Ranking the Die Hard Films

Since the fifth Die Hard film was released today, I thought it would be fitting to examine the series, which has been around for 25 years.

Die Hard (John McTiernan, 1988)

On a Christmas Eve visit from New York, Officer John McClane (Bruce Willis) plays cat and mouse in a locked-down L.A. skyscraper with a group of terrorists (led by Alan Rickman). Bruce Willis is iconic in one of the best action films ever made. Period.

Die Hard 2 (Renny Harlin, 1990)

McClane fights a unit of rogue military officers (led by William Sadler) who have taken over an airport in Washington, D.C. so that they can extract a foreign drug lord from the U.S. It's a step down from the original, but a worthy follow-up to a genre classic.

Die Hard with a Vengeance (John McTiernan, 1995)

McClane and a man from the neighborhood (Samuel L. Jackson) go head to head with a terrorist (Jeremy Irons) who stages some bombings throughout New York City and robs Wall Street. This is solid entertainment with great chemistry between Willis and Jackson.

Live Free or Die Hard (Len Wiseman, 2007)

With the help of a young computer hacker (Justin Long), McClane must rescue his daughter (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) and stop a cyber terrorist (Timothy Olymphant) from accessing important FBI information in the process. It's not on par with the first three, but it's fun seeing an older McClane do what he does best.

A Good Day to Die Hard (John Moore, 2013)

McClane heads to Moscow to find his trouble-making son (Jai Courtney) and becomes entangled in a nuclear weapons conflict, which leads to Chernobyl itself. Despite Willis' lovable on-screen persona, the aging McClane formula seems to have run its course, and the plot is arguably too rushed for its own good.

Ranking & Ratings:

1. Die Hard - ****
2. Die Hard with a Vengeance - ***1/2
3. Die Hard 2 - ***1/2
4. Live Free or Die Hard - ***
5. A Good Day to Die Hard - **

040. Roommates

040. (29 Jan) Roommates (1995, Peter Yates) 9



Nothing says fun family comedy like a crotchety old man, a cold male lead, and a female lead who dies midway through the film leaving behind two young kids! Peter Falk is unbearable here, not landing a single joke. But there's really no laugh that lands in the film's entire bloated runtime. For instance, when D.B. Sweeney is late for dinner his adolescent son suggests, "Maybe daddy's dead too!" Hilarious. Theoretically, I suppose Falk didn't look as old as he did when they filmed this, resulting in an awful Oscar nomination.

Zero Kelvin (Kjærlighetens kjøtere) 1995 **

Set amidst the artic elements of Greenland, this Norwegian film from director Hans Petter Moland examines the effects of isolation and brutality on the human psyche.  Beautifully photographed by Philip Øgaard, Zero Kelvin (1995) is predominately a psychological thriller without the usual histrionics associated with the genre. While it is interesting to watch the volatile relationship between the two major characters, the film does drag in a few places, which hampers my overall appreciation of it.

Henrik Larsen (Gard B. Eidsvold) makes a fateful decision when he signs on with the Greenland Company as an animal trapper. Commissioned to write a book about the life of outdoorsmen, the Norwegian gentleman poet is thrown completely out of his element when he finds himself working for a crude, alcoholic foreman named Randbæk (Stellan Skarsgård).  The men are polar opposites, coming from two very different social classes and intellectual levels, and they immediately clash.  The only thing that stands between them killing one another is the pleasant camp naturalist, Jakob Holm (Bjørn Sundquist). When the two rival’s incessant and violent bickering becomes even too much for the peaceful Holm he deserts the camp and leaves the two men to their deathly feud.  It is at this point that the film takes an even darker turn, as Larsen is forced into a duel of survival on the artic terrain against a menacingly cruel Randbæk.

One of the most recognizable Swedish actors of his generation, and known throughout all of cinema as a prolific and versatile actor, Skarsgård plays Randbæk as a deplorably reprehensible character. He seethes with antagonism and almost every word he says drips with venom.  You can’t help but hate Randbæk and feel sympathetically towards Larsen. From his constant belittling and taunting of Larsen to his extreme cruelty exacted on the sled dogs, you find yourself hoping that he ends up dying painfully slow.  I usually don’t completely despise a character, but with Randbæk I had no choice. Skarsgård has said of the role that he “could see from the outset that it was a rewarding character to play because there were absolutely no limits to what he could do. It's one of the most delicious parts I've ever played. I've never been such a bastard before." That’s more than an apt description of Randbæk—he is a complete bastard. 

Perhaps it was the icy, artic air that contributed to how mean Skarsgård made Randbæk appear, because the crisp, austere images captured by cinematographer Øgaard would lead one to believe that only a certain type of person could survive in such an environment.  Working above the Arctic Circle in Svalbard, Norway, Øgaard adeptly uses the setting’s natural elements of ice, snow, and wind to create a vast, desolate wasteland which compounds both the characters’ and viewer’s sense of isolation. With his photography he creates a completely punishing atmosphere for an equally punishing story.

However, my biggest complaint with Zero Kelvin stems from Øgaard’s cinematography: the film sometimes drags because so much time is spent looking at the harsh terrain.  I think Moland and his editor, Einar Egeland, could have slightly cut some of the environment shots to keep the story’s pace a bit more engaging.  Yes, Øgaard’s images deserve to be admired for their beauty, but a good director knows when enough is enough.

Overall, Zero Kelvin is a somewhat engrossing psychological thriller with engaging cinematography, but it is not a film that I would categorize as must-see.

221. Truman

221. (24 Sep) Truman (1995, Frank Pierson) 56



This covers the major events of Truman's life, focusing primarily on his time in office, doing a capable job scratching the surface of a complicated presidency. Gary Sinise's physicality and accent make his an incredibly convincing portrayal. Diana Scarwid is enjoyable as chilly First Lady Bess. There are some wonderfully personal moments, like when he thanks his kitchen staff for a birthday cake and informs them it's V-E Day, but this is mostly by-the-numbers. I'd say it's on par with most presidential biopics.

Strange Days (1995) **

Loud, obnoxious, and inexplicably unbelievable is how I would define director Kathryn Bigelow’s Strange Days (1995). I’ll admit that I dislike most science fiction movies, so I already had a proverbial chip on my shoulder when I watched this. Plus, this is one of those Y2K films that forecasts the world on the brink of anarchy as the new millennium approaches, and since I know that was all much ado about nothing it irks me even more.  Now, I’m not saying it’s unwatchable, because it’s not horrible, I just don’t think it’s very good, either. I’m obviously not the only person who viewed it as such, since this James Cameron $42-million production was a huge box office disaster.  Over the years it has developed a cult following, but so has Pink Flamingos (1972), so that’s nothing to brag about in my opinion.

The beyond handsome Ralph Fiennes plays Lenny Nero, an ex-L.A.P.D. cop who has morphed into a complete sleazeball who sells bootleg recordings for something called a SQUID (Superconducting Quantum Interference Device). Basically this device allows the wearer to record whatever they see. These recordings are then sold to virtual reality addicts. While some of these images are benign, most of them are for adrenaline junkies, perverts, and/or budding psychos.  When Lenny comes into possession of a Blackjack recording (what we call a snuff film) of a woman being raped and killed he finds himself embroiled in a web of corruption and multiple murders.  Things are only exacerbated by the fact that his slutty ex-girlfriend, Faith (played by Juliette Lewis),  is at the center of the whole sordid mess.

Where to start?  The story is just too bizarre for me.  For some reason Lenny is obsessed with the whorish Faith. Juliette Lewis spends the entire film scantily (if that) clad in what can only be described as Fredrick’s of Hollywood couture.  Her character is a punk rock singer who likes to do covers of PJ Harvey songs. Lewis does her own singing, and while her voice isn’t bad, the songs (to me) are.  Anyway, Faith obviously has a thing for sleazy men, as her current one, Philo (Michael Wincott), is a sadistic freak (he is also her manager).  Because he can’t have Faith, Lenny watches old recordings of them having sex to compensate.  Can anyone say yuck…oh, and pathetic, too!  In what world would a man who looks like Fiennes need to be pining over a former heroin-addicted prostitute?  This is one of the biggest reasons I couldn’t get behind this story—why would anyone want to risk their life to save such an unlikable character?

Then there’s Angela Bassett as Mace—Lenny’s ass-kicking, limo-driving friend.  It’s obvious she has a thing for Lenny, but for the life of me (besides his hotness) I can’t figure out why.  There is some unexplained backstory about how they came to know one another, but other than this I don’t know why they would be friends.  It’s apparent she’s actually a decent human being—why would she want to be friends with someone as despicable as Lenny?  Well, she does, and so she joins him on his quest to save Faith from Philo and the mystery murderer.  I like Bassett, but her character here is one of those I want to help the man that I love besides my better judgment women that I always find myself despising.  As such, I dislike all of the female characters in this flick. 

There’s so much tech-speak about the SQUID that it is really difficult to keep everything straight. Yes, like most sci-fi films they do quick, passing explanations of what the hell they are referring to—this is another convenient role that Mace plays since she is a strict non-user of the device she has to have tutorials (just like the viewer) as each new thing about this virtual reality world is introduced—but it just sounded like sci-fi geek stuff to me and I found myself not caring what did what.  Since James Cameron, along with Jay Cocks, wrote the screenplay I guess I shouldn’t be surprised there is a heavy reliance on gadgetry, but that doesn’t mitigate the fact that I felt bogged down with information overload. 

And, the ending: it was so trite.  Was I supposed to be surprised about who the killer was?  I wasn’t.  It was beyond clichéd. Oh, and the whole allusion to the Rodney King police brutality incident was just so over the top for me.  I know the film was made in 1995 and America was in the throes of the OJ Simpson murder case and the entire country was led to believe the LAPD was full of rogue racist cops, but sometimes a director should take a step back and look at the message they are sending to their audience. 

One of the main reasons I couldn’t enjoy this film was how loud it was.  Punk rock just isn’t something I find enjoyable to listen to, and when it was unnecessarily amplified in what seemed like every scene I found myself reaching for the Aleve. I’m sure Bigelow and Cameron used it to create an atmosphere of anarchy, but it just gave me a headache.

At the end of Strange Days I just couldn’t find anything I liked about it (other than Fiennes’ hotness).  All of the characters were either reprehensible or annoyingly flawed; the story was bogged down in tech-jargon; and, everything just came off too loud.  Yes, the film has a lot of style, but, to me, it lacks substance.

Se7en (1995) ***

 

For some reason, cultured serial killers are always the worst. When they base their heinous acts on biblical and classical literature they seem to creep me out more than their illiterate chainsaw wielding counterparts.  Perhaps it’s because I work and live in a world based on knowing and disseminating knowledge. Of course, it doesn’t help that this type of character usually looks harmless, as does Kevin Spacey’s John Doe in Se7en (1995).  Doe bases his murderous acts on the seven deadly sins (more properly known as the Cardinal Sins) and uses quotations from the likes of Aquinas, Chaucer, Dante, and Milton to leave messages for the detectives pursuing him (Brad Pitt and Morgan Freeman).  Atmospheric and edgy, Se7en is an uncomfortable look at the depravity of the times in which we live.

Freeman plays Detective William Somerset, a well-read but world-weary man who finds himself seven days from retirement when he catches a serial killer case that he’d rather not have.  He is joined on the case by his soon-to-be replacement, Detective David Mills (Pitt), a jaded but still naïve cop who has recently transferred to the police department. The lead character’s name was not randomly chosen by screenwriter Andrew Kevin Walker—he named Somerset after his favorite author, W. Somerset Maugham.  This only adds to the literary allusions throughout the film, when several well-known passages are referenced throughout.  I would even venture to guess that the character of Mills is some type of  proxy for John Stuart Mill and his utilitarianistic harm principle, where each individual has the right to act as they want, so long as these actions do not harm others.

That philosophy, of course, is put to the test when Mills and Somerset come up against a serial killer who thinks he’s doing the world a favor by ridding it of the dregs of society. When explaining why he murdered his innocent victims he says, “Only in a world this shitty could you even try to say these were innocent people and keep a straight face.” And, that’s the point—they live in some type of apocalyptic world where everything is gray-toned and it never seems to cease raining unless you go out into the countryside.  Evidently the horrible acts carried out by Doe in this No-name city are nothing too out of the ordinary.  This is the reason Somerset wants out and says as much when he explains to Mills why he’s ready to retire: “I just don't think I can continue to live in a place that embraces and nurtures apathy as if it was virtue.” It sucks in No-name city, and the people who live there are complicit in every awful thing that transpires there.  Those who think they can rise above it, like Mills, find themselves completely enveloped by its sinister ways. 

While we are spared watching the sickening murders take place, we do have the unwelcome experience of seeing the aftermath of Doe’s actions. Gruesome crime scenes abound, and while they are not as stomach-turning as what you would find in a slasher movie, they are still difficult to look at.  His take on the seven deadly sins is rather imaginative, so I suppose if I were grading his psychopathic artistry I’d have to give him an A.  For me, his '”sloth” endeavor is the more memorable of all his “masterpieces”.  That emaciated body sputtering to life sent a jolt throughout my entire body.  Obviously this was the point in Spacey’s career when he embraced his darker side by playing both Doe here and Verbal Kint in The Usual Suspects (1995) in 1995. He must have picked up a few pointers from Anthony Hopkins’ turn in The Silence of the Lambs (1991) about how to play a cool and calculating serial killer, because he does a nice job of not overplaying Doe’s depravity. 

As for Pitt and Freeman, both do admirable jobs with their respective characters.  Freeman, in particular, does an outstanding job as Somerset.  Everyone knows he can deliver his lines with that god-like voice of his, but it is more his non-verbal work here that resonates.  When you are playing a man who is tired of the world it only makes sense that your character should appear physically and mentally drained—Somerset does. Perhaps it’s the way he carries Somerset or how he keeps his eyes and facial features in an almost constant state of underlying tension that makes me believe he has had enough of No-name city and the human race.  The look on his face when he opens up the box of vengeance (I won’t spoil it for those who haven’t seen the film) is priceless. 

My biggest complaint with Se7en is Gwyneth Paltrow as Mills’ wife Tracy.  While I know the character is necessary for plot reasons, Paltrow’s performance is just beyond boring.  Sure, her character is depressed about living on a subway line in a city where she doesn’t know anyone, but that doesn’t mean she has to be mind-numbingly tiring  to watch.  This role does not suit her at all and would have been better cast with the likes of Juliette Lewis or Marisa Tomei.  Oh, and to make things worse, it was on this film that Pitt and Paltrow became romantically involved, which resulted in more than 2-years of annoying gossip fodder. 

Overall, I think Se7en is a highly enjoyable psychological thriller.  It makes you really examine the world in which you live and contemplate how complicit you are in what is happening around you.  Plus, the ending is just beyond shocking and memorable. 

Review: To Die For (1995)

Nicole Kidman as Suzanne Stone

Directed by Gus van Sant
Produced by Laura Ziskin
Written by Buck Henry (screenplay); Joyce Maynard (novel)
Starring Nicole Kidman, Joaquin Phoenix, Casey Affleck, Illeana Douglas, Alison Folland, and Matt Dillon

***1/2

As a dark comedy, To Die For is just what it's title suggests it is. Nicole Kidman gives a Golden Globe-winning performance as the weather reporter with dreams of fame: Suzanne Maretto, aka Suzanne Stone. As she takes a job at a local cable station, her new hubby (Dillon) starts to focus on raising a family and expanding his family's restaurant. Suzanne, in the meantime, is hard at work on a television documentary about some of the local teenagers named James (Phoenix), Russel (Affleck), and Lydia (Folland), and she eventually begins sleeping with James. Then her husband starts to press her about quitting her job to start a family, which sends her over the edge. From here on, she has James and Russel murder her husband, and she is eventually taken care of through her Italian father-in-law's mob connections.

This film is, admittedly, much improved by Kidman's completely tantalizing and slightly sinister portrayal of this determined woman. Adapted from Joyce Maynard's novel, the script is divided into a series of flashbacks intercut with interviews of people who knew Suzanne and her husband, and this is handled well by the renowned indie director Gus van Sant. The focus on the characters is paramount, and he does a fine job, though no character can shine like Suzanne here. Let's face it: this is Kidman's film. The rest of the cast fit their characters, yet I do think Matt Dillon is miscast as a quiet Italian boy from the neighborhood. Also, Danny Elfman's score is his trademark jangler, and it helps keep the film moving. Though this film has been forgotten by almost all but hardcore Kidman fans, it is a star vehicle for Kidman that is great fun. Her performance alone merits a watch for anyone who hasn't seen it.

Oscar Tally: None (Kidman totally deserved a nomination at least!)

128. Congo

128. (25 Jun) /Congo/ (1995, Frank Marshall) 46

I vividly recall seeing Congo in a theater when I must have been seven or eight-years-old. Jungle adventures were rare in those days and I remember being rather enchanted by this muck. Its charm remains today. From the woefully outdated monkey suits to the earnest performance from Laura Linney to the hamminess of Tim Curry, there's too much here that works when it shouldn't to deny it. It's a certifiable guilty pleasure.

Braveheart

Braveheart, 1995
Directed by Mel Gibson
Nominated for 10 Oscars, Won 5
Up Against: Apollo 13, Babe, Il Postino: The Postman, Sense and Sensibility

Braveheart is the story of William Wallace and his fight for the freedom of Scotland, and his people, from the British. When William was a little boy, King Edward I, or also know as Longshanks, of England, invades Scotland. Little William see's tons of men in his village hung in a hut where they were promised a meeting to make peace, and William's father and brother die. William goes to live with his uncle, is educated, and returns to his village a grown man. He falls in love with a woman he knew when he was young, and they court in secret, and marry in secret. They marry in secret because Longshanks grants his noblemen land in Scotland, and also something called "Primae Noctis", which means noblemen have the right to sleep with a Scottish women on her wedding night. William and his wife meet in secret, hoping to avoid this. However, when a man tries to rape William's wife, William injuries and kills many of the noblemen, and the two try to flee, but his wife is captured and publicly executed in the village before William figures out what has happened. William and the entire Scottish village wage a war on the noblemen staying there, killing them all, and executing the sherriff. William Wallace is now on a crusade for Scotland's freedom, and as his name and legacy spreads, his builds an army. But with all this comes a cost.

Braveheart is a film about bravery, and about living (and dying) for what you believe in. This movie is nowhere near historically accurate, nor does it really try to be, though is set with real people as characters, in a real war. What I loved about this movie straightaway was the score. And right away I could tell it was by James Horner. He has such a distinguishable sound to him (but so did John Williams, back in the Star Wars/Jurassic Park days, and as does Hans Zimmer, John Powell, and Alexandre Desplat), but the score was superbly Scottish, and was very beautiful. Additionally, the sets and costumes were really stunning. The scenery was gorgeous, and filmed so well (it won Best Cinematography). The Art Direction, set design, make-up, just looked really great too. Besides Best Picture and Director, the film won Cinematography, Make-Up and Sound Editing. All these awards were rightfully deserved. And it rightfully earned nominations for Score, Costume, Editing, and Sound Mixing. However, the thing I wasn't so keen on was the pacing of the story.

The story of William Wallance, his childhood and the secret wedding and murdering of his wife took up the first hour of the movie. The next two hours were battle scenes, cliche scenes of Scottish citizens overtaking the English Noblemen, and The Princess of France (married to Longshank's son), and Robert the Bruce (aspiring to take the throne of Scotland) supporting William Wallace inwardly, while those around them do not.

While the movie was acting very well, had great effects, and achieved well in the art and tech areas, this movie was a little stop-and-start in pacing, and was just so simply average. The story was cliche, with nothing all that new or original to boast about. It was exceedingly inaccurate, and was just like any other period piece war movie. Additionally, I found things were drawn out too long, and the movie could've been significantly shorter than the 3 hours that it is.

I don't mean to crap all over this movie. It was a decent film, with some good acting, beautiful scenery and great costumes and great music. However, this film isn't all that original, is a wee bit too long for it's own good. Oh, and it was up against Apollo 13 that year.

6/10

The Final Conclusion - Best Actress 1995

1995

 

So the much anticipated ranking is:

5. Emma Thompson in Sense and Sensibility

I was quite impressed by Emma Thompson's work and I feel she richly deserved the Oscar - for writing. Her contributions to the movie as a screenwriter are much significant than what she gave here as an actress. However, it would be clearly unfair from me not to emphasise how much I liked her acting as well and how connected I felt to her character. She didn't get the showiest part, that's for sure, but her talent shines even with such circumstances. 

 

4. Meryl Streep in The Bridges of Madison County

I don't see the brilliance that many others do but I see the effort and can completely understand why many people are in love with this work. Although she definitely makes Francesca an extremely realistic woman that you can easily relate to, it's just something that wasn't too hard for the marvelous Meryl Streep. Nevertheless, I cannot deny the fact that she really elevates her movie that would just dragging along without her.  

 

3. Susan Sarandon in Dead Man Walking

I can conclude that Susan Sarandon gives a fantastic performance as Helen Prejean. She hits all the right notes, she displays dignity, grace and faith like nobody else. Her subtle, emotional work stays with you long after movie and is actually the most important reason to see the film. Although this part may not have been too difficult to play for an actress of Susan's calibre, it's still outstanding, brave and gutwrenching work given by a wonderful actress.

 

2. Sharon Stone in Casino

Sharon Stone gives a brutal, chaotic and disturbing performance as Ginger in Casino. She gets rid of all her vanity, glamour and sexiness in the process of creating a living piece of junk. Although the downfall of this woman is very hard to watch, Sharon makes it a wonderful experience, thanks to her wonderful talent, her intelligence and confidence. Excellent work.

 

1. Elisabeth Shue in Leaving Las Vegas

What an easy call! Elisabeth Shue kills the rest of her competition with her brilliant performance that I consider one of the greatest ones ever given. If you surrender to her, it's going to be a wonderful experience for you. She makes Sera such an interesting, heartbreaking character without seeming forced for a second. It all seems to come from her so naturally: she clearly identified with this character.

 So I can proudly announce

that the winner is...

Elisabeth Shue 

in 

Leaving Las Vegas
 

Don't worry Elisabeth! You got the important one! :) 

Final thoughts: Wow, a very strong year. I've had better but it was still a treat. Elisabeth was an easy winner, the rest of the ranking, however, took some time to decide. How weird: I drew the order of the reviews, which eventually turned out to be my ranking. So strange. :) In the end, I'm quite confident about this ranking. I'm kind of disappointed that Meryl didn't win three in a row (OK, I admit that I wanted it to happen...badly) and you, of course, didn't expect it not to happen plus I think Sharon's #2 ranking is also a shocker to you. I guess I prefer prostitutes to nuns and hopeless lovers. :) It was really Elisabeth's time shine and I hope she will one day get on the podium as an Oscar winner. Anyway, I'm glad Susan Sarandon has an Oscar. 

Omissions:

• Kathy Bates in Dolores Claibourne
• Julianne Moore in Safe

The next year: 

• Intriguing, eating babies, befriending animals... :-) 

What do you think? Any thoughts on your mind?

Bad news: I'm going to really slow down. I've had some free time now, but it's only gonna be worse until 18th June. After that, however... I'm going to catch up. :) I have to focus on my studies now. :) I'm not giving this up, don't worry, I don't have writer's block, I'm full of creative energy, I just don't have time.

"IT'S JUST TILL JUNE!"

Emma Thompson in Sense and Sensibility

Emma Thompson received another (her third) Oscar nomination for playing another woman destined to become a spinster, this time in the adaptation of Jane Austen's novel, Sense and Sensibility. Emma's chances of winning are the hardest to speculate about. She was a sure thing in Best Adapted Screenplay but in Best Actress, I suppose nobody had a chance of winning. People decided to vote for Emma in Adapted Screenplay, therefore I don't think they picked her in Actress. However, the fact that Emma's movie was the only Best Picture contender might have given her the edge over Meryl.

Although Sense and Sensibility is not the best movie ever made (not even the best from that year), it's so beautifully made in every possible way. First of all, it had a wonderful, flawless adaptation for which Emma Thompson much deservedly won the Oscar: it's so full of subtle emotions and humor, the dialogues, the scenes are so brilliantly written that it's extremely hard to believe that it was Emma's first time as a screenwriter for a feature film. Moreover, Ang Lee's direction is just as excellent and it was robbed of the nomination (his movies are so underrated by the Academy in terms of wins). And I haven't even mentioned the wonderful technical part and the excellent performances (including Wonder Woman Winslet who deserved an Oscar for this work of hers).

I don't know if I have told you this but I so love everything about Emma Thompson: her subtle acting style, her wonderful, terrific, killer sense of humor (her Golden Globe speech for this movie is the best I've ever heard, no contest). Although her performances may not cover a truly wide range, I always enjoy them and I feel sympathy for the characters she plays wheter they be depressed writers, depressed and/or hopeless spinsters or the angel of America. 

Elinor Dashwood is the spinster of the Dashwood family. She's composed, responsible, kind and extremely repressed. She's typically the one who suffers because of the others but has to keep a straight face for the sake of them. It's important to notice this time that Emma also served as a screewriter in this film since it truly influenced the way this woman was portrayed. Most actors writing their parts always write the most most spectacular and showy roles for themselves (if they play the lead), however, Emma (very much like Great Glenn in Albert Nobbs) cared about remaining faithful to the concept of the character instead of writing herself a true showcase as an actress. For this, I'll forever admire her but in the end, this loyalty is the thing that prevents her from giving a truly knockout performance. 

Not that I'm implying that Emma is not great in this movie - she is indeed great in every possible way. She's doing her usual stuff and uses the same tricks all over again and yet her work remains just as fresh and impressive as her previous efforts. Moreover, despite being quite an unshowy part, Elinor Dashwood is far and away the most interesting character for me from the movie. In the stories with three sisters, it's always the oldest sister, the "spinster" whose fate truly captivates me: we can mention Diane Keaton's Lenny from Crimes of the Heart or Chekhov's heroine Olga from Three Sisters (Hannah and her Sisters is the odd one out, I guess, never you mind LOL). Although that extremely tragic edge of those characters is not emphasised by Emma as much as I would like it, she still wonderfully shows this aspect of Elinor. 

I was impressed by the way Emma portrayed Elinor's dignity and how she showed her in the scenes with the girl, Lucy who's secretly engaged to Elinor's true love. I really wish that Elinor had just bitch-slapped the girl (though this is not a soap from the 1980s, it's a soap romantic story from the Victorian era) but Emma wonderfully suggests that it's not Elinor's style. 

Hugh Grants's Edward is quite probably the lamest, clumsiest and most boring guy that's ever been fallen in love with in any story but Emma makes us understand why Elinor fell for her so much. Their chemistry (or is it more proper to say lack of chemistry in the case of these two characters?) is just excellent. I'm not suggesting that their tempestuous love affair sets the screen on fire but they look just fine together. 

With such a character, you would expect to see her break out of her shell and even though that doesn't happen here in a traditional sense, I can see the development in Elinor. She gradually learns how to care more about herself and be little bit more selfish, while she also remains loyal to her old life. Her most memorable scene (for me) came when she was taking care of her ill sister and was crying by the bed. That scene was as moving as it gets and I give nothing but praise for it.

But there are points when her emotions come to the surface and even then, Emma is able to remain as subtle as she was previously. Although we get an insight to Elinor's pain, suffering and bitterness, I wish Emma had done a little bit more. I approve of subtlety but Emma could have moved one step forward to being even more emotional and yet remaining just as subtle. That one step, which cleary would have made her truly amazing here, was clearly missing from this performance eventually and I couldn't help feeling bitter in the end. 

Still, I was quite impressed by Emma Thompson's work and I feel she richly deserved the Oscar - for writing. Her contributions to the movie as a screenwriter are much significant than what she gave here as an actress. However, it would be clearly unfair from me not to emphasise how much I liked her acting as well and how connected I felt to her character. She didn't get the showiest part, that's for sure, but her talent shines even with such circumstances. She's moving and effective without a doubt and for this she gets

 

What do you think? Stay tuned for The Final Conclusion (which won't be that much of a nailbiter, I'm sure). 

Meryl Streep in The Bridges of Madison County

Three-time Academy Award winner Meryl Streep received her tenth Oscar nomination for playing Francesca Johnson, a housewife falling for a photographer in Clint Eastwood's romantic movie, The Bridges of Madison County. According to some resources, this tenth Oscar nod marks the time when the talk about Meryl's third Oscar started, which continued up to three weeks ago when she finally won her well-deserved award. In 1995, however, I don't think she had much of a chance of winning. I suppose she might have got ahead of Emma Thompson but the fact that her mention was the only one for her movie and that she hadn't won any other awards makes me doubtful about it. That being said, Meryl has won so there's nothing to worry about! :) (I'll keep saying that forever so be prepared.)

There's that song which say 'the book of love is long and boring'. Well, so is The Bridges of Madison County. You know had I had a few shots of tequila and some valium, I probably would have appreciated the slow pace of this movie but alas, I was completely sober. The endless dancing and kissing sequences are really good tests of patients though I believe most people are moved by them. I guess I'm just too cynical. That being said, Clint Eastwood's a great director but he has a terrible sense of picking the right screenplay. Furthermore, his performance here is one of the dreariest things you can ever see on the screen. He's completely robotic, adds no depth to the character and I could go on. 

Meryl, oh marvelous Meryl. I'm not saying that I've only praised her, I've said some cheeky things about her but that doesn't change the fact: she's brilliant as she is. I think Colin Firth said it best at the Oscars when he told about how much Meryl raises the bar in each of her performances so it's always a little bit more difficult for the rest. It was one of those rare moments when a speech of praise was 100% honest and true. For these reasons, I was really looking forward to watching The Bridges of Madison County, one of Meryl most praised achievements.

In The Bridges of Madison County, Meryl plays Francesca, a seemingly unhappy wife with an accent who finds passion and love in her life once a mysterious man appears. It sounds quite a lot like Out of Africa if you ask me and to tell the truth, the two performances of Meryl are not that different, either. That's why it's incredibly interesting to me why the former is so often criticised but this one is quite rarely. The circumstances and the reasons for this women are quite different and yet they share a common goal: finding happiness on the side of a man who represents completely different values than she does.  

There's something strongly working against Meryl's performance as Francesca and that's namely her movie. It's so incredibly boring at times that you just wish something happened on the screen and try not to drop off instead of focusing on Meryl. And that also says something about Meryl's work here: with a really amazing performance you can make even a mediocre movie enjoyable (see The Iron Lady). Not being amazing doesn't necesarrily mean, though, that I'm not fond of Meryl's Francesca. I just feel she suffers from the same things that Michelle does in My Week with Marilyn: I see an actress in front of me that I'm completely in love with but an almost unwatchably boring film makes it harder for me to spot that brilliance that makes me tune in to their work. 

Other than that, everything that's moving and effective about The Bridges of Madison County comes from Meryl's performance. In a story with disturbingly one-dimensional characters, her Francesca seems to be the only one who's worth being paid any attention. Meryl makes it extremely easy to sympathise with Francesca and yet her dignity and grace prevents us from feeling pity for her. She really adds lots of depth to this character, making her wonderfully layered and exciting. Meryl created a vulnerable human being: whenever we see Francesca realising how unhappy she was and how unhappy she has to remain without the love from Robert. The screenplay was trying to save some time from the end, instead of leaving out the endless dancing and the useless parts with Francesca's children. We don't get to see her suffering because of the lack of Robert. However, Meryl, on her own, communicates some of her character's pain to us. Many of that comes from the usual unhappy middle-aged housewife character itself but Meryl avoided all the clichés with such characters: there aren't many theatrical breakdowns, she sheds some tears silently, which expresses the pain much more properly. She manages to save that bitter feeling to the parts with the old Francesca, which makes those scenes particulary effective. 

Meryl's chemistry with Clint Eastwood was crucial to the movie and while Clint Eastwood's work adds nothing to the success of the story, the only level his performance works is his relationship with Meryl's character. Then you can imagine how strong Meryl is at showing Francesca's love for Robert. They make up a typical tragic romantic couple but that's something that didn't bother me. Their love scenes and occasional arguments were felt quite realistic to me and I was quite convinced that these two people mean the world to each other. 

In the end, is it one of Meryl Streep's greatest performances as some may suggest? Definitely not if you ask me, otherwise she's wonderful and extremely moving in her part as Francesca. I don't see the brilliance that many others do but I see the effort and can completely understand why many people are in love with this work. Although she definitely makes Francesca an extremely realistic woman that you can easily relate to, it's just something that wasn't too hard for the marvelous Meryl Streep. Nevertheless, I cannot deny the fact that she really elevates her movie that would just dragging along without her. 

 

You're surprised, I'm sure. :) What do you think? (I wouldn't really like to read the words undeserved, The Iron Lady, Viola Davis, Glenn Close, 2011, third if you don't mind. Thanks. Lol) 

Susan Sarandon in Dead Man Walking

I guess we're all quite familiar with the so-called "ovedue" wins. They usually happen when a performer or a filmmaker had already received several nomination without winning a single award. Therefore sentiment really works in that particular person's favor and it's no wonder why some feel quite bitter when the win takes places.  It happened most notably to Martin Scorsese, Shirley MacLaine and Kate Winslet. They are people whose worthiness of an Oscar is undeniable and yet many disagree with their wins. Susan Sarandon's overdue win for Dead Man Walking, however, seems to be a win that is also popular because of the popularity of her performance. People do love her. Susan Sarandon was, I think, a lock for the Academy Award though I don't think she won by a landslide. All the other ladies were pretty much threatening her.  

About Dead Man Walking, let me just emphasise how thought-provoking that movie is. Although it has its flaws, I admired its passion and the fact that it's really up to the viewer to decide what they think about capital punishment. Naturally, Robbins makes his opinion clear (along with Sister Helen) but I don't think that he's as obvious as some might accuse him. That being said, the performances really elevate the film. Sean Penn is truly great in his limited screentime, using all the opportunities, he's only shaky a few times otherwise I think he was worthy of an Oscar win. I must also undeline the unfairly ignored supporting cast, especially the works of Raymond J. Barry and Celia Weston as parents losing their children (though R. Lee Ermey who plays Weston's husband is also great). It's also nice to see Margo Martindale, her performances supporting Sarandon are always so great (though Lorenzo's Oil remains my favorite).

And here we get to Susan Sarandon, fantastic, intelligent actress who constantly gifts us with wonderful subtle performances. She had her prime in the 90s so it was only fitting that she won back then. What I love the most about her is that the way she's able to keep control over her character and inject much of her personality into them while still keeping on acting. Her dedication and passion as an actress and an activist shine through  every material brilliantly. I just keep being amazed by the wide variety of characters she plays: once a rebelling waitress trying to break out of her circumstances, then a dedicated mother who's desperate to save her child's life and eventually, the anti-death penalty activist nun, Sister Helen Prejean. 

Susan obviously approached this real-life character with gallons of respect and grace, her admiration really comes off: she portrays Sister Helen as really noble, wonderful woman who has her own doubts about herself and yet she has her faith as a firm base. Susan wonderfully displayed the sister's integrity. She's far from the concept of nuns in movies: she's neither the strict, conservative Mother Superior from Sister Act (who secretly has a heart of gold) or the singing nun shown in sixties' sugary musicals. In fact, Sister Helen seems nothing like a nun, it's really her strong faith and grace that shows how dedicated she is to the people and God. She has the pure faith of Jennifer Jones St. Bernadette, but Sister Helen is much less naive and more realistic. Susan excellently displayed the fear and doubt on her journey with a man sentenced to death. 

Susan doesn't have the loud, over-the-top moments that some of her fellow nominees had though this is a typical subtle baity role: she has those whispered Oscar clip lines and everything but it still feels really decent and honest. Susan is not begging for laurels in her performance. She mostly uses her face and eyes to express the emotions required from the movie. She has a damn difficult job considering the lots of close-ups. As a result, we get incredibly close to Sister Helen and it's easier for us to identify with her problems.

It was very important for Susan to properly show the inexperience of Sister Helen. That's what makes her meetings with Sean Penn's character, Matthew so intense and haunting. The two of them worked so wonderfully together, not trying to outact each other (though I saw the efforts on Sean Penn's part to be the best, it didn't work, I liked Susan more). Susan with her subtlety and grace is an excellent contrast to Sean Penn's more raging and angry work. Matthew is full of anger and hate and then there's Sister Helen with her calm behaviour, her tolerance and acceptance of Matt. Susan gets something really straight: Sister Helen is not trying to prove that Matthew is innocent and is not attempting to help him get away from taking responsibility for his actions. In fact, she's aware what a terrible thing he has done and tries to make him reveal the truth to her but more importantly, to himself and God. 

Susan had the really difficult task of serving as a moral compass for the viewer: it's up to her to make this film as objective and unbiased as it can be. She succeeds of course, mostly thanks to her previously praised intelligence and dedication. She doesn't overemote or moralise too much. She shows nothing more than Sister Helen's reaction. In a way, Matthew becomes an accessory to the development of Sister Helen (very much like in the case of Elisabeth Shue and Leaving Las Vegas).

Susan is especially strong and effective when we see her listening to the stories of the parents whose children were brutally murdered. We can mostly see her reacting, she's only playing with her face and is wondefully expressive. She shows the conflicts going on inside Sister Helen. She indeed gets terrified by what Matthew has done and yet never even considers giving up on him. Susan excellently displays this integrity and bravery of Sister Helen and also kind of a stubbornness.

The execution of Matthew is terrifying not exclusively because of Sean Penn's acting, but because of Susan's quiet reactions. Her Oscar clip when she says she'll be there with him when it happens, is just excellent, it's everything a scene should be: quietly emotional and effective, hitting you right in your guts. Susan's face is just so haunting when we see her behind the glass reassuring Matthew of her love. Unforgettable moment with honesty rarely displayed on the big screen.

In the end, I can conclude that Susan Sarandon gives a fantastic performance as Helen Prejean. She hits all the right notes, she displays dignity, grace and faith like nobody else. Her subtle, emotional work stays with you long after movie and is actually the most important reason to see the film. Although this part may not have been too difficult to play for an actress of Susan's calibre, it's still outstanding, brave and gutwrenching work given by a wonderful actress. 

 

What do you think?

I know (to quote Melissa McCarthy from Bridesmaids) it's coming out of me like lava but I have some free time now and I want to enjoy it. :) Meryl comes tomorrow. :) Maybe even Emma. :) 

Sharon Stone in Casino

Sharon Stone received her only Best Actress nomination to date for playing Ginger, a prosititute who becomes the wife of the mobster Sam 'Ace' Rothstein. Although Stone won the Golden Globe for her performance, I don't think she was such a serious contender as she didn't receive a nomination from her fellow SAG members. I suppose if Sarandon had already been an Oscar winner, Sharon could have built up enough momentum to win the Oscar - she was a great star turning in a great performance in a Scorsese movie and so on. I suppose in the end she was second after Sarandon. 

Casino, just like Leaving Las Vegas, is a masterpiece and much better than any of the five nominated Pictures. Although it's not as amazing as Goodfellas (what can be), it's so mindblowingly great. Everything is so perfect about it that I actually find it extremely hard to believe that its only nomination came for Stone. The cinematography, art direction, costumes, editing and most of all, the directing - brilliant. De Niro is fantastic as Ace and I'm kind of stunned that she was snubbed during award season. The movie itself has such a depressing, paranoid atmosphere, you just feel that in this world, you just cannot trust anyone and this uncertainty that makes this film so effective. 

If we asked people on the street what they think about when Sharon Stone's name comes up, very few would say Casino. She's best remembered for her iconic role Catherine Tramell in Basic Instinct, where she so infamously proved that (unlike Hot Lips) she's a natural blonde. Then again we are reminded that she's in fact an Academy Award nominee and surprisingly, it wasn't for Basic Instinct, but Casino, a gangster film by Scorsese. 

Performances as wives of famous man or gangsters is something very much welcome at the Academy Award thought extremely rarely in the leading category. I'm sure that if the part of Ginger had been played by a lesser-known actress, she would have been campaigned in the supporting category or if Sharon played it now in 2012 with Harvey Weinstein as a producer, she could start writing her speech for her Oscar for Best Actress in a Supporting Role. That being said, Ginger is a very important character in the story of Casino but I wouldn't swear that the movie wouldn't be the same thing without her - she fulfils all the criteria of s supporting player: she doesn't steal the spotlight from the lead, she doesn't have much screentime, but has a lasting effect on the movie in her scenes. However, in Stone's case that effect is so strong that I couldn't claim that she's not a co-lead at least. She uses lots of her charisma, sexiness and star power in a part that Madonna was intended to play. 

In the beginning, we get to see a beautiful, hot, intelligent and very confident prostitute, working in Las Vegas. Unlike Sera from Leaving Las Vegas, Ginger succesfully avoids devastating circumstances with the help of her wit and her looks. No wonder Ace is instantly mesmerised by her, she's attractive in every possible way a person can be and she's indeed a woman to go crazy for. Stone gradually reveals the dark side of Ginger and boy, is it impressive! She's just amazing in the scene at the wedding party: on the surface, she's a happy bride but two minutes later she's a broken-down woman crying on the telephone to her former pimp. It's interesting that Stone made very different decisions with this character: here, she holds herself back, she's mostly subtle and as Ginger starts going downhill she goes more and more over the top. 

The only thing that's working against her is her masterful movie. Starring in masterpieces is a very tough thing for the actor, as it clearly overshadows the merits of the performances. It doesn't help, either that she's barely on the screen for a very long time. With a supporting character that would have been fine, but you would expect a lead to be fully in charge of the film. Nevertheless, that's the most negative thing I can say about Sharon and I must also add that none of it is her fault as once she's back, she's dynamite. 

Ginger is not a Carmela Soprano type of character who tries to turn a blind eye on her husband's activities but inside guilt is just killing her. Far from it: Ginger actively participates in all the action, she doesn't even try to hide her greed. She knows what she's entitled to and she's willing to get it by all means. Stone brilliantly emphasises how immoral and greedy this woman is, to her it's no big deal to smoke coke in front of her daughter or ordering her lover to kill her husband instantly. 

Ginger's not a typical (movie) addict, either. Stone doesn't want us to feel any sympathy for her, she shows her as the pathetic, broken-down junkie that she really is. I kept being amazed at how well Sharon was able to keep control of her character that was diving deeper and deeper into chaos. On imdb message boards, I've read many complaints about how Stone overplayed Ginger and her whole overacting ruined the movie - in my opinion, that's the biggest praise that she oould get. Stone simply kills the movie with her destructive energy and makes it a truly unpleasant experience. 

This is the reason Sharon's scenes with James Woods are just amazing: she's lost almost everything and these moments brilliantly show how much Ginger is tied to her past. 'Once a hooker, always a hooker' yells Ace after a really ugly fight with Ginger. Sharon's varied greatness shows one simple thing: Ginger is incapable of changing. She has calmer, more quiet periods but there comes another breakdown, another night of cocaine and booze. Stone shows us a very painful and disturbing downfall of a woman. 

Eventually, in the highlight of Stone's performance, Ginger attacks Ace and has a huge breakdown in front of their house: Sharon displays all the emotions of Ginger in a way that we get a brief summary of the character in those few minutes. Although it's true that she's one step away from totally ruinig the character, she was so in control of her that she remains as fantastic as she was perviously.

Another 1995 lady, another terrific performance. Sharon Stone gives a brutal, chaotic and disturbing performance as Ginger in Casino. She gets rid of all her vanity, glamour and sexiness in the process of creating a living piece of junk. Although the downfall of this woman is very hard to watch, Sharon makes it a wonderful experience, thanks to her wonderful talent, her intelligence and confidence. Excellent work. 

 

What do you think? 

Elisabeth Shue in Leaving Las Vegas

Elisabeth Shue received her only Oscar nomination to date for playing Sera, a prostitute falling for a suicidal, alcoholic screenwriter in Leaving Las Vegas. Elisabeth's nomination is considered to have been a real nailbiter though I feel the SAG, Golden Globe and Bafta nods plus the wins from the critics' should have indicated a firm fanbase for Elisabeth. I suppose people might have been worried as she still might have been that girl from Back to the Future and Cocktail. Fortunately, she received her well-deserved acclaim for her work in Leaving Las Vegas and I suppose she was the dark horse for the Oscar (she might have even become second after Sarandon). I just hope that she gets such a great chance in the foreseeable future. 

Leaving Las Vegas is, by all means, a masterpiece. Not only is it better than any of the movies nominated for Best Picture (shitty field, I must say), it's also one of the best movies of the ninties. There we go, I said it. If you go for wonderfully depressing, dark independent films, Leaving Las Vegas is your ideal choice. It deserved all of its nominations and should have got Best Director and at the very least Adapted Screenplay. Nicolas Cage is very effective and heart-breaking in the lead though I must say he doesn't have much screentime at all. I can't really decide if he deserved the Oscar (I'll decide after I rewatch Penn). 

And then there's Maude Elisabeth Shue as Sera, one of the most atypical interpretations of a hooker in the history of film. Prostitutes have always done well with the Academy, we can mention Liz Taylor in her infamous BUtterfield 8 or Jane Fonda's towering achievement in Klute. I suppose I can describe Sera as a darker, even more devastating and heart-breaking version of Bree Daniels: on the ouside. She basically narrates the movie and her experiences very much like Bree does, revealing her feelings and intimate details about her relationship with Ben. Just like Bree, Sera is under a mask, always putting on performances with clients. As she says, she gives whatever they need and want to see. Inside, however, they couldn't be more different. While Bree is always hoping for a better day, Sera doesn't even try to break out of her terrible life even though she desperately clings to the only thing that makes her feel worthy of love and attention - and that's Ben. 

I often find myself wondering what makes a performance truly great, something that really hits you right in your guts. For instance: what's so great about Diane Keaton in Annie Hall technically or even emotionally? My answer is not really and yet she's #3 in my overall ranking. Her special aura and radiant persona is the thing that elevates her performance. Although Shue's plays with emotions incredibly, it's again that special radiation that makes her work so special as Sera. With one teardrop she can communicate the sadness and devastation of days, weeks, even decades. Shue really is the heart of Leaving Las Vegas, she makes it so wonderfully wrenching, depressing and cathartic. In fact, I feel that Nicolas Cage's character is nothing more than an accessory to create Sera's character. Not only that, also if we go by the numbers, she has considerably more scenes and screentime than Cage. On top of that, as I said, she has the biggest impact and she's the reason why you feel that pressing feeling in your throats. 

What I admired the most about Shue here is her ability to get across the humiliation and the love of Sera and the fact that she made her such a layered and beautiful character. She so carefully developed this human being that you can actually feel her heartbeats and feel her breath on your skin. It's chilling to see how close the camera she is to her. The relationship is so intimate between her and the audience but then again the question comes up: could it even be another one of Sera's performances? Are we also just clients of hers? Elisabeth is seemingly playing with the instincts of the viewer. She's extremely hot and sexy, it really just feels like a sexual encounter between you and her. This might sound a little perverted but I could actually smell her skin, her hair and feel her body. Elisabeth's literally almost in your face and this realism really fits this character. 

Furthermore, as Ben puts it many-many times, Sera is an angel to her, a form of salvation that might probably be the only thing that keeps him alive. William H. Macy's character in Magnolia says something like 'I have so much love to give'. I suppose that character and Sera could have a long chat about giving love. In this central relationship, Sera is seemingly the only one to give, give, give and always put up with Ben's unacceptable behaviour. Shue wonderfully showed how complicated this side of Sera is: she even suggests that it's actually Ben who's saving her (just remember her Oscar clip when she's begging him to seek the help of a doctor). This quiet breakdown is one of the most heart-breaking and devastating scenes ever in a movie. Elisabeth added a touch of the essence that Julianne Moore's (<3) character had in Far from Heaven: she turns a blind on the flaws of a man she loves and does everything to maintain that idyllic state. This is probably the biggest merit of Elisabeth: sometimes she does the most unexpected things that lead to the best outcomes. In the scene at the kitchen I felt like watching a 50s perfect housewife instead of a humiliated prostitute. 

Although Elisabeth (naturally) nails all the monologues, it's really her face that really tells Sera's feelings. She's incredibly subtle and avoids being over-the-top. She hits you hard with one simple truth: as hard as she's trying, in the eyes of others, Sera is nothing but a dirty f-ing whore. That's something that you can feel whenever she's on the screen, being humliliated by someone. Again, it's her face that makes these terrifying scenes unbearable: the pain that she displays is almost too much to carry for the audience (thankfully, she's completely in control of her character this way as well).  

Chemistry feels kind of an odd word to describe what's going on between Elisabeth and Nicolas Cage but I have no other word :-). However, their chemistry is just wonderful. Elisabeth is loving and caring, which is a great contrast to Cage's destructive, raging presence. It's over-the-top and subtle paired together and it's just a perfect synthesis. They are in love in the most peculiar and unexpected way - they are in love with each other because they need each other's love and both actors are showing this so effortlessly and naturally that I was actually doubting I was watching actors playing parts  (their last scene is just so amazing).

It takes some time and attention from the viewer to see all the things that Elisabeth put into this character and so all her layers and facets. However, if you surrender to her, it's going to be a wonderful experience for you. She makes Sera such an interesting, heartbreaking character without seeming forced for a second. It all seems to come from her so naturally: she clearly identified with this character. This wonderful, rich character study is indeed a very special gift to us and Elisabeth's talent, extraordinary range and passion makes this one of the greatest performances ever given. 

 

What do you think?

The Next Year

1995

So the nominees were:

• Susan Sarandon in Dead Man Walking
• Elisabeth Shue in Leaving Las Vegas
• Sharon Stone in Casino
• Meryl Streep in The Bridges of Madison County
• Emma Thompson in Sense and Sensibiliy

Thank God this year has become very timely, thanks to the well-deserved and very much anticipated third win of Meryl. :) Can you think of celebrating in a better way? She might even become my first four-time winner and the only one to gain three wins in a row (I will be completely impartial, don't worry)!

What do you think? Who's your pick? What's your prediction for my ranking? :) 

406. Citizen X

406. (31 Aug) Citizen X (1995, Chris Gerolmo) 38







For a docudrama about a serial killer who murdered more than 50 people, Citizen X is unreasonably dull. The focus is on the years-long investigation, which is unravels tediously. Considering the murderer is shown to us early in the film, only to be captured and then released midway through the film, there's no suspense. It's just a matter of how long it will take to bring him to justice. That's slightly over 100 minutes. Donald Sutherland is fairly good here even if he can't keep a consistent Russian accent.