The Big Lebowski (1998) **

A plethora of who’s who comprises the cast of this 1998 Coen Brothers comedy about a case of mistaken identity gone terribly awry.  The Big Lebowski is chock full of memorable performances and has a far-out plot loosely based on the 1939 Raymond Chandler novel, The Big Sleep (which was first made into a movie in 1946, starring Humphrey Bogart as Detective Philip Marlowe). Like many early Coen Brothers’ films this was not a commercial success; however, over the years it has become a cult favorite. While I’m not a huge fan of this, I do admire the acting and the bizarre plot.

Jeff Bridges plays “The Dude” (AKA Jeffrey Lebowski), a white Russian-drinking and pot-smoking slacker who likes to bowl.  The Dude’s world becomes complicated when a porn kingpin named Jackie Treehorn (Ben Gazzara) sends his goons to the wrong Jeffrey Lebowski’s house looking for payment of Jeffrey’s wife Bunny’s (Tara Reid) debts. The thugs soon realize they have the wrong Lebowski, but not before one of them urinates on his rug. Why is this important?  Because after relaying this story to his bowling buddies one of them, a crazy Vietnam vet named Walter (John Goodman), convinces him that he should make the other Lebowski pay to have the rug cleaned. This is how The Dude meets the Big Lebowski (David Huddleston), a wheel-chaired millionaire married to a slutty trophy wife.  Soon after Bunny is kidnapped and The Dude is asked to serve as the bagman for the ransom. What ensues is one of the most peculiar story plots in the history of motion pictures—but what should you expect, it is the Coen Brothers after all.

What I like about most Coen Brothers’ films is that they are always unique in their own special way.  This one has a quirky hippie vibe—what with The Dude always smoking a doobie and Walter constantly referring to ‘Nam—but it also has a biting edge to it, especially when depicting the art world and nihilism.  Somehow these people from completely different social spectrums meet and create a chaos that is, well, rather paradoxically, a form of artistic nihilism.  While the story has some fat that could be trimmed (specifically the two appearances of Sam Elliott as “The Stranger”), overall most of the pieces of the messy plot come together in the end.

As for the acting, just about every character is memorably played by some of the finest actors in Hollywood today. However, there are three performances that standout above the rest.  First, John Turturro is virtually unrecognizable as Jesus, a bowling rival of The Dude’s team.  Playing a Latino with a heavy Cuban accent who went to prison for exposing himself to an eight-year-old girl, Turturro plays on every stereotype you can imagine.  Jesus’ clothes are way too tight, he is overtly sexual, and his machismo is beyond measure.  For such a small part, it turned out to be one of Turturro’s most memorable.

The second standout performance has to be Julianne Moore as Maude Lebowski, the Big Lebowski’s estranged daughter.  When you make your entrance in an overhead harness completely nude you must have gusto.  Playing an avant-garde artist with no inhibitions, Moore makes you pay attention to every word that comes out of her mouth in a clipped, faux British accent.  Maude would be pretentious if she weren’t so damn serious!  Some of the words that come out of Moore’s mouth would sound so wrong if they weren’t delivered by an actress who knew how to play her part to the fullest.

Finally, while I know Bridges is the star of the movie, it is Goodman who is the standout.  I don’t know what it is, but he has a habit of stealing whatever film he is in—even as a co-star or in a cameo performance.  His Walter is the most memorable thing about The Big Lebowski. Extremely gifted when it comes to voice inflection, body language, and most definitely facial expressions, Goodman turns what otherwise would have been an irritating idiotic sidekick into an exasperating psychopathic wingman. Whether he is jumping out of a moving car or interrogating a teenage boy, or most memorably throwing a paralyzed man to the ground, Walter is outrageously believable.  For me, if there is one reason to watch The Big Lebowski it is Goodman—he is most assuredly not an amateur.

Overall, this is a typical Coen Brothers’ comedy: uniquely written and strongly acted. Other than a few standout performances and an unusual plot there is nothing that makes me want to watch The Big Lebowski over and over again.

232. The Opposite of Sex

232. (01 Oct) The Opposite of Sex (1998, Don Roos) 37



This mean-spirited, effortful comedy really never lands one solid joke. The self-referential narration, which is way too pleased with itself, never seems genuinely clever. The characters are broad and uninteresting. Martin Donovan's defining character trait, for instance, is correcting people's grammar. Only Lisa Kudrow comes off at all well, as Christina Ricci is trying way too hard.

228. Nightwatch

228. (29 Sep) Nightwatch (1998, Ole Bornedal) 41



Though there's a creepiness to the setting and premise of Nightwatch, it's too strained and arty to feel especially scary. Ewan McGregor, Patricia Arquette, Josh Brolin and Lauren Graham all lack chemistry with one another, which doesn't help matters. There's also such a limited pool of possible murderers, this barely works as a mystery, especially when you consider how much of the plot defies logic.

227. The Boys

227. (29 Sep) The Boys (1998, Rowan Woods) 34



Plainly based on a poorly written play, Rowan Woods makes some attempt to conceal the staginess of the script. He doesn't succeed, making a film that's too shouty and obvious to ever believably capture lower class life. When it's not loud, it's dull to the point of nothingness. The performances are uniformly intense with a sociopathic David Wenham coming off best. Toni Collette, in the most thankless role, makes the slightest impression.

197. Skin and Bone

197. (10 Sep) Skin and Bone (1998, Everett Lewis) 35



One of several '90s gay-themed movies about S&M scenarios carried too far, this is more prurient, but generally less violent than similar genre films Hard or Frisk. It's also substantially more undercooked. Over-stylized and episodic, it's difficult to get invested in characters when they're spending almost every scene being instructed to undress. While tonally and aesthetically like a 1970's exploitation flick, this always remains disjointed and disengaging to an absurd degree. Everett Lewis gets an exceptional performance out of B. Wyatt and creates compelling compositions, but editing makes this a mess.

182. Head On

182. (31 Aug) Head On (1998, Ana Kokkinos) 52



Small details like shared cigarettes and longing, meaningful eye contact make this legitimately sexy filmmaking. Whenever the film strays away from sex to focus on teen angst or family drama, it decisively loses its edge. Coming of age films, even those focusing on a niche group like Greek immigrants in Australia, are a dime a dozen and Head On opts to sacrifice atmosphere for simplistic plot. The countless talky scenes don't hold a candle to a nearly wordless, volatile sexual encounter in the film's finale. He may not be much of a leading man, but Alex Dimitriades is breathtakingly photogenic. Many stylizations, particularly blurring and slow-motion, have made this age poorly.

5 Reasons Why "Following" is Christopher Nolan's Best Film

The writer (Jeremy Theobald) and Cobb (Alex Haw)

With The Dark Knight Rises opening later this week, it's safe to say Christopher Nolan's fanbase is about to burst with excitement. As is yours truly. But will it be Nolan's best film? That remains to be seen. For the moment, I'd name Following (1998) as his best work.

Nolan's debut film is about a budding writer who follows people for ideas. When he crosses paths with a thief named Cobb (sound familiar?), he enters into a world of crime and betrayal. At 71 minutes, the film is a brief, but effective, thriller. Though the film was fraught with production difficulties, such as no real budget, non-professional actors, and a shoot which could only take place on weekends, it remains Nolan's best film.

Here's why: (in no particular order)

He's never been more dialed-in. Since Batman Begins, Nolan's films have generally been longer than necessary, usually clocking in at around 2 and a half hours, and they suffer from the weight of their running time. Instead of refining his screenplays, Nolan has crammed them full, leaving almost no room for a smooth cinematic journey. Here, he gets in and gets out before losing or overwhelming the viewer with his twists and turns and general epicness.

The gritty cinematography. Shot by Nolan himself, this camerawork is particularly effective. The seedy world of this neo-noir is captured with low-budget flare. There's nothing glorifying about the black-and-white lensing, but its brutality is key in creating the atmosphere. While Wally Pfister has created beautiful shots in most of Nolan's catalog, this film is breathtakingly stripped down by Nolan's DP work, offering his own shadowy landscape.

It feels timeless. The film's cinematography contributes greatly to this, as it gives the film a look of a bygone era of cinema. This could be an independent film made in the '50s, '60s or '70s. Also, it doesn't have the celebrated ties that The Dark Knight or Inception (or even The Dark Knight Rises) do, and that is one of its most attractive qualities. Historical hype does not cloud the merits of this film. Furthermore, this looks like an under-the-radar classic film that TCM would air.

Alex Haw's performance. As a sly and cunning thief, Haw's one-off performance is right behind Heath Ledger's for best in a Nolan film. He nails a part that easily could have been overplayed, giving Cobb a measured charisma combined with a determined ruthlessness that makes him one of my favorite movie characters ever. It's too bad he didn't keep acting, but at least he gave a great performance before he left the film world behind.

Nolan's storytelling talents are on full display. I won't spoil it for anyone, but this film is full of many twist and turns. The end is brilliant. Nolan features several of his familiar tricks here, with this being a summation of what he would use in his later films. However, the techniques he uses in this film quietly trump his further usages of them. Where The Dark Knight is tainted by an overstuffed second half, this film manages to balance its multiple crucial details and flows much better. Where Memento is lauded for its time-jumping, this movie incorporates it without showing off. Where Inception ends suddenly with a bang, this ends suddenly with a haunting whimper.

These points are in no way a definitive five, and they probably wouldn't stand up to much scrutiny. Still, I think they hold up rather well. Following features a smaller-scale Nolan that knows what he wants and gets it without overcomplicating his film. It's a raw, unpolished piece that demonstrates Nolan's brilliance at storytelling, proving that he can be even better with a tighter script, and it reveals itself to be his best work. I'm proud to be in the minority here, and if you haven't seen this film, I hope you do so soon.

115. Gia

115. (14 May) Gia (1998, Michael Cristofer) 58

It's almost inconceivable Angelina Jolie didn't win an Emmy for Gia. Her performance is fearless, brimming with energy and an organic quality rarely seen on the small screen. While the rest of the film aspires to an edginess that's not quite achieved here, Jolie is convincing throughout. The film is engaging though, to be sure, especially at its most sexually charged. Unfortunately, the film does little to elucidate who Gia Carangi was and only occasionally seems to capture the spirit of her times.

110. Bride of Chucky

110. (13 May) Bride of Chucky (1998, Ronny Yu) 61

Packed with references to make horror aficionados grin, Bride of Chucky hints at the sort of fun this franchise should've been having all along. Jennifer Tilly is an utter delight, energizing the film even when she's in doll form. Nick Stabile and Katherine Heigl are almost serviceable in keeping the plot going, but they're not really tongue-in-cheek enough to keep in touch with the film's actual tone.

The Final Conclusion - Best Actress 1998

About the field: Three totally forgettable works and two brilliant performances. 1998 was not a very balanced year in terms of greatness. The field is worth not more than 3 Meryls, however if we see the individual performances, we can see that actually, this race was very colorful. We can find many characters: a monarch, a poetic young girl, a lonely woman, a cancer-stricken mum and a musician. Not all the performances were great, but I actually liked all the movies except for One True Thing. In the case of this year, the decision was much easier (Gosh, I'm still a bit sour about Carey Mulligan) and probably even obvious for me. Actually, this was the ranking that I imagined at the very beginning. So here it is:

5. Gwyneth Paltrow in Shakespeare in Love

his is a performance of which I did not have a very high opinion and I still don't, but I managed to like or at least appreciate it. In the last 20 minutes she was utterly charming and lovable, probably what she should have been during the whole movie. I'm not saying this is Oscar material but not bad anyway.



4. Emily Watson in Hilary and Jackie

She mostly gives the same performance she did in Breaking the Waves in a more subtle way. From a mediocre actress, this would have been a terrific achievement. However, we must NOT forget that this is Emily Watson, an amazing talent and therefore you can understand why I was so disappointed with this performance.



3. Meryl Streep in One True Thing

This performance was probably not as bad as it might seem to be from my review, yet I was just very-very disappointed as this is probably the weakest performance I've ever seen from Meryl Streep. I really hoped for something heartbreakingly sad, but never reall got what I wanted. Too bad for her.

2. Cate Blanchett inElizabeth

The perfect example of "in another year".The best thing about this performance is probably Blanchett's magnetic and flaming on-screen presence, which is so strong, that she does not only commands the screen, she becomes a true dictator or if you like it, a queen with absolute power.

Amazing work by an amazing talent.



1. Fernanda Montenegro in Central Station

This performance is so indescribable as it relies mostly on emotions, so you cannot really get it across unfortunately. I thought that would not impress me that muchi but I was truly wrong. She does not only break your heart and makes you feel sorry for the character, but also lets you know the regrets, desires, thoughts of this person. Totally mesmerizing, beautiful performance for the ages.



So I can proudly announce my winner for this year is,

Fernanda Montenegro in Central Station

I have already chosen my next year (which I won't begin until next Thursday unfortunately) and I give some clues so that you can find out:

• a winner with a horrible personal life
• a nominee who's a member of a legendary comedy couple
  
  
• Britain rules
• a foreign nominee
• one of the LEAST talked about races ever (if not the one)

These clues might be misleading, so think twice and don't think about the most obvious one.

Fernanda Montenegro in Central Station

Fernanda Montenegro became the first Brazilian actress ever to be nominated for an Academy Award and she was the dark horse to win the award. In Central Station she plays Dora, the lonely, retired schoolteacher who writes letters for illiterate people, but never sends them. Once she meets a woman whose letter she also does not post, however when the woman dies she feels guilty and helps her son find his father he's never seen.

Central Station is a moving, beautiful movie about the friendship of an aging woman and a little boy. We can say that it's a road-movie, however we don't get to know the country, the movie rather focuses on their relationship, starting from dislike, ending in a beautiful friendship. This movie definitely desereved Best Foreign Language Film, which is probably the category where the Academy makes its worst decisions nowadays. The actors give truly honest, loveable performances, which is very rare. They benefit a lot from the realistic and precise screenplay. And I must also add how beautiful the score is.

Fernanda Montenegro is on a whole different level though. It takes a very special not English-speaking performance to be nominated for an Oscar (in 1999 they were in the right mood as Roberto Benigni won for his Italian-speaking overacting in Life is Beautiful) and Montenegro does not only give a very special performance, she simply blows you away with her emotional honesty and she's brutally realistic, especially in the scenes where she tries to hold the truck driver's hands (and in the scene which comes afterwards), she's so indescribably heartbreaking, that you'll never see something so realistic in an American movie.

When we first see her, we immediately think that she's a grumpy old spinster, but she adds real depth to her cahracter. Unlike Cate Blanchett in Elizabeth, she did not have the most baity role, yet she was able to show just as much strength. Dora is a very simple woman, but we can see that she longs for a better life, she wants to be young again. The weight of her regrets is so heavy that the screen nearly blows and so does your heart when you see her. She's not loveable at all, yet we feel immediate sympathy for her and we root for her and care about what happens to her.

I must also add that her scenes with the little boy, Josué are far from soappy or sentimental, they are all very lovely, humorous and realistic. Their chemistry is brilliant and they work miraculously well together. They have the most unusual friendship and conversations full of humor and love. They do well with the comedy inside this heavy and harrowing drama (for example I loved the hliarious shoplifting scene or when they talk about sleeping naked). Montenegro deals with everything in this part with brilliance, great subtlety and dignity. She makes us understand that Dora is esentially a good and caring person, she's just doing inapproriate things because of money. And I almost forgot to tell about brilliance when she's talking about her father and their relationship. Those scenes are probably the highlights of her performance. Not to mention when she reads a letter to Josué's family. At one point, I almost broke down from her gutwrenching greatness.

I have so much to say, but this performance is so indescribable as it relies mostly on emotions, so you cannot really get it across unfortunately. I thought that it would not impress me that much but I was truly wrong. She does not only break your heart and makes you feel sorry for the character, but also lets you know the regrets, desires, thoughts of this person. She lets you in her mind and you don't want to leave her. Totally mesmerizing, beautiful performance for the ages.






This rating seems so low for her, but whatsoever. :)

If you want to see a surprise, just click here.

So what did you feel about Montenegro? Do you agree with me? I'm greedy today so I would like to see MANY comments. What are your predictions for the final outcome?

Cate Blanchett in Elizabeth

Fabulous Cate Blanchett received her first nomination for playing the legendary queen of England, Elizabeth I, which is one of the most brilliant roles that an actress get ever get (just see which actresses played her). However, in Elizabeth we don't see the strong and merciless queen until the very end of the movie, we rather get to know an inconfident girl who has to deal with the unexpected responsibility, the possibility of marriage, vicious enemies and above all, a ruined and weak England.



Elizabeth is a brilliantly made movie of rarely seen quality. The technical part of the movie is one-of-a-kind and simply breathtaking. The editing, the cinematography, the art direction, the costumes and the catchy music are really impressive. However, the best thing about Elizabeth is the unforgettable acting ensemble. Geoffrey Rush should have received a nom for his role as Sir Walsingham (instead of Shakespeare in Love). His performance is very subtle and simply great. Joseph Fiennes gives a reliable, good performance and so does Richard Attenborough, John Gielgud and so on.



Yet, this movie is the one-woman show of Cate Blanchett, playing her first significant role. Although she was not a big star at all at the time, she had as much confidence as she has today. She shows every possible face of Elizabeth, making her a truly unique, exciting character, one you care about, but never truly like. She masterfully deals with all the emotions and knows exactly well what the audience can handle at the time.



In her frist scene, we see a naive young girl dancing and having fun with her friends. We can almost touch her fear and desperartion, but also her courage in the scenes when she's sent to prison and after all the dignity which she handles her new state with. We can feel that this woman will be a great monarch, but Blanchett perfectly show how immature Elizabeth is at the beginning and how much she lacks self-confidence.



The best thing about this performance is probably Blanchett's magnetic and flaming on-screen presence, which is so strong, that she does not only commands the screen, she becomes a true dictator or if you like it, a queen with absolute power. It's so marvellous, that Cate Blanchett also transforms as her character develops. Blanchett plays her in many different ways, she never repeats herself, her talent flows like a river. I can't think about any other performance which is as strong as Blanchett in Elizabeth.



And I also love that she puts very much humor and irony into this performance, I especially loved her bitchy one-liners, despite the fact that I am not a big fan of on-screen bitchiness. And Blanchett also nails it. If I had to pick the higlight of this performance, I cannot really think about one. Her whole thing is the highlight, but if I really had to choose one, it would be probably her monologue about how religion divided England. It's not a coincidence that it was her Oscar clip as it was just breathtaking. However, her breakdowns are also worth mentioning.



It's interesting that although this performance is loved and respected by nearly everyone, and almost nobody likes her in the sequel. I also loved her in that one, but that's a different story. We just have to agree that in Elizabeth, she's not a dynamite, she's a nuclear bomb.



So, to sum up, I got the performance I've been waiting, hoping, praying for. This year has been so weak so far and it was so refreshing to see breathtaking, gutwrenching, tearjerking, exciting and dignified acting on screen. Excellent work by an amazing talent.

Were you also this amazed by great Cate or you simply despised her? Tell me in your comments that I am EAGER to read.



There's only Fernanda Montenegro left, whom I watch in about two hours. I reveal the results on Thursday.

Meryl Streep in One True Thing

Meryl Streep received her eleventh nomination for playing Kate, a perfect housewife with a beautiful family. However, things get a little darker when she turns out to suffer from cancer. Soon her carrerist daughter, Ellen (Renée Zellweger) has to take care of her and their distance becomes true love, they become very close and naturally, Ellen finds out that family is very important and it's very difficult to be responsible for a household.



One True Thing is a very dull cancer drama from the 90s. It has absolutly no depth or reality in it, it's full of clichés, "moving moments", Christmas and piano music. It's not able to deal with cancer properly (very-very few movies can) and throughout the movie I constantly thought Terms of Endearment part 2 - The reverse or Marvin's Room - Another family tragedy. It has absolutely no credibility and you should see Cries and Whispers to see a great movie about the effects of cancer both emotionally and phisically. William Hurt gives a so-so performance in the one-note role of the husband. However, Reneé Zellweger gives a very decent performance as the true lead of the movie, Ellen (would have deserved a nom more).



And marvellous Meryl here is simply Meryl. My most reasonable argument against this nomination is that her role is not really the lead of the movie and leans much more towards supporting. She's there between the fights of Zellweger and Hurt, cries, shows dignity, says a monologue and leaves. Her role is just like the one of Diane Keaton in Marvin's Room: it lacks every credibility or depth. With the exception, that you don't get as close to her as you got to Keaton (who was not at the top of her game either).



Despite this, the beginning of her performance is very well-done. She's the very happy housewife preparing for the birthday of her husband, her vitality and lust can be extremeily well felt and these are probably the only scenes where we can say that "yes, this is Meryl Streep". She solved the first scenes of her disease decently, but I don't really know where this performance loses everything. As the disease of Kate becomes more serious, Meryl goes more and more downhill.



But this is not only Meryl's fault. The screenplay is horrible and although it offers tear-jerking monologues and scenes for Meryl, the creation of a true character was not at all successful. Kate is so one-note and clichéd, it's the typical smiling housewife, baking cookies, doing charities and so on. The fact is, that in her scenes with her daughter, there's no conflict seen, even though there should be som real emotion between them (I did not even dare dream about tension) .



Although the Christmas scene is very sentimental with Meryl singing Silent Night, she's able to do it in a very subtle way, so I was satisfied with that scene. However, towards the end, her gigantic breakdowns are so far from what Meryl usually does that I was certainly surprised. She breaks the plates in her anger, which is illogical from this character and does not fit the story in general.



When I read comments about this movie, I saw the most of the people were truly moved by this it and Meryl, yet personally I felt nothing. I was even more neutral than in the case of Emily Watson. I knew and felt that this was a horrible thing, but I just did not feel anything unfortunately. Too bad, as I really hoped for something heartbreakingly sad.



To sum up, I was disappointed once again unfortunately and this was certainly more shocking than in the other cases (as we're talking about Meryl Streep). However, to tell the truth, Meryl gave her weakest performances in the 90s (and received the worst noms too) and this thing lasted until Adaptation, where she found herself again, I guess. Nevertheless, this performance was not as bad as it might seem to be from this review, yet I was just very-very disappointed. Too weak from Meryl.





What do you think? What are your prediction for the final results? :) I need comments. :)

Anyway, Happy Birthday Meryl! :) This review was not a great way to celebrate, but she won my award for 2009, so that's my gift. XD

Emily Watson in Hilary and Jackie

British actress Emily Watson received her second Academy Award nomination for playing Jacqueline du Pré, the tortured music legend and woman. Jackie's immense talent is discovered when she's a child and soon becomes a celebrated musician travelling around the world, while her sister Hilary (Rachel Griffith) settles down and raises children. Although they have conflicts, Hilary always tries to provide Jackie with the love and attention she requires, even though as a child Hilary was considered to be more talented and the future musician.

Hilary and Jackie is a solid movie about the complex relationship of these two women through the years. The other members of the family are barely mentioned, the movie focuses on the girls, especially Jackie, who's the true lead of the movie. Rachel Griffith gives a fine, subtle performance in the co-leading role of Hilary, the supportive and loving sister. Contrary to a lot of people, in my opinion it was a wise decision to nominate her supporting (the best of that category, Beverly D'Angelo in American History X was not even nominated). A win would have been to much though.

After her famed first role in Breaking the Waves, Emily Watson got the chance to play another baity role as the mentally unstable Jackie suffering from multiple sclerosis. Emily Watson is a great actress with immense talent (as she proved it in Breaking the Waves), in this movie however is not in her best form. She mostly gives the same performance she did in Breaking the Waves in a more subtle way, and this is quite a big problem as there are not many similarities between the two characters.

In her first scene she's playing the chello, smiling. In the very first scene I found her to be a bit lifeless and boring, I was actually very suprised that I was watching Emily Watson. I desperately wanted her to give some life to this character and finally she was able to (in time). The whole movie focuses on her, even the part which should be about her sister. Despite all these things, I thought that Rachel Griffith gave a superior but not nearly as showy performance as Watson. I felt sympathy for her, however Watson does not let us like this character or feel sorry for her and this is in a way the right thing to do, still somehow the viewer mustn't be neutral towards the lead.

The highlight and probably the best part of her performance is probably when she visits her sister. Watson nails those scene to a degree and she becomes very impressive sometimes. Her naked breakdown scene is great and shows the unstable mind of this character very well, even though it's just like Breaking the Waves, which wasn't much of a problem in those scenes.

However, I must admit that in a strange way, I still liked this performance. I liked that she showed that this woman is a sort of manipulative person with huge breakdowns. Still I could never decide if she was jealous of her sister or not. Because if you wait for a conflict or a catfight like in The Turning Point (oh that's a horrible movie), you will be disappointed. Fortunately, the conflicts in this movie are handled with dignity and subtlety. You can see how desperately this woman loves her sister and deeply in her soul she wants themselves to be five years old, playing. Watson captured Jackie's desires and insecurities quite well.

From a mediocre actress, this would have been a terrific achievement, because of this, my rating won't be very low. However, we must NOT forget that this is Emily Watson, an amazing talent and you can understand why I was so disappointed with this performance. As I am writing this review and think about it, I like it much less than I did when I was watching her. The definition of disappointment for me, I expected so much more.







What do you think?

P.S. I know I'm writing these reviews kinda fast, but I have to finish it until Thursday.

Gwyneth Paltrow in Shakespeare in Love

Gwyneth Paltrow received her only nomination and won the Oscar, for playing Viola de Lesseps, a young girl, who's dreaming about becoming an actor and soon gets the part of Romeo in William Shakespeare's (Joseph Fieness) brand new play, Romeo and Juliet and she also becomes romantically involved with the famed author and player, however she's forced to marry the humorless Lord Wessex (Colin Firth) as she has to obey her parents and the Queen (Judi Dench).

Shakespeare in Love is a witty and and entertaining romantic comedy, which is widely hated because it won the Oscar over Saving Private Ryan, still I loved it because of some memories and also because I find it a very good and enjoyable movie, which wasn't necessarily deserving of the Best Picture Oscar. I admit though that it requires a special mood and you cannot always enjoy it (when I rewatched it yesterday I wasn't that impressed either). The music is probably the best thing about it, the screenplay is colorful, witty and smart and the comedy part is OK. Just like the actors, who give solid performances and only the always brilliant Judi Dench stands out, but when doesn't she?

Last time you read anything I wrote (a line) about Gwyneth Paltrow on this blog, it wasn't much of a praise and I kind of regret it, because it just wasn't that fair to say. Gwyneth Platrow is actually a talented and charming performer, who can give very good performances and who's also a very good comedienne (see Iron Man for proof). Just like in the case of Carey Mulligan, she was often compared to Audrey Hepburn at the time (well mainly by the campaign of Harvey Weinstein), which I really don't understand. Paltrow has a totally different personality from Hepburn, she acts in a very different way and they don't even look like each other. This role might be a little like Princess Ann in Roman Holiday. A rich girl who does not enjoy and would rather be with normal people. Roughly, this is the only comparision.

The first time we see Paltrow on scene, she's just laughing charmingly and then whispering the lines of Shakespeare rather awkwardly. We see that she's a girl who's a true dreamer and this is probably too exaggerated in the screenplay and Paltrow could not really handle this. She could either take the role a 100% seriously or emphasise the humor and be a bit ironic, a charicature of Juliet from the play. She wants them both and the two things mix weirdly and the result is being plain and a bit boring.

As this performance is by no means bad, it's only a bit watered and uninteresting. But it's not only the fault of Paltrow, as she's not provided with a very complicated and interesting role and she does not have the opportunity to truly shine. Or there was actually an opportunity but she could not use it. I cannot decide it though.

She also gets the classic comic role of a crossdresser, because in order to become a player Viola has to pretend that she's a man. In the role of Thomas Kent, she's quite good and funny, she brilliantly caught the clumsiness of this young girl who has to act like a man. The way she speaks or walk are both (limitedly) funny, meaning that you are amused by it at first, but then you get nothing special out of it.

However, I have to admit that in the very last scenes she reaches greatness and she even moved me. She perfectly solved her last scene with Shakespeare, which had many traps but she managed to avoid all of them. In the last 20 minutes she was utterly charming and lovable, probably what she should have been during the whole movie and is probably the reason why I give her this rating.

So to sum up, this is a performance of which I did not have a very high opinion and I still don't, but I managed to find like or appreciate. I'm not saying this is Oscar material but not bad anyway. So see my brand new rating system:



Definitely stronger 3 than Sandra Bullock's.



So what do you think? Do you agree?

The next year...

I have to wait until 1995 to get Dead Man Walking (last time I saw I borrowed it from the school library, but now there's no school), but I figured that I could do another year until then and I decided that it would be...

1998

And the nominees were:

• Cate Blanchett in Elizabeth
• Fernanda Montenegro in Central Station
  
• Gwyneth Paltrow in Shakespeare in Love*
• Meryl Streep in One True Thing
• Emily Watson in Hillary and Jackie

So who do you predict to win? Who do you want to win?