212. Live from Baghdad

212. (18 Sep) Live from Baghdad (2002, Mick Jackson) 57



Live from Baghdad is an involving take on the personal toll it takes to be a war correspondent and the ethical complications that come with the job. Mick Jackson does well establishing Iraq as a powder keg ready to explode. When war breaks out, the danger of the situation is deeply felt. However, the lead-up is slow and character relationships are vague. Michael Keaton gives the most fully-formed performance here. Helena Bonham Carter is fine in an Emmy-nominated role, but has little to do.

118. Building the Great Pyramid

118. (22 May) Building the Great Pyramid (2002, Jonathan Stamp) 43

Typically crummy TV documentary filmmaking, Building the Great Pyramid at least has moments of intrigue when it's talking logistics and architecture. In a vain attempt to make this a semi-narrative, there are dull, miscast "characters" here. No thanks.

042. Leaving Metropolis

042. (05 Feb) Leaving Metropolis (2002, Brad Fraser) 33



This adaptation of a rather bad stage play never feels particularly cinematic except for when it veers into softcore territory. A gay man seducing a married straight man is definitely a porn plot and those scenes play sordidly enough. But this tries to have grander themes about fidelity and friendship. A subplot involving an HIV-positive transvestite with a fatal brain condition more or less derails the entire film.

Chicago

Chicago, 2002
Directed by Rob Marshall
Nominated for 13 Oscars, Won 6

Synopsis: It's 1920's Chicago. And Velma Kelly (a famous star, tease, cabaret singer and sister act), and Roxie Hart (a wanna-be star, wanting to be the next Velma) are both throw into death row for committing murder. Velma, for killing her sister and husband who she found going behind her back together, and Roxie, for killing the man she was cheating with who lied about making her a star. The two are competing for fame and publicity, and also sympathy, that will keep them from being hanged for their crimes, through the use of lawyer to many a female murderer, Billy Flynn. But the road to innocence is littered with lies, betrayal and deceit.

Once again, I didn't know much about this film. I went into it thinking it was the rise of Catherine Zeta-Jones and Renee Zellweger to fame, through Richard Gere. While I was wrong, I certainly wasn't too far off the mark. I was shocked when I saw Roxie Hart (Zellweger) shoot her lover. I was confused to where it was going, but was completely interested.

The film uses, in my opinion, I unique use of it's music. All the musical numbers are set on a stage, cabaret-lounge style, and is intermingled with reality. The numbers are almost the inner feelings and voices of the characters, and take place in their heads, showing us what is almost literally going on. The story itself wasn't a musical. There was no singing in the actual jail, or in the courts, etc, but all was taken place as a metaphorical telling of the current circumstances, sweeping back and forth between the two, which I found quite clever!

Additionally, I was very impressed with Renee Zellweger and Catherine Zeta-Jones. Both are very talented women, and blew me away. I was a little nervous when I saw Renee on the cover because I've seen her in very few movies, and the ones I've seen she's a very serene, sensible character. It was interesting to see her in something so completely different and to completely own it. She was so believable in her innocent yet not-so innocent role. She's also a very talented dancer and singer, and having read she had no formal training in either before the film, I'm quite impressed. Similar to Ms. Zeta-Jones, she is a very talented singer and dancer.

While seeing women dance around sexy in underwear, essentially, is not really my thing, I still think it was done quite well. It was a true satire of putting on a show for the media, and no matter what the truth is, as long as it's entertaining the media will swallow it whole and ask few questions. One particular number that really enticed me was the Ventriloquism number. It was cleverly done, and was very telling, but also very satirical in the way that Billy Flynn and other "entertainers", per se, control the media.

I really liked this film, and I give it a lot of credit since none of the three leads are professional singers or dances. The costumes were great, and the music and dancing was simply fantastic. I have very little negative to say about this film. It was really well done!

8/10

Yearly Perspective – 2002 – Best Director Edition

I've been doing an intensive Yearly Perspective of 2002 lately.  And by “intensive,” I mean intensive.  Usually when I try and do these, it takes a few months, since getting together unseen movies is more challenging than not.  But when you run across an easy year like 2002, you don’t have to do much work. 

Scorsese on set of Gangs of New York

In a rare occurrence, only 12 films are represented in the 20 acting categories (Chicago, About Schmidt, The Hours, Adaptation., Road to Perdition, Catch Me If You Can, Unfaithful, Frida, Far From Heaven, The Quiet American, Gangs of New York, and The Pianist).  Two other films with no acting nominations were up for Best Picture (Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers) and Best Director (Talk to Her).  Add to that three other films nominated for their scripts alone in the Original and Adapted Screenplay categories (About a Boy, My Big Fat Greek Wedding, and Y Tu Mama Tambien).  As far as the major categories go, that’s a mere 17 films filling up a total of 40 nomination slots.  Without throwing more statistics in your face, that amount of overlap is very rare.  This even carries over into the tech categories, which repeat the aforementioned titles often, with peppering of Spider-Man, 8 Mile, and Star Wars: Episode II – Attack of the Clones thrown in there for good measure.  With such a small pool of films to get a hold of, doing a Yearly Perspective is not out of the question.

Almodóvar winning Original
Screenplay for Talk to Her

Much has been written of 2002’s Best Actor race, which featured an un-nominated nobody besting four previous winners in a shocker which resulted in one of the most memorable Oscar moments this decade.  One would assume that such a category would be the strongest or most stacked race of the year, but in this humble film watcher’s opinion, the Best Director race reigned supreme.  It had a legend, a fugitive, and three openly gay men.  Look at the nominees: winner Roman Polanski for The Pianist, Rob Marshall for Chicago, Martin Scorsese for Gangs of New York, Pedro Almodóvar for Talk to Her, and Stephen Daldry for The Hours.  Add to that highly impressive slate of nominees the un-nominated-yet-still-brilliant work of Peter Jackson on Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, Spike Jonze for Adaptation, Adrian Lyne for Unfaithful, Julie Taymor for Frida, and Sam Raimi for Spider-Man and you’ll be hard-pressed to compile a list of just five yourself.  At least I know I am.  Add into the mix directorial achievements I myself am not so fond of, but others enjoy: Todd Haynes on Far From Heaven, Alexander Payne for About Schmidt, Christopher Nolan for Insomnia, Paul Thomas Anderson for Punch-Drunk-Love, Sam Mendes for Road to Perdition, and Steven Spielberg for Catch Me If You Can.  Coming up with five yet that you love most?  I didn’t think so.

Lord of the Rings doesn't "count as one!"

For what it’s worth, it is very, very hard to argue with the Academy’s choices.  What Polanski did with a dried and overwrought genre was miraculous, and with his personal, emotional injection of verisimilitude you felt like a refugee alongside Brody; it was epic in scope, yet small in its careful and calculated vision.  Marshall, quite simply, reinvented the movie musical, setting a standard in the enlivened genre that he himself couldn’t even live up to; his strong, creative point-of-view took the movie musical out of the land of suspended disbelief and made it realistic.  Scorsese, with his legendary attention to detail, aptly adapts his typical gangster style to the brute thuggary of Civil War era New York City.  Daldry masters a trio of women and one standout Ed Harris to tell a story that’s spans decades and beautifully mixes poetry and self-discovery.  Finally, the Lone Director Almodóvar (lone director: a nominated helmer whose film isn’t up for Best Picture, a term now likely dead due to the Best Picture 10).  In no small part thanks to his brilliant screenplay, Almodóvar guides the viewers through a tale of love, obsession, and friendship, with stylized excellence; continuously boarders on creepy, beautiful, haunting, and charming.  Hard to argue with them, huh?

Polanksi even make Chipotle looks exciting

However, I’d only nominate two of them.  It’s that dandy of a year.  Okay, let’s keep Polanski and Marshall, sorry Marty, Steve, and Pedro.  For starters, how Peter Jackson wasn’t recognized for his masterful work on The Two Towers is beyond me.  His direction in the trilogy is never stronger than it is here, where he manages to make trees throwing rocks seems as exciting as Orc decapitation; it’s his balance of backstory, battle, and psychological discovery that makes a three hour epic seem like a breeze.  Spike Jonze made a Charlie Kaufman story work, which by and large is nomination-worthy in general, but with his assemblage of three performances giving some of their career-best work and balancing the irony with the action in Kaufman’s script, it’s hard not to applaud Jonze.  Finally—and in an unconventional choice, truth be told—I have Adrian Lyne for his subtle, yet oftentimes heavy-handed, work on Unfaithful.  Whatever happened in Lyne’s life that made him so apt at tales of infidelity (director of Fatal Attraction) must hold a strong place in his consciousness.  What he does with Unfaithful is nothing short of marvelous; going from steamy stairwell sex to murder to tight family drama with precision and focus is what makes the film work.  Hard to cut it off there.

Stephen Daldry on set

So who’s the best?  Well Roman Polanski won the Oscar.  Deservingly so.  However, not my personal choice.  For a while, it was Jackson if only because The Two Tower is my favorite of the trilogy.  But really, I think Marshall handedly has the finest direction of 2002.  Yes, some of the perspective of the film (it’s all in her mind!) should be credited to screenwriter Bill Condon, Marshall is the man who made it come alive and function as a film.  Each frame is so carefully orchestrated; each performance is just over-the-top enough to fit into a musical and without being campy.  His touch is ever-present all over the film: the sexiness, the style of musicality, and most importantly the overall architecture and look of Chicago.  Not to mention, he choreographed the whole kitten caboodle too, a feat which deserves an Oscar if only for the 10 minutes of “Cell Block Tango.”

So there you have it.  My Yearly Perspective on the 2002 Best Director race with comments on the real nominees and my personal selections.  If all goes according to plan, one of the acting categories should be next.

BEST DIRECTOR

***Rob Marshell, Chicago***

Peter Jackson, Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers

Roman Polanski, The Painist

Spike Jonze, Adaptation.

Adrian Lyne, Unfaithful

.

A Word on Watching Older Movies

Everyone has their own reasons for watching older films.  Some do it because they like the memories old black and white films bring up, others do so to capture a director's or an actor's filmography, and some purely for entertainment.  I do it for all these reasons, but given the opportunity, I do it for another.  Yearly Perspective.

To understand exactly what I mean, you have to understand my philosophy on the Oscars.  I talked about it in an earlier blog, but I'll do some quick summarization for you.  I don't prescribe to the notion that the Oscars award the best films of the year, but rather they highlight some of the best in their nominations, just not necessarily their winners.  What I like most is trying to get into the mindset of someone deciding those races, as a voter.  And to do this well, you have to see all the nominees in all the races in all (or most of the important) categories.  For example, seeing all the Best Picture nominees of 1999 (and other major categories) before claiming that American Beauty is my favorite of the year.  This isn't simply for personal annual awards, but rather, to see how everything stacks up.  There are a ton of winners out there that get panned because they don't hold up over other winners...but in many of those cases, the year itself was weak in that category.

Recently, I've been diving back into 1987, 1991, and 2002.  Here and there, seeing as many films from those years as possible that I hadn't seen before and figuring out what I like best.  In the grand scheme of things, this process is more for my amusement.  I like it because it allows me some concentration on a year, much like I get to do when I'm living out and following the current Oscar race.  When you're in the middle of an Oscar season, you're granted time to mull over your favorites, seeing how certain performances relate to each other and how they are dwindled to five nominees.  In concentrating retrospectively, you get to do the same thing.  Most people revisit a movie, and then watch another one that was made 30 years earlier, and then go see Hop the next day.  I just find this activity interesting, it's a fun investigation of one particular year of at the Oscars.  Only then can you say with confidence just which film is your favorite of any given year.

The Final Conclusion - Best Actress 2002

About the field: Well. If I think about it, this year wasn't as bad as I originally thought. It could have been much stronger, but I think my #1 and #2 were really the highlights and they killed the rest of the competition. They gave performances for the ages and both deserved to win. My #3 has in fact grown on me in these last few days and therefore I give her a half extra Meryl. I was thinking about what would have happened had Tilda Swintion played Virginia Woolf. But that's a different story. I can definitely say that this year turned out to be much different from than I imagined, but I like it this way and it was way more interesting than 1998. OK, so now it's time we got to the ranking.

5. Salma Hayek in Frida
This performance that did not disappoint me as I did not expect much, but I may even say that it is worth watching because of the very strong early scenes. But don't really expect a very towering achievement.

4. Renée Zellweger in Chicago
I am not saying that Zellweger gives a bad performance in Chicago, because occasionally she is actually good. But again, damn it I was so dissatosfied. I was soooo hoping that I would like her, but I did not eventually.

3. Nicole Kidman in The Hours
She has quite grown on me as she is extremely haunting in some of the scenes. I understand both the criticsm and love towards her. This is a bit disappointing performance by a very good actress who could have done more, I think.

2. Diane Lane in Unfaithful
A dynamite performance to say the least. She really gets your guts and doesn't even let you go for a long time (even after watching the film). Lane gave one of the most intimate, credible and unforgettable performances ever. Now I'm really satisfied.

1. Julianne Moore in Far from Heaven
I must say that Julianne Moore gives one of the greatest, most moving and beautiful performances that I have ever seen. She's totally heart- and gutwrenching, moving and will haunt you for a long time.I don't really like the world revelation as I think sometimes it's used without a reason, but here Moore's achievement in this movie is worthy of that term.

So I can proudly announce
that my winner is...
Julianne Moore in Far from Heaven
This was a bit too obvious and OMG she's so beautiful here.

Omissions:

• Isabelle Huppert in The Piano Teacher *My Pick*
• Nia Vardalos in My Big Fat Greek Wedding

So the ranking of the already reviewed years:

1. 1974
2. 1959
3. 2009
4. 1963
5. 1948
6. 2002
7. 1940
8. 1998

So it's time to give clues about my next year, to which I'm really looking forward to. It's often referred to as one of the strongest years ever. Gosh I'm sooo excited, I give you my very easy clues.

• If you don't like deers, instead of going away, think about...
• Mommie Dearest
• Sex and the City: The Origin

So what do you think? Any opinions, observations or off-topic subjects you want to talk about? Don't be shy. BTW has anyone seen The Kids are All Right? I'm so damn curious! Do you think that Moore or Bening can win for it? I'm mostly rooting for Julianne as I'm not a big Bening fan (though she seems to be the more praised one).

Julianne Moore in Far from Heaven

Beautiful, talented Ms. Julianne Moore received her fourth Oscar nomination for playing Cathy Whitaker, a woman who finds out that her husband is cheating on her with other men in Todd Haynes' acclaimed movie, Far from Heaven. I'm pretty sure that if you had asked anyone in 2002 who was going to take home the Best Actress Oscar, they would have said Julianne Moore. She literally swept the critics' awards, however things changed when she lost the Globe and SAG. After that it was all about Nicole and Renée.

Melodrama is not really, my genre as I think they are too over-the-top with emotions and they just really do not give that much to me. That's partly true for the case of Far from Heaven, but it's actually quite well-made, well-directed and brilliantly acted movie. It's score is beautiful and I would even give it the win if The Hours hadn't been nominated. Dennis Quaid gives an excellent performance as the husband and probably would have deserved an Oscar nomination for his work. Same goes for Patricia Clarkson and Dennis Haysbert, who are also very memorable.

What I said in my review of Diane Lane, it's also true here. Far from Heaven is The Julianne Moore Show. But is that a problem? No, a definite NO. Moore probably gives here the performance of a lifetime and I really don't think that she can ever top this achievement of hers (though she got close with The Hours and Boogie Nights). Moore is the greatest and most interesting actress of her generation and her versatility is astonishing. Even when she has a role that is quite similar to another one of hers, she can work wonders.

Cathy is a multi-layered and very complicated character which is very difficult to play, but this does not seem to be a problem for Ms. Moore. She totally captured the heart of this ordinary, perfect 50s housewife. Contrary to Laura Brown, Cathy actually IS happy with this lifestyle, she's deeply satisfied. Or just seems to be. Moore is mindblowing in the scene where her husband does not want to make love because he's so tired. Julianne shows so much love and understanding right there.

It's marvellous how well Julianne understands the sould of Cathy. She thinks that she's perfectly happy, but she starts to feel something she never did before. Also, Moore injects so much poetry, fire and music into her, that she made me feel dizzy (well, almost). I felt that this excellent was going through my brain and my soul. In other words: I felt immediate connection to Cathy.

When she finds out that her husband is a homosexual, her only reaction in her shock is saying, where the bills are (or something, never mind). She loves her husband very much and desperately wants to help him and not for selfish reasons. The priorty for her is family and that's what Moore lets us know from her. However, when she starts to enjoy herself with the gardener, a new Cathy is born and more fascinatingly goes through these changes and never misses an opportunity to amaze us.

Her huge scene when her husband wants to get a divorce is immense. She says almost nothing, but her face and her tears are so utterly real and heartbreaking. I guess this movie was intended to make people sob and I don't think it failed. That's mostly because of the brilliance of the great Ms. Moore.

As I said a new Cathy is born when she befriends the gardener, but I must also mention that Moore does not only nail all the faces of her, but perfectly portrays the mixed emotions of this character. She perfectly shows how much Cathy does not really understand what's going on, all she knows that she's happy this way.

Though she does not have any loud, over-the-top scenes (OK she shouts once) she has the effect of an atomic bomb on you. The beauty of her performance is just as heartbreaking as it was in Audrey Hepburn's perfect turn in The Nun's Story. They are so similar in the type of acting and the effect, despite the fact that the two roles are very different. Well, if I think about it not that much. They are both women who think that they love what they do, but in fact it's not what they HAVE to do.

So to sum up this rave review, I must say that Julianne Moore gives one of the greatest, most moving and beautiful performances that I have ever seen. I don't really like the world revelation as I think sometimes it's used without a reason, but here Moore's achievement in this movie is worthy of that term. She's totally heart- and gutwrenching, moving and will haunt you for a long time (I saw it first in April, but I could have written this same review without rewatching as it lived in me so much). And that train station scene! Oh gosh!

Wow this was a bit lengthier than I like to do usually, but I just couldn't stop raving. :) Comments anyone? To see Far from Heaven click here. I hope it works.

Diane Lane in Unfaithful

Diane Lane received her only Best Actress nomination to date for playing Connie Summer, an unfaithful wife in Adrian Lyne's movie, Unfaithful. I think she might even have been a dark horse in the race: she had a great, applauded comeback movie and won the most important critics' awards (NYFC and a few others). I strongly believe that had the movie received greater reviews, she would have won.

Unfaithful is a great movie about infidelity, love and marriage. The first part of it is mindblowingly brilliantly and it's full of unforgettable scenes. The second part is a very exciting, but a bit usual thriller, which is still great. So overall, Unfaithful is truly worth watching. The actors give very good performances: Richard Gere is excellent as the confused husband, though he did not get the best role. Olivier Martinez does not have much to do, except for being the cheeky seducer who cannot be resisted. Erik Per Sullivan gives a great child performance as the son of Connie.

But, this whole movie is about Diane Lane, who gives an unbelievable performance as Connie. It's good to actually see a great performance in this line-up. All the problems that I had with the three other reviewed ladies did not emerge here and I could only enjoy Lane's acting here, which is just pure delight.

By delight I do NOT refer to her performance though as this is one of the toughest and most merciless achievements I have ever scene. Lane really doesn't search for ways to show how innocent Connie is. Instead of that, she ruthlessly reveals all the flaws and weaknesses of this character and also suggests how stupid she was that she gave up everything for this affair. Connie has everything: a great husband, a child, a nice house, friends, sex life and most of all happiness. Connie is a very satisfied person, whose only reason to cheat on her husband is pure temptation. Lane perfetly understood all the intentions of this character: Connie's motivation above all is having wild fun with a stranger.

(As predicted) Things turn out to be disasterous though. But before that she has some guilty fun. Her famous/infamous train scene is one of the best acted moments in the history of cinema. There's so much emotion there that the screen is almost exploding. During that sequence we also get so see moments of her first sexual intercourse and she truly rocks there too. It's so brilliant that while she wants to have sex, she does want to resist in a way. Lane is so totally real in those scenes, that it's almost painful.

She's astonishing throughout the movie, though I must admit that the best parts of her performance are in the first half (because the second one focuses on Gere). She got an excellently written role and used every opportunity to shine and show her talent. Her immense, gigantic presence stays with you even when the scene is about another character. However there isn't a moment where one feels that her acting is selfish and doesn't let the others work.

Towards the middle, there's a scene when she becomes jealous of a young rival and has a fight with Martinez which ends up in sex. The hotness and passion of Lane nearly sets the screen on fire. She really gets your guts and doesn't even let you go for a long time (even after watching the film). She made such an impression that cannot really be forgotten.

As I said that in the second part she does not have much to do, but when she's on-screen, she totally rocks: for example there's a scene where she finds out that her husband actually knew about her affair and might even be responsible for a terrible crime. The confusion and desperation Lane shows is unbelievably real. Not to mention how well she delivered some of the weakest lines of the movie and how excellently she solved the scenes of the ending.

So, to sum up, Diane Lane was way better than I remembered (though I was very impressed by her for the first time too) and she totally blew me away. This is the performance I have been waiting for since I announced this year. Now I'm really satisfied. Lane gave one of the most intimate, credible and unforgettable performances ever. Excellent, excellent and naturally gets

So what do you think? Any opinions, observations, off-topic things? If you want to see Unfaithful click here.

Renée Zellweger in Chicago

Renée Zellweger received her second Best Actress nomination for playing Roxie Hart in the musical Chicago. She was even the front-runner to win her first Oscar as she won some important awards like the horrid, sorry Golden Globe and SAG (her face is actually quite amusing in her video). However, she had to wait another year to get the Academy Award for Cold Mountain where she played with the actress, who beat her at the Oscar.

I really dislike Chicago as a movie and I'm constantly amazed (or simply shocked) that this nothing actually BEAT The Pianist (one of the greatest, most harrowing movies ever) in the Best Picture race. Chicago is like a gift which is in beautifully made wrapping, but inside, it's a useless gadget. Well, that sums up Chicago, which is a rather poor copy of Cabaret. I must say that the technical part is truly impressive. I would say it deserved four of its six Oscars. Well we got to the performance: John C. Reilly gives quite a great performance, which is probably only really outstanding achievement about this movie. I love Queen Latifah in general, but here she's not more than entertaining. Richard Gere and Catherine Zeta-Jones are rather average in my opinion.

And the same goes for Ms. Zellweger. Actually, her work in this movie is the definition of this previously mentioned gift theory. The role of Roxie is really for the stage and not the screen. I can imagine that on Broadway, an experienced theatre actress could give a brilliant, towering performance and I guess Zellweger wanted to do the same here. Where she failed, at least with me. I know that she's universally praised for Chicago, but here (or in general), Zellweger is quite simply not my thing. I never really got anything from her.

The character of Roxie is a rather slim one: she's a dumb little woman dreaming about having a grand career as a singer and dancer, but actually we never really get to see what she has inside. For the most of the movie, she's just an observer of the musical numbers (some are great, some are not that much) and gets nothing to do apart from playing a dumb blonde and a little bitch. I never really understood what she wanted to show me from Roxie. She made her very one-note and she really did not go into details.

Her juicy lines must be very amusing for some, well, they really did not give me that much fun. I mean, she's always such a common. That might have been the point that Roxie actually did not go through any changes, but it really bothered me. As I said million times: I did not have an insight to this character.

Zellweger's singing is good, even though her voice is not as strong as CZJ's. She solved the musical part quite well. She solved the technical part of her performance decently and I cannot complain about that at all. Well, she's no Liza Minelli in Cabaret, but she has her fine moments. Especially one in the end where she has to face the facts that she's nothing more than a temporary, fake celebrity. Her big number right there really impressed me (probably the only thing I found to be outstanding about this work).

I am not saying that Zellweger gives a bad performance in Chicago, because occasionally she is actually good. But again, damn it I was so dissatosfied. I was soooo hoping that I would like her, but I did not eventually. I really did my best, but I cannot force myself to appreciate her. As I said, this performance is not for me. The worst thing about it is that I cannot really write anything more. Sorry.
I'm the most comfortable with this grade. I really want to give her more, but it would not be honest from me.

So what do you think? I guess I'm just as alone with this as I was with the one about Ingrid Bergman in Joan of Arc. But sorry, I can't help it.

Salma Hayek in Frida

Salma Hayek received her only Oscar nomination to date for playing Frida Kahlo, the famous Mexican artist in Julie Taymor's extraordinary independant movie, Frida. I'm quite sure that Hayek had the least chance to win that Oscar as she was really battling out that nomination with Meryl Streep in The Hours. After all, she lost to Nicole Kidman's performance in The Hours.

Frida is an incredibly weird movie: some might loathe its over-the-topness, some might orgasm over how artistic and special it is. Well, I belong to neither of those groups. I enjoyed it very much (it was actually much better than I expected), though I did not get any message out of it. Nevertheless, it was quite interesting as I got to know lots of things about Frida Kahlo's interesting life (for example I never knew that she slept with Trockij). I must say though, I really dislike when communism is showed in a positive light as you just have to check out how many victims it had in this part of Europe (that's why I really despised Reds).

Salma Hayek's performance however certainly suffers from the movie (wheter you consider it great or awful) as it is actually not about Frida, but her spirit and art which is expressed in a very unusual way. I always felt that Julie Taymor's directing is the lead of this movie and the others (including Hayek) only support it and that's not that lucky considering the fact that this is a biopic.

Moreover, Hayek (just like Kidman in The Hours) suffers from a very underwritten version of a character which is full of enourmous opportunities. Instead of this, for the most of the movie, Hayek is in the background, not doing that much. I am sure that had this movie fully focused on the life of Frida, Hayek (because she's a good actress) would have been able to give a much more complex performance.

All the scenes in which she could amaze us, go by so quickly and there's absolutely no emphasis on them, therefore Hayek is never really able to shine. I must tell though, that in the beginning, she's extremely great compared to the rest of her performance. When she says goodbye to her boyfriend, Hayek is really outstanding giving real emotional depth to Frida and by this she gets much closer to the audience. Unfortunately there's nothing else which is worth of that much praise.

Also, the lack of passion in this performance was totally shocking as in my dictionary raging is not equal with passionate. As I said, Hayek totally gets into the background in the middle as there the movie is more about her husband Diego and his work in the USA. Hayek does nothing memorable there.

I hoped that when she gets back to Mexico, Hayek gets more to do, but apart from a very short lesbian sex scene, there's nothing extraordinary about it. It's just like the rest of the performance: dissatisfying, lacking emotional depth. In the scene where Alfred Molina asks her to remarry, she's quite good but it's not even close to the strength of the beginning (which certainly improved her overall achievement).

The question comes to my mind: is this really Salma Hayek's fault? To be perfectly frank, it is mostly director's, but Hayek could have done a bit more. At least she could have made Frida a bit more complex (because she's a quite simplified), but if you don't have much opportunity, how could you?

So to sum up, I saw a performance that did not disappoint me as I did not expect much, but I may even say that it is worth watching because of the very strong early scenes. But don't really expect a very towering achievement.
So what do you think? Any predictions now? Any suggestions for the next reviewed lady? I'll write about the first one you suggest so be quick, because there could be thousands of others before you. :P

Nicole Kidman in The Hours

Nicole Kidman received her second nomination and won her only Oscar to date for playing Virginia Woolf, the tragic author in Stephen Daldry's movie The Hours. I think Kidman had the most chance during the time (along with Renée Zellweger) to get the award, which she did beating Zellweger (gosh, her face in that video is so hilarious), Salma Hayek, comeback star Diane Lane and critical darling Julianne Moore ( lso her co-star in The Hours).

I'm so blown away... by Julianne Moore. Boy, she gives one of her greatest performances in The Hours as the unhappy housewife in the 1950s (and probably even should have won that Supporting Actress Oscar). Except for her, The Hours is a rather average, meaningless, pointless movie, which so desperately tries to be artistic but never manages to reach its goal. However, I must say (as a fan of Philip Glass) that the score absolutely should have won the Oscar. There are great actors in this movie, but none of them makes such a huge impression as Ms. Moore.



And that includes Nicole Kidman. It's such a common thing to hate this win and performance, but I cannot really agree with the haters as she definitely has her moments, so her win is not as disappointing as, say, Sandra Bullock's (coping with this win will not be easy for me, it still hurts). her whole character and material is rather thin. Sure on the outside she gets very much to do, mental illness, tragic heroine, real-life person and so on, but this role is not as baity as it seems. It doesn't reveal how horrible Woolf's illness really is (though that might also be Kidman's fault).



It's not only her material which is thin, though. Actually, her whole performance is not substantial enough to be called a lead performance. You see, I never had problems with the screentime (I mean Patricia Neal won my vote with only 20 minutes), no it's the lack of true and deep impression which really bothers me. I know it's very unfair to compare her to her co-star, but I'm not fair: quite simply put, Julianne Moore totally outacts her and overshadows all the other storylines (yes, including marvellous Meryl Streep who gives another one of her teary-eyed performances I honestly cannot stand). Kidman never actually becomes the centre of the movie, even though it starts and ends with her.



As I said, her material is rather thin, but she gets some very artistic stuff, which are rather pointless. For example, here's her famous scene with the dead bird. I mean, come on! It was one of the lamest and cheapest scenes of this movie and totally pointless, though Kidman is able to inject some emotion into it. And her infamous nose: that's really not Kidman's fault. She's in my opinion a terrific actress and that nose looks weird simply because the make-up is awful.



Probably Nicole's best moments come towards the end, where she says goodbye to her sister, Vanessa. Her hysterical, over-the-top behaviour totally suited that scene and had some kind of an emotional effect on me. She showed so much desperation and anger deep inside her character, that I felt very releaved that finally I can get to know this woman. Again there comes a brilliant scene (which had an enourmous impact on my opinion of her work here) on the train station where she argues with her husband about her mental health. She's far from gut-wrenching, but her dexterity with the emotions there is remarkable. I was quite satisfied there.



Again there comes another question: whose fault is it, that this performance is not as good as it could have been. In my humble opinion, it's definitely not due to Nicole Kidman, who could have been much more interesting and complex than she was in this one.



So, to sum up, I saw a rather disappointing performance by a very good actress who could have done more, I think. If I'm totally honest with myself I'm dissatisfied, but only to a degree because as I said Kidman has her moments, but the overall achievement was not enough to get me. I like heavy stuff, but this is a bit far from it. The grade is fine I think.

Sorry, you had to wait this much, but school just started and everything's crazy here. Who should be the next (I'll review her tomorrow or Sunday at least)?So what do you think about Kidman? What do you predict for my ranking now?

The Next Year

So we have come to our much anticipated 2002. I've been putting it off for like eternity, but now it's finally time to terminate your suspense. This is a very often talked about year, mostly due to the enourmous fanbase of Julianne Moore's performance in Far from Heaven. But we'll see who will get my vote. Will it be the nose, the moustache or the pearls? Or will I prefer dancing or adultery? This doesn't seem to be a very exciting year, but we'll see.


So the nominees were:

• Salma Hayek in Frida
• Nicole Kidman in The Hours*
• Diane Lane in Unfaithful
• Julianne Moore in Far from Heaven
• Renée Zellweger in Chicago

So what are your predictions for my ranking?

P.S. : From now on I will not be really able to do write as frequently as I did, but I will do my best. Thanks for your understanding.
Also, we can also talk a bit about the Emmys in your comments. Were you just as pissed as I was that Julianna Margulies lost? Or any other thoughts?