee's handling of his story was more skillful than Spielberg's handing of "Munich," as the directing related to the particular stories they were telling. Spliting hairs, to be sure, but sometimes, in the "busy-ness" factor, less is simply more. So I was not surprised to see Ang Lee win that category. Among the directing nominees, his and Spielberg's efforts were head and shoulders above the rest of the nominees.
But "Crash" as best picture? That is a puzzlement to me. Maybe it was the hometown factor, given that "Crash" was set in Los Angeles. There is also the theory that publicity and awareness for "Brokeback" peaked too early, such that when Academy Voters were at the point of actually casting their ballots, "Brokeback" was losing its lustre, and "Crash" was ascendant.
One thing that pleases me greatly is the continued breaking of the tradition of Best Picture and Best Director going to the same film. I was very pleased to see Spielberg win the directing award for "Saving Private Ryan," for instance, but I thought "Private Ryan" had major story weaknesses, even though it was a directing tour de force, and I felt that "Shakespeare in Love" was vastly superior as a complete movie. So, "Shakespeare" was more Oscar-worthy as Best Picture.
There should be no rule that the top two awards should go to the same film, and clearly, voters felt the same. Having said that however, I think "Brokeback" should have won both categories, even while I am pleased that the Academy doesn't give a hoot for traditions.
My only other major comment on the awards this year is that Phillip Seymour Hoffman, while doing an outstanding job in "Capote," did not hold a candle to Heath Ledger. But his portrayal of Truman Capote was certainly much more flamboyant and lively, and maybe in the end, just more interesting. But still, Heath Ledger was absolutely stunning in "Brokeback". My ranking before the awards was Heath Ledger, Joaquin Phoenix, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Terrence Howard, and David Strathairn.
C'est la vie.
I have to admit that I thought "Brokeback Mountain" was, hands down, the best directed movie of the nominees. I could make a very strong case for "Munich"--after all, no one has mastered the craft better than Spielberg--but in the end, I thought Ang Lee's handling of his story was more skillful than Spielberg's handing of "Munich," as the directing related to the particular stories they were telling. Spliting hairs, to be sure, but sometimes, in the "busy-ness" factor, less is simply more. So I was not surprised to see Ang Lee win that category. Among the directing nominees, his and Spielberg's efforts were head and shoulders above the rest of the nominees.
But "Crash" as best picture? That is a puzzlement to me. Maybe it was the hometown factor, given that "Crash" was set in Los Angeles. There is also the theory that publicity and awareness for "Brokeback" peaked too early, such that when Academy Voters were at the point of actually casting their ballots, "Brokeback" was losing its lustre, and "Crash" was ascendant.
One thing that pleases me greatly is the continued breaking of the tradition of Best Picture and Best Director going to the same film. I was very pleased to see Spielberg win the directing award for "Saving Private Ryan," for instance, but I thought "Private Ryan" had major story weaknesses, even though it was a directing tour de force, and I felt that "Shakespeare in Love" was vastly superior as a complete movie. So, "Shakespeare" was more Oscar-worthy as Best Picture.
There should be no rule that the top two awards should go to the same film, and clearly, voters felt the same. Having said that however, I think "Brokeback" should have won both categories, even while I am pleased that the Academy doesn't give a hoot for traditions.
My only other major comment on the awards this year is that Phillip Seymour Hoffman, while doing an outstanding job in "Capote," did not hold a candle to Heath Ledger. But his portrayal of Truman Capote was certainly much more flamboyant and lively, and maybe in the end, just more interesting. But still, Heath Ledger was absolutely stunning in "Brokeback". My ranking before the awards was Heath Ledger, Joaquin Phoenix, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Terrence Howard, and David Strathairn.
C'est la vie.
Saturday, March 04, 2006
The First Post
I am going to use this site to share my thoughts on movies that I like or don't like. I am writing as someone who has watched a lot of films, and knows something about how movies are made, so I will attempt to avoid too much technical jargon. Instead, I will try to state plainly my views and why I thought a particular movie was successful or unsuccessful.
It is my intention to only post reviews of new movies, to be reviewed as I see them in theatres. However, it is entirely possible that I will rewatch a movie on DVD or on a movie channel, and that I might feel compelled to post a review. And of course, it is also possible that I might see an older movie for the first time on DVD or TV, and feel like writing a review.
Enjoy the blog. I encourage thoughtful responses to my take on the movies.
Sincerely,
Mr. Sheldrake
It is my intention to only post reviews of new movies, to be reviewed as I see them in theatres. However, it is entirely possible that I will rewatch a movie on DVD or on a movie channel, and that I might feel compelled to post a review. And of course, it is also possible that I might see an older movie for the first time on DVD or TV, and feel like writing a review.
Enjoy the blog. I encourage thoughtful responses to my take on the movies.
Sincerely,
Mr. Sheldrake
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)