Apocalypto & the Mayan Prophecy (2006) ***

It is rumored that the world will come to an end on December 21, 2012.  By whom, you ask?  Well, there’s a whole host of oracles out there, but the most famous doomsayers have to be the Mayans.  Their 1500+-year calendar ends on that date, and some believe this indicates that the Apocalypse will be upon us.  For my part, I feel as though I’ve been living through an apocalypse ever since the McRib was taken off McDonald’s full-time menu, so I eagerly await the four horseman as long as they are grilling McRibs over the fires of Gehinnom year-round.  MMMM…but back to the Mayans. Yes, there are many people who are predicting the end of the world—granted, mostly insane individuals. That said, who better to take on the Mayans’ own personal apocalypse than director Mel Gibson, who believes the Apocalypse began with Vatican II.

Mel Gibson has directed four films (The Man Without a Face, Braveheart, The Passion of the Christ, and Apocalypto), all of which are unique in their own way. Still, his Passion and Apocalypto are significantly different, in that one is primarily in Aramaic (with a bit of Latin and Hebrew thrown in for good measure) and the other is in Yucatec Maya.  Gibson said he wanted his audience to suspend reality and engross themselves in the visual elements of these films.  I think it adds a realistic touch to both pictures, but I can’t help but wonder if he contemplated the fact that when some people are reading subtitles they can’t focus on anything but the words and then they miss the images. Ah, but who am I to argue with Gibson—I have it on good authority (his) that he is one tough motherf___er ( you fill in the blank, I don’t want the censors to get me).

If you haven’t seen the film (perhaps you don’t like foreign films…or films that appear foreign but really aren’t) let me give you a quick tutorial.  The story takes place on the eve of the Spanish conquest of the Yucatan Peninsula (think that place where Survivor likes to go all the time, Guatemala and lower Mexico) and the Mayan people in the mid-1500s. Jaguar Paw (Rudy Youngblood) and his tribe are jungle dwellers who find themselves overtaken by warriors sent to capture human sacrifices and slaves.  It would seem that a plague has descended on the tribes who live outside the jungle, and the priests have said that only human blood will satisfy the god Kukulkan.  Prior to being taken captive by some really scary men, Jaguar Paw drops his pregnant wife and son down a hole.  His only goal is to escape his captors and return to what is left of his family. 

Seeing as the Mayans didn’t have guns or any type of sophisticated weaponry, the film is quite violent.  While bombs blow people up and bullets blow people’s heads off, spears, clubs, arrows, knives, and swords still draw blood.  You know a film is going to be bloodthirsty when one of the first scenes is a wild boar impaled by traps and then gutted for its organs which are passed out as gifts.  By the time you get to the human sacrifice scenes at the pyramid you are more than ready to watch the victims partake in this sacred ritual: stomach slit open; beating heart ripped out; head chopped off; head rolled down a very long row of steps; and, for good measure, the lifeless body thrown over the pyramid, too.  No one does human sacrifices like the Mayans—well, actually the Aztecs did them better, but still… If you don’t do blood, don’t do this film.

While the cast is comprised mostly of unknowns, the acting is quite good.  Even though he’s not asked to stretch himself too much, Youngblood is especially good as the determined Jaguar Paw.  Primarily known as a dancer, Youngblood thrives in scenes that require him to show off his agility and athleticism.  The more well-known Raoul Trujillo (who plays the warrior leader Zero Wolf) is intimidating as the uncompromising villain. His character is the type of “native” you have nightmares about. 

Overall, what I liked most about the film is its simplicity.  It’s a treat to watch a movie where the plot is simple, the acting is natural, and the setting is not a product of CGI.  In addition, I found the ending jarring, but in a good way.  Plus, it does prove the Mayans were excellent prophets.  They were right about a plague descending upon them in the 1500s—AKA, the conquistadors. Does this spell doom for mankind in 2012? Maybe. According to the Mayan calendar, 2012 does bring an end to the Age of the Jaguar. Yes, that’s right, our hero’s name was Jaguar Paw.  So, if on December 21 you feel something like a shift in the earth’s magnetic field remember you have only one person to blame for what’s about to come next—Mel Gibson, he’s about to burn the entire motherf___ing world down. For my part, I’ll be looking for the flames that smell like a pork patty, BBQ sauce, onions, and pickles served on a 5½ inch roll.  If you like, feel free to join me.

275. Mrs. Harris

275. (16 Nov) Mrs. Harris (2006, Phyllis Nagy) 24



Phyllis Nagy seems determined to make movie magic, but she has no actual artistic flair or understanding of romance or drama. This does, at least, have a polished look, when Nagy's not getting too ambitious with visuals. But it's glossing over a truly sloppy and frothy character drama. Annette Bening hams it up incessantly while Ben Kingsley is a nonentity when he's supposed to be a charismatic force. Chloris Leachman is a scene stealer only because no one else is good. Famous faces like Ellen Burstyn and Chloe Sevigny make cameos without making the faintest impression.

Oscar Campaign Bust #6: Casino Royale & Quantum of Solace

007 has received no Oscar love since For Your Eyes Only (1981).

Skyfall is finally opening in the U.S. this week. Since it is getting some Oscar buzz, I thought it would be interesting to look back at the last two campaign efforts in the Bond franchise.

After a 4-year absence, Bond returned in 2006's Casino Royale, with Daniel Craig taking over the classic character in this reboot. In the wake of great reviews and a healthy box office take, it became the highest grossing 007 film, and awards talk began. A new, grittier Bond that was actually successful had to lead to some awards, right? And so it did. From the studio's campaign, the film received 9 BAFTA nominations, including a Best Actor nod for Daniel Craig and a win for Best Sound. The film's original song "You Know My Name" even got a Grammy nomination the following year. But Oscar never came calling.

Two years later, Bond and Craig were back in Quantum of Solace, and audiences were ready for more...until the film was released. The backlash began with mixed reviews, followed by the general disappointment of fans everywhere. (I think it's a mishandled gem, but that's neither here nor there.) Despite the negative reaction, the film became the second highest grossing Bond film ever. So, the studio went for it again, campaigning the film in technical categories. And it worked, to some extent. The film actually received 2 BAFTA nominations and 2 Critics Choice nods. While the original song "Another Way to Die" wasn't as popular, it did get some awards attention as well. Still, Oscar passed on the film.

Now, Skyfall will be trying for a third time (as a Craig-helmed 007 film), and it appears to have the best chance at nabbing some Oscar nods. It has a realistic shot at 5 nominations. Will it get them? We'll have to wait until January to see.

FYC: Anthony Mackie in Half Nelson (2006)

Mackie gives a career-best performance.

Ruth at FlixChatter has devised this intriguing little blogathon, aptly titled Small Roles... Big Performances, that highlights great performances by overlooked actors. I ask you to consider Anthony Mackie's performance in Half Nelson...

When Anthony Mackie's name comes up in conversation, his wonderful performance in The Hurt Locker (2009) is usually mentioned at the outset. Mostly forgotten, it is his fascinating, albeit brief, turn in Half Nelson that deserves more praise. This underappreciated actor gives the performance of his career so far in this indie flick.

As a drug dealer named Frank from the projects, Mackie could've turned in a loud, hammy performance (and possibly gotten an Oscar nomination for it). Instead, he went for his trademark subtly, stoicism, and charm in a wholly authentic, quietly scene-stealing performance. This type of acting doesn't win many awards. Just ask Ryan Gosling, or even Christian Bale.

Take the scene embedded below. In this scene, Ryan Gosling's character Dan (a drug-addicted teacher) comes to Frank's house to ask him to leave Dan's student Drey alone. Dan knows that Frank and Drey are family, but he also knows all too well that the girl's future would be much brighter if she didn't fall into the world of drugs. It's a difficult scene to pull off, and both actors deliver.

But how could Mackie play this scene right? By playing it naturally. There's no flash and nothing overdone here. As much as Gosling lights up the screen, Mackie gives it right back, demanding the viewer's attention by restraining his emotions. He's there, in the scene, and we're there with him. He commands the screen in one of the most underrated performances in recent memory.

I chose this scene because it perfectly captures Mackie's skill at minimalism. The scene feels so real because Gosling explodes and Mackie listens to him. At the most basic level, Mackie doesn't do much at all in this scene, and that's the point. Watch closely, and you'll see him taking in Gosling's words. He just stops and reacts with all that he can, without overplaying the scene.

Any artifice is stripped bare, and the scene plays out with extreme authenticity. However, the scene could feel so real because of the improvisation that was required due to the film's thin script. Whatever the reason, it's a truly memorable moment for me. Both actors play it for real, but Mackie should get some of the credit that his co-star does.

If you don't believe me, check out a piece of this great performance in the aforementioned powerful scene below.

Deja Vu (2006) vs. Man on Fire (2004)

In remembrance of Tony Scott, I finally watched these two action films, which both star Denzel Washington. Find out who wins after the cut. (SPOILERS)

Deja Vu

The rap sheet. 

Deja Vu has a 55% rating on RottenTomatoes and a Metacritic score of 59. It received a Saturn Award nomination for Best Science Fiction Film. Man on Fire has a 39% rating on RottenTomatoes and a Metacritic score of 41. It received a Critics Choice nomination for Best Young Actress.

Winner: Deja Vu

The setup.
In Man on Fire, an ex-assassin must avenge the death of the girl he was assigned to protect. In Deja Vu, an ATF agent must solve (and prevent) a terrorist bombing on a crowded ferry.
Winner: Deja Vu

Man on Fire

The execution.
Both have all of the bells and whistles. Deja Vu has time-jumping and plenty of explosions. Man on Fire has payback and multiple deaths in the process of vengeance.
Winner: Deja Vu

The ending.
In Man on Fire, the hero dies to save the little girl, but they are both finally at peace. She's free to live, and he's free to let go. In Deja Vu, the present hero dies in the past, leaving his old self to deal with the cleanup of the averted disaster.
Winner: Man on Fire

The wild card.
Deja Vu has Jim Caviezel and Pam from "The Cosby Show". Man on Fire has Christopher Walken. 'Nuff said.
Winner: Man on Fire

Deja Vu

Winner: Deja Vu beats Man on Fire 3-2

Ratings, by the way: Deja Vu - ***1/2, Man on Fire - ***

Why I Like "The Prestige"

Angier (Jackman) gives a show.

Last week, Alex of And So It Begins... was kind enough to invite me to participate in his post "The Polarization of The Prestige" for his Week of Nolan series. The piece I wrote was too lengthy and had to be trimmed, so I thought I'd post the entire thing for anyone who wants to read it.

A spoiler-free reasoning after the cut.

Out of all of Christopher Nolan's films, The Prestige (2006) is one that is often cast aside for films like Memento (2000), The Dark Knight (2008), or Inception (2010). Regardless of the spotlight not always shining on it, I love the film very much. It's packed full of themes that are a breeding ground for great drama and compelling mystery, such as love, betrayal, rivalry, greed, deception, invention, violence, obsession, sacrifice, and dedication. Of course, magic is at the forefront and the techniques of several tricks are revealed. Though the number of twists in this film is enormous, it remains absolutely stunning. The film is really a magic trick in its own right, and that's what makes it so intriguing, so fantastic. As great as the riddle is, the way Nolan puts it together is even better.

Nolan's film is loaded with slight of hand trickery, from the gotcha ending to the various clues spread throughout it. "Are you watching closely?" Bale's Borden asks at the opening. If you're not, you'll probably be fooled. And if you are, you still might be fooled. This is a mystery that is so complex that it is tough to characterize without giving away the ending. Everything is out in the open, but I saw nothing. Though all of the pieces are there, the details are so intricately woven that a first-time viewing is likely to frustrate. Even I was frustrated re-watching it. The (dare I say it?) genius of giving everything and still leaving a mystery to be deconstructed on repeated viewings is just fantastic. While major clues are in plain sight, they are taken for granted, so that the reveal at the end fooled me when I first saw it and still confounds me today. The ending simply blew me away.

Borden (Bale) performing.

Unlike no other Nolan film, this a technically superb work that happens to be a period piece. Instead of trudging through the grim worlds of his modern stories, he places us in the past, with gorgeous costumes, beautiful production design, and a more pronounced lensing job by the now-regular Wally Pfister. This world is given a dark, shadowy look that enhances the smoke and mirrors aspect of the story. What strikes me most about the film is that, even without its multiple twists and turns, it is still a marvel. Whether you are a fan or not, the film is an immaculate production thanks to the great craftspeople at work. I love the look of this film, and it's completely in service to the story. It only adds to the mystery, which is why I appreciate the technical design of a film that's already got a great mystery going for it.

Borden and Angier's rivalry is a dynamic that is the most effective of Nolan's other attempts because it walks a fine line between hero and villain, between good and evil. These characters are not clearly defined as such, which is not as evident in Nolan's other work. A problem for some could be that the film does not offer a straight protagonist and antagonist. These men betray each other, and they each try to top the other in a way that goes beyond mere competition. I love this ambiguity, since it is just another element to misdirect the viewer. The lengths these magicians will go to one-up on each other is astounding. And if you think you know the villain at the beginning, just wait until the end. This battle of wills is not only essential to the narrative, but it also provides a tug-of-war throughout that doesn't end until the final scene. Due to this rivalry, the story never drags, as the magicians are locked in constant conflict. And this is instrumental in the twists that keep coming and coming.

Casting stars for Nolan hasn't been a problem since Insomnia (2002), and his choices here are as strong as any of his of his other ensembles. Hugh Jackman is the perfect showman, and Christian Bale is the perfect magician. One is flashy and dresses up his tricks, while the other creates a simple but mesmerizing act. Of the two, Bale outshines Jackman largely due to the part Bale's playing. More importantly, Bale's performance is one of things that makes this film so great. In a carefully-manipulated portrayal of a man living with a secret, he tailors his performance to the tough demands of the script, and he's so subtle it's almost too hard to dissect. He creates a character that is nearly impenetrable, which is just what the vast mystery of this story requires. Michael Caine, Rebecca Hall, Scarlett Johansson, Andy Serkis, and David Bowie round out a wonderful cast. And props to Jackman, who gives a great performance as the vengeful Angier. These performances are fine additions to this already thrilling narrative.

Borden and Angier at odds.

Despite all of these characteristics, the chilliness of this film can be quite polarizing. These magicians are not so much unlikable, as they are unrelatable. Granted, Borden and Angier are two tortured men who have sacrificed greatly, seeking to outperform each other. But the emotional connection to these characters isn't fully realized. And why should it be? Borden is a man who wears many hats (so to speak), and Angier only wants to see his rival fall, to see him beaten. These characters are part of a puzzle, and the puzzle is the most important -  and the most successful - piece of the film. Everything occurs at a distance here. We can't quite get in on what is happening until the very end. Despite the negative connotations of most of this paragraph, I say bravo to Nolan for that. He shows us everything, but denies satisfaction until the very end. The puzzle is so elaborate, yet subtle, that it renders this film an unforgettable entry in Nolan's filmography. It may not be as entertaining as other Nolan films, but it is one of his most complex ones to date.

Why do I like The Prestige? I like it because it's challenging, technically sound, and wonderfully put-together. The performances are attuned to needs of the material, and Bale's turn as Borden is one of the film's highest selling points. The magicians' rivalry gives way to the mystery, which continues to baffle me as to how Nolan was able to create such a puzzle. I mean on the screen, not the page. (After all, it is an adaptation.) The disconnect to these characters only adds to the trickery that is made plain before our very eyes. Try as I may, I don't know that I will ever fully grasp all of subtleties of this film, and I admire it wholeheartedly for that. It's a magic trick full of misdirection and ambiguity that remains a mystery. It dazzled me. It shook me. It fooled me. And I wanted to be fooled.

Review: After the Wedding (2006)

Helene (Knudsen) and Jacob (Mikkelsen) reunited.

Directed by Susanne Bier
Produced by Sisse Graume Jørgensen
Written by Susanne Bier and Anders Thomas Jensen
Starring Mads Mikkelsen, Rolf Lassgard, Sidse Babett Knudsen, Stine Fischer Christensen, and Christian Tafdrup

****

Susanne Bier's Oscar-nominated film is a perfect example of human drama told with raw emotion. When the idealistic Jacob (Mikkelsen) leaves his Indian orphanage to meet a potential investor named Jørgen (Lassgard), he is invited to Jørgen's daughter's wedding. However, he meets Jørgen's wife Helene (Knudsen) there, who happens to be Jacob's ex-girlfriend. After the bride's speech reveals that Jørgen is not her father, Jacob discovers that he is her actual father. In addition, Jørgen reveals that he is dying. Once this has all been laid bare, the four are left to sort out the emotional damage, while the investment deal is completed. A film this packed with drama is especially rewarding when it is done right.

And is it ever. Foreign filmmakers seem more keen on a good story, and Bier's film continues this pattern. With the exception of Mikkelsen (of Casino Royale fame), the cast is mostly unknowns, and it is remarkably good. Acting in a story like this can appear forced or overdone, but the performances here are naturalistic, genuine portrayals of a family thrown into a desperate situation. It is refreshing to see a film that has no pretense, just presence. The film is a simple look at this family's relationships; and a lack of sappy dialogue, heavy-handed performances, and a blaring score is most welcome. While the noise around it has faded, this movie deserves more recognition and should be seen by more people.

Oscar Tally: Nomination for Best Foreign Language Film

119. Krakatoa: Volcano of Destruction

119. (23 May) Krakatoa: Volcano of Destruction (2006, Sam Miller) 65

It might be setting the bar too low by saying this TV drama about the final days before Krakatoa's eruption is more exciting than either Volcano or Dante's Peak. Beyond that, it's also more technically proficient and coherent. Despite a large cast from all walks of life, acting out real-life accounts from surviving witnesses, this never feels overwrought or overextended.

Crash

Crash, 2004
Directed by Paul Haggis
Nominated for 6 Oscars, Won 3
Up Against: Brokeback Mountain, Goodnight and Good Luck, Munich, Capote

Crash tells the story of racism in LA. It tells 6 different stories, all of which don't seem to connect with each other at first, but as the story goes along, it does. I'd explain the intersecting stories, but I'd end up explaining the whole movie to you. The first storyline is about a middle-aged white couple, the man of whom is a dsitrict attorney and uses race as a political card in his career, and his wife who was recently car-jacked feels that her biases and views towards those who aren't white are justified and therefore not racism. Then we have the car-jackers; 2 young black men, one of whom is constantly complaining about racism half the time, and uses it as an excuse the other half. Then we have 2 cops, the experienced one a racist pig, the other who believes he doesn't hold those views at all, and hates the experienced cop for his. We have a black filmmaker and his wife, who were recenetly harassed by said cops, the wife semi-molested during the experience, and feels her husband doesn't support their black background and tries to be "too white". Then we have a Latino man, who is trying to make a better life for his daughter. And a Persian family trying to make it in America with their store, who have recently purchased a gun.

I'm going to put it out there right away, this movie tried WAY too hard to get it's "point" across, that racism still happens today. In all honesty, most of the things that happened weren't really racism, just people making stupid decisions. Granted, there were a lot of examples of racism, but there were also a lot of examples of people acting like idiots. But that's besides the point. This movie just took everything to the extreme to make a point, and it really lowered it's value. This year's The Help also dealt with racism, but did it in a much better way, which wasn't throwing it in your face every 5 seconds.

Ludacris's character was the car-jacking, racism complainer. All we really did heard from him was about how racism is unfair, how racist people are, and how he don't ever steal from black people. I understand him complaining at first, but it got really tiring after over an hour of straight complaining whenever he was on screen. Granted, he did a great job in his role, and I thought he was quite well acted.

This is the same with pretty much all the character. I know it was a film about racism, but in other films about racism, it's not a constant rant about race, which is what this movie was. Sure, there were some powerful moments in the film, like when the filmmakers wife is rescued from the car crash just before it exploded by the racist cop who semi-molested her only 12 hours before. Powerful, and it wasn't as blatant as some of the other scenes, and had much more subtlety to it.

Anyway, enough about my rant about it's obviousness. Other than that fact, the acting was quite good. While most characters spent very little time on screen (another problem of the film, I felt like I was being introduced to someone new, constantly), they performed well. I was pleasantly surprised by Ludacris. I'd had no expectations from him, but he was quite good. And I really enjoyed Sandra Bullock as the cold and racist woman. Things like cinematography were good too.

Overall I spent half the movie going "oh my gosh..." and rolling my eyes, or being like "really? did that just happen?". I also laughed a lot. This movie was just too corny and hoaky, and while it did get it's message across, loud and clear, it was just too much. Also, has anyone ever heard of this movie?

4/10

093. Madonna: The Confessions Tour Live from London

093. (13 Mar) Madonna: The Confessions Tour Live from London (2006, Jonas Akerlund) 52



Seeing as it's Madonna, it's hard not to have fun with this. There's not really a number in the bunch that's outright bad, but the concert as a whole is conceptually awful. There's no cohesion between the numbers and the various themes all seem phony. Madonna's spiritualism is certainly nothing new, but it's indulgent to an extreme in this tour film. A moving rendition of "Drowned World/Substitute for Love" and energetic closer "Hung Up" are highlights.

The Departed

The Departed, 2006
Directed by Martin Scorsese
Nominated for 5 Oscars, Won 4
Won BP over Babel, Letters from Iwo Jima, Little Miss Sunshine and The Queen

Synopsis: Billy Costigan wants to be a cop. But with his family history of crime, no one will hire him. Until they need a man to go undercover, to be the mole in Frank Costello's crime ring. Costello's been avoiding the law, and being arrested for a long, long time, and Billy is the perfect spy. His family was friends with Frank Costello and his partners, and Billy gains Costello's trust very easily. Meanwhile, Colin Sullivan is an up-and-coming cop, rising in the Special Investigations Unit. He's brilliant, and has a pitch perfect past. And that makes him the perfect mole in the SIU. Being a friend and worker for Frank Costello since childhood, Sullivan is the perfect mole in the Boston Police force. But when both sides suspect a mole, Billy and Colin race to uncover the other, to save their own skins.

Before I write this review, I must say, Cop/Mafia/Gangster/Lots of swearing films aren't really my thing. This is going to gain the most positive review from me simply because I don't generally enjoy these types of films, and I can't appreciate films where the character have extremely limited and dirty vocabulary.

That being said, we move on. This film had an interesting premise, even if it sounded a tad bit cliche. The seemingly rough guy is the good guy, while the guy with the spotless past and the up-and-comer being the bad guy. But we know that right away. But the two sides don't, and the moles themselves don't know who the other one is.

The performances in this film were great. I thought Leonardo DiCaprio rocked the whole show and was surprised to see he wasn't nominated for the role (only to see he was nominated for Blood Diamond instead...I'm assuming he was fantastic in that role, I still haven't seen it.) Additionally, Matt Damon is pretty much always great, in my opinion. He played the good guy/bad guy really well (even if a lot of the movie he had a dopey-gaping look on his face). I was surprised to see Mark Walhberg nominated for his Supporting Role, having had very little screen time. I'd have liked him to have been in it more. (Though is it only me that thinks Matt Damon and Mark Walhberg could be twins? During the opening I was having trouble figuring out if Colin was Damon or Walhberg, until we saw Walhberg had thick dark hair. Good thing he did, or they'd have been indistinguishable)

The film was well told, if not a little long for my taste. We see both sides trying to weed out who the mole is. Colin Sullivan is near the top and is quickly able to conceal himself, while Billy Costigan is a little more exposed. Personally, I couldn't understand why Costello didn't figure it out. It was blatantly obvious to me, and I don't know why he didn't pick up on it.

Anyway, the film had lots of twists and turns, and was well told. We feel for both characters, both living double lives, trying to make their way through.

Overall, I thought it was just an okay film. I found nothing about it that was incredible, or amazing. While Leonardo DiCaprio was really good in it, it was otherwise just an average film. At least, those are my thoughts.

(short review, but I honestly don't have much to say about it. It was kind of whatever. Not bad, but not brilliant.)

7/10

Oscar Campaign Bust #1: Breaking and Entering

This 2006 drama featured a great cast with an Oscar-winning director at the helm, and was even distributed by The Weinstein Company (who just backed The King's Speech in 2010) in a December release. Despite these pluses, the film fell flat with most critics and awards groups and was not nominated for any Oscars.

Did it deserve to be nominated? Yes, at least for Best Actor, Best Supporting Actress (Binoche in the correct category), and Best Original Screenplay.

Clip/Trailer from "Happy Feet 2 in 3D"

Yes.  That's actually the title.  It's not a subtitle or an additional discription, but this sequel to George Miller's Academy Award-winning Happy Feet is called Happy Feet 2 in 3D.  It's even its official IMDb title.  This is what we've come to, I guess.



There was something I found fun about the original, though.  It had nice songs, strongly-imagined dance sequences, and impressive animation.  I can say that I enjoyed it.  (Though, my personality is one of comparison, and since 2006 was a year of relatively weak animation, I think perhaps my opinion on the film is bloated.  But that's neither here nor there.)

While I'll always appreciate true-to-life animation, personally it just turns me off.  I appreciate it from a craft standpoint and understand how difficult it is to capture realistic humans, environments, and animals...but I just don't like it very much.  Nevertheless, given that its predecessor won the Best Animated Feature Oscar, this one is surely to be in the conversation if not a nominee at the 2011 awards.

Eat all penguins...please.  EAT THEM.

Also.  There is just so...much...dancing in this.  It's almost as if they're trying to say, "Hey, remember when we sang Grandmaster Flash's 'The Message' in the first one?  This is sorta like that!"  Does 3D have to be the future of animation?  Thoughts on the trailer?


.

The Final Conclusion - Best Actress 2006

2006

5. Kate Winslet in Little Children

This is a great performance by the great Kate Winslet but I just embrace her because the movie was between me and her. Kate shows Sarah's emotions extremely well and she has some mindblowingly great scenes and yet the whole thing becomes uneven because she's overshadowed by the movie itself. Great work but not as brilliant as I used to think.

4. Helen Mirren in The Queen

I must say that this is a great performance by the great Helen Mirren. As Queen Elizabeth II, Mirren was able to become very moving and effective. The technical part is just perfect though the emotions could have been a bit stronger. Although this work doesn't really live up to the hype that surrounded it when it was released, it's still very well done by Mirren.

3. Meryl Streep in The Devil Wears Prada

Meryl is fantastic all in all, the movie sometimes drags her performance down and I feel that she could have been given much more to work with. I still say that she's just excellent as Miranda Priestly, the merciless, vicious magazine editor but the movie prevented me from saying that I was totally blown away

2. Judi Dench in Notes on a Scandal

On a reapeated viewing, I became less enthusiastic about her and she stars to grow off me.Judi Dench gives a fantastic performance as Sheba Hart, a desperate, lonely woman who feels like she has some hope in her life at last. Dench is almost disturbingly perfect as Barbara Covett. Every line reading, every nuance, every movement is just great.

1. Penélope Cruz in Volver

As I finished writing, I've become dead certain that Penélope Cruz gives her absolute best performance in Volver as Raimunda, a very complicated and tough woman. This is not only a beautiful achievement but also a tearjerking tribute to an acting style that has unfortunately died somewhere. But we need this type of performances, too. Penélope Cruz and Pedro Almodóvar are probably the saviours of the Raimundas of the cinema.

So I can proudly announce

that my winner is...

Penélope Cruz

in

Volver

Congrats, Penélope!

Final thoughts: Wow, a fantastic year with quite an obvious winner, iny opinion. I feel quite bad for Dame Judi but Penélope's achivement was undeniably the biggest of the bunch. Tempted was I to make Meryl my pick until I saw Penélope who totally blew me away. Helen and Kate were the sour grapes, if I may say so but they were also quite good. I don't want to say much but this is a must-see year for any Oscar/Best Actress fan.

The ranking of the reviewed years:

1. 1944
2. 1969
3. 1974
4. 1989
5. 1959
6. 2006
7. 1964
8. 1939
9. 1977
10. 2010
11. 1997
12. 2009
13. 1980
14. 1941
15. 1963
16. 1966
17. 1973
18. 1990
19. 1978
20. 1954
21. 1948
22. 2002
23. 1957
24. 1940
25. 1998

About the next year: I want to make up for that last fiasco of mine with 1967, so I again let you decide from two. This time I only picked years where I got the movies in advance, so happy voting!

What do you think?

I wish you a happy Easter! :)

Penélope Cruz in Volver

Penélope Cruz received her first Oscar nomination for playing Raimunda, a woman having a troubled life in Volver. If Helen Mirren hadn't been there, I actually would have bet on Penélope Cruz even though I think Meryl Streep got more votes. However, if the two had been there with each other (without Mirren), I think Cruz would have won the Oscar. First of all, she had the cool factor. Second, she had the "Oh! You're not just sexy, you can also act" (as if they hadn't seen All about my Mother). Plus, she's one of the sexiest actresses alive, so the babe factor also helped her. The only thing going against her was the foreign language.

Volver is a terrific film, way better than all of the other movies of Cruz's fellow nominees combined. Almodóvar is such a masterful director. His movies are incredibly loud, over-the-top, colourful and, I dare say, quite vulgar and yet one just cannot take their eyes off the screen. Fantastic, even though it's not even the best work of the director. Carmen Maura is an actress who always impresses me with her unique talent and this movie is not different.

However, there's one and only one person truly in the spotlight. And that's Penélope Cruz. And it's no wonder. Sometimes I'm a bit sceptical about her (when I don't see her acting) but every time I see her I'm impressed, even by things like Nine. Naturally, she's so sexy and yet there's something really mysterious about her. Her sexiness is not pushy and it doesn't come to your face, you just feel it and it's so great about her.

As Raimunda, Penélope Cruz gives probably the biggest performance of her career. I'm not saying best because it's arguable wheter she was better in All about my Mother. However, this really juicy leading role is something that's a real gift in the life of a performer and I'm quite certain that Penélope was also aware of that. She did everything to be great and I believe she succeeded.

The resemblances between Penélope in this movie and Sophia Loren are just undeniable. Naturally, Raimunda is a character who would have been played by Sophia forty-five years ago. Raimunda is loud but repressed and she's quite earthy. I always felt that Raimunda had a background, a real backstory but everything was so shady. It was wonderful to see Penélope peel all the layers from this character and show the disturbing truth behind the loudness.

I would say that this is a loud role but I would never say that Penélope is too over-the-top and hysterical. She does everything so naturally and I could always so believe that she's this hard-working woman with lots of problems in her life. There's lots of deglam in the role and yet Cruz has just as much dignity and grace as Helen Mirren as Queen Elizabeth II and I'm not kidding. I mean, we take Penélope seriously after we see her sitting on the toilet, after she says that it smells like a fart and so on. Almodóvar wrote lots of crazy, unbelievable things to his wonderful screenplay and Penélope delivered all the lines and stupid things as if she went to a store to ask for some milk.

I am also crazy about how well Penélope was able to show both Raimunda's toughness and softness. SPOILER ON! When she finds out that her husband was killed by her daughter, we hear her screaming and a couple of minutes later she's washing the blood at the kitchen SPOILER OFF! I mean, it's againg so insane and unbelievable and yet I just loved that Raimunda was so quick-thinking. All the inner demons that she has are revealed to the audience by the greatness of Penélope Cruz. When I first saw the movie when it was released, I would not have believed all the things that happened to Raimunda because Penélope was so mysterious. In time, however, all the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle fall into the right place and I become blown away by Cruz's achievement. She almost told everything and yet we didn't suspect anything. Masterful, by all means.

Furthermore, the chemistry among the four leading ladies is just unbelievably great. I mean, it's so FAIR that they all won Best Actress together at Cannes. They are really like the Spanish, female version of The A-Team, a bit like the Foxy Chicks mentioned in Pulp Fiction or The Golden Girls. They are just brilliant together and everyone has her own territory. Cruz is, obviously, the leader of the group. She has the smarts and the troubled past.

And those scene, kids! Oh my goodness. Whenever she hugs her daughter or another member of her family, there's an earthquake and thunderball. So many honest, deep, female emotions going on there, on the screen. Oh, just wonderful. But I could also mention the scene where she's crying quietly after she doesn't want to make love to her disgusting husband and listents to him having fun alone. I could mention probably all of the scenes, actually, but I won't. She's just as great as she is. I don't want to pick a favorite scene because I can't (OK, for a bit naughty reasons, I like who she does the washing-up). But I would be so unfair if I didn't mention her heartbreaking song, Volver. That scene is cathartic, if I may say so.

OMG, I was a bit long, I know but if there's a performance that you feel really passionate about, you just cannot stop. As I finished writing, I've become dead certain that Penélope Cruz gives her absolute best performance in Volver as Raimunda, a very complicated and tough woman. This is not only a beautiful achievement but also a tearjerking tribute to an acting style that has unfortunately died somewhere. But we need this type of performances, too. Penélope Cruz and Pedro Almodóvar are probably the saviours of the Raimundas of the cinema. Brilliant, brilliant, brilliant.

So what do you think? I've got a lot of things to think about until the conclusion.

Kate Winslet in Little Children

Kate Winslet received her fifth Oscar nomination for playing Sarah Pierce, an unhappy married woman having an adulterous affair with a married man in the movie Little Children. I think it was this the loss which made Kate say that was enough, it's nice to be nominated but it would be great to win. And this was the time when the world started to think the same. She didn't even have a prayer to win alongside Helen Mirren and Meryl Streep or even Penélope Cruz, probably. She was probably like Michelle Williams, a solid fourth.

Little Children is quite a weird movie. The first time I saw it, I was blown away by it but this time I was much less enthusiastic. It works with very cheap tools sometimes and it can be quite manipulative. Moreover, why did they need that narrator? He had this soft, deep voice, which became ultra soft and ultra deep when there was a very emotional moment. So the screenplay that I loved the most for the first time was a bit of a failure this time around. Not a bit of, actually. Jackie Earle Haley is, however, brilliant and I think he would have deserved to win the Best Supporting Actor Oscar in that weak field.

Kate Winslet is a fantastic, extremely talented actress who might have annoyed me when she was (ahhem) campaigning for her Oscar (in time, I really understood her and now it doesn't really bother me). She's not exactly beautiful but there's something so grabbing about her. She has a very unique and luminous presence which can elevate silly little comedies like Holiday and make them highly entertaining. And her roles are so different (I believe that she said that she liked it this way) and even her performances.

Bohumil Hrabal's book, Cutting It Short begins with the sentence "I am Madame Bovary." It's a hilarious but very bitter book about a woman, Maryska who's desperate to be free and have fun on her own. Little Children is a somewhat similar one with Sarah Pierce/Kate Winslet as Madame Bovary/Maryska. Sarah is trapped in a boring life which doesn't fit her personality. She's restless, impatient and bored, above all. Kate Winslet added this feeling so much to Sarah and despite the fact that she's very unlikeable, you actually care about her.

I used to be quite a hyper about this performance but just like my admiration for the film itself, my love cooled (though to a lesser extent). Kate Winslet is naturally brilliant when she's given enough space and the movie focuses on her. Her luminous self adds so much to the movies (I'm saying Eternal Sunshine of a Spotless Mind, her best work, as an example). In Titanic, I said that Kate became the victim of the epic movie, the stunning visuals. In Little Children, Kate became the victim of the director's desperate and failed attempt to look artsy. One just cannot really focus on Kate because the movie is so mesmerized by itself. Poor Kate, she had so much potential with this role and she could have blown all the other ladies of 2006 away had it been for a better movie.

Kate's chemistry with Patric Wilson works very well even though she's seemingly way more talented than most of the cast combined. They are a very unlikely couple and yet they somehow look quite good together. The stupid, obvious flaws of the screenplay hold her back so much. I mean it's such an obvious scene where she's talking about Madame Bovary but Kate does great in it and yet her greatness pales in comparision with the flaw of the movie.

Still, I would be so unfair if I didn't praise her obviously brilliant scenes like when she's spying on her lover and she hides behind the wheel and then she starts crying hysterically and I was totally blown away there. It's such an unlikely and yet very realistic reaction, I just loved it. Moreover, the scenes in the end were handled perfectly by Kate. She brilliantly showed Sarah's desperation and hope.

So, to sum up, this is a great performance by the great Kate Winslet but I just embrace her because the movie was between me and her. Kate shows Sarah's emotions extremely well and she has some mindblowingly great scenes and yet the whole thing becomes uneven because she's overshadowed by the movie itself. Great work but not as brilliant as I used to think.

What do you think? Time for your last predictions! Note: before you predict, consider that I changed Helen's grade. I'm so sorry for my weakness with the grades. I might started grading them only at the time of the final conclusion and then add the grade to the review afterwards.

Judi Dench in Notes on a Scandal

Divine Dame Judi Dench received her sixth Oscar nomination to date for playing Barbara Covett, an elderly teacher in Notes on a Scandal. Well, 2006 wasn't the most exciting Best Actress race ever. If there's ever been a lock to win, it was Helen Mirren. And I guess that poor Judi became the fifth in the voting. Too bad, though nowadays people seem to be much more crazy about her then they were about Helen Mirren back thrn. Seasons change I guess and time's the best judge.

Notes on a Scandal is a great movie, which I have seen four times, but always found some interesting nuances I haven't really noticed. One of the most fascinating things about it is how thrilling it is. I have already expressed my fondness of the scores of Philip Glass and this one is not different, though I might prefer The Hours and Koyaanisquatsi to this one. The performances are as sharp as a razor: Cate Blanchett was absolutely robbed of that Oscar (I mean, that competiotion is NOTHING compared to her) and Bill Nighy should have received a nom at least. However, I must say that I spotted some very tiny but manipulative moments this time and the director wanted to make sure that we get the movie.

And Dame Judi: well, I just really don't waste your time with my endless praise towards the brilliant dame. She's such a thrilling, fascinating actress and I just cannot wait until My Week with Marilyn comes out. I always look forward to watching her movies as she alsways brings something fresh and new to her acting. She always gives different types of performances that are amazing on their own merit. She can play Queen Elizabeth I, Iris Murdoch, Queen Victoria and everyone and I'm just blown away. In Modern Family, Cam said that Meryl Streep could play Batman and be the right choice. Well, that's basically the same that I feel about Dame Judi Dench.

Let's be brief about this one because I should get it out right now: Judi Dench is amazing as Barbara Covett and this might even be her best performance in a film. One could not get a character that is harder to play than the manipulative, unlikeable and bitter Barbara. I would even say that she's a character that you instantly hate. She's the brutal spinster teacher that everyone is terrified of. She's a typical snob bitch who looks down on her pupil. Dame Judi's line readings (not only) at the beginning are simply terrific. That bitterness that you imagine this character has is perfectly got across by her. Yes, the character is not very likeable but Dench made her very enjoyable, at the very least.

And still, that's probably the smallest achievement of her. As soon as Sheba Hart comes in, Judi Dench's performance becomes as sharp as a razor and she becomes totally brutal and extremely disturbing. Dame Judi shows sch harrowing and disturbing amount of loneliness that this character has that it becomes very hard to watch after a while. When Barbara's asked by Sheba to come to lunch to her home is a fantastic moment. That hopeful smile and little twitch is so perfectly done by Dame Judi. I mean that's something that you call talent. She does not just say "I adore lasagne", she screams for help.

The scenes of Dame Judi with Cate Blanchett are also wonderful: they are so full of tension and of course the fact that they are two of the most brilliant actresses of our era adds a lot to them. The inconvenient truth about Sheba makes Barbara extremely furious and then everything changes in a moment. Barbara decides not to report Sheba for having an affair with a pupil of hers and Judi showed the moment of the decision with such brilliance. On the outside, she's the good guy, the good friend, a mother superior who helps the little nun. Inside, Barbara is a cold, bitter bitch who found an opportunity for some happiness. And it's all brilliantly shown by Judi Dench.

As the movie goes on, Barbara sinks deeper and deeper into her isolation and becomes more and more obsessed with Sheba. The loneliness she feels makes her sould very ugly and yet we feel sorry for her. I could so feel the pain when she had to say goodbye to her cat. That scene didn't almost make me cry because I'm an avid animal lover and can't watch when cats die. I felt the true misery inside this person. And her final line to Sheba ("I need more than a friend") was one of the most depressing lines I've ever heard.

So, to sum up, Judi Dench gives a fantastic performance as Sheba Hart, a desperate, lonely woman who feels like she has some hope in her life at last. Dench is almost disturbingly perfect as Barbara Covett. Every line reading, every nuance, every movement is just great. Dench made the audience care about this highly unlikeable character. Occasionally, one just says "poor woman" despite the fact how awful Barbara can act. My admiration and enthusiasm dropped a bit towards this performance but she's fantastic anyhow.

What do you think?

Helen Mirren in The Queen

Helen Mirren received her third Oscar nomination and first Academy Award for Queen Elizabeth II who's going through a very difficult period in Stephen Frears' Best Picture nominated movie, The Queen. If there's a defintion for a locked Oscar win then it's quite definitely Helen Mirren. Everybody knew that she was going to win the Oscar, nobody even dared to hope that someone else would win. So, it was quite an easy win for her. And I must also add that Mirren won every other possible award that year for this performance.

The Queen is a movie that I used to like very much but this time I was actually a bit bored by it. Naturally, one doesn't expect a tough, huge epic about Queen Elizabeth II but I think that the story is a bit too dry and it fits the medium of television much more. That being said, the diretion of Stephen Frears elevated the material quite a bit. The actors give quite proper and entertaining performances. Many say that Michael Sheen should have got the nod for Best Supporting Actor and I might just say the same. The Best Picture nomination was a bit much, though in my opinion.

Helen Mirren is a terrific actress who's such a huge talent and I so love her on- and off-screen persona. Her real-life self seems to be so much fun and yet she's very dignified and on the screen she shows so much self-control and grace. I think that's what made her the best choice for the title role of The Queen.

I am very curious why Helen Mirren blew the whole world away with her performance. You can say many reasons, which may seem quite true until you see the movie. The film is based on real events (from the recent past) and this one seems to be a very baity role. And yet when I watch the performance, I see nothing very loud and big. As Her Majesty, the Queen puts it in the movie "Nowadays people want to see glamour and tears, the grand performance." However, Mirren approached this character with so much subtlty and dignity and I truly believe that it was the right decision. I think that Mirren's triumph and success is mostly due to the fact that she brought so much dignity to the screen and that's something that everybody loves, even those who deny it ;).

Another reason for Mirren's success with this role was the way she solved the technical part of the performance. Her accent, her speech, her walk the small movements, twitches, little ticks that we see were perfectly done by Helen Mirren. Her Majesty is someone we can occasionally see on TV during her public duties and there's a certain kind of image that we have of her. It's almost a stereotype that Queen Elizabeth II has an admirable sense of duty and commitment towards everything she believes in. Her faith, her family and her people. Mirren showed a more human side of this extraordinary person but she always remained faithful and she respected the personality of the Queen.

I feel that (very much like Judi Dench in Mrs Brown) Helen Mirren didn't get really emotional and I dare say emotionally difficult scenes. Naturally, her monologues and speeches about how she knows her people and how she cares about them are very effective and moving but I don't think that this performance dived deep enough into the sould of this person. The screenplay almost desperately wants to make the Queen seem strong and wise and therefore she became a bit too perfect. And I feel that Mirren could have made her a bit more human. Or I might be a typical person of this era and expect the tears and the grand performance.

Still, I must say that this is a great performance by the great Helen Mirren. As Queen Elizabeth II, Mirren was able to become very moving and effective. The technical part is just perfect though the emotions could have been a bit stronger. Although this work doesn't really live up to the hype that surrounded it when it was released, it's still very well done by Mirren.

What do YOU think?

Meryl Streep in The Devil Wears Prada

Meryl Streep received her fourteenth Oscar nomination and set up a new record in 2007 when she received her nom for playing Miranda Priestly, a ruthless boss in the comedy The Devil Wears Prada. Actually, 2007 was the time when the whole world started to want Meryl to win her third Oscar, which is yet to come to her though I have a feeling that if The Iron Lady is any good, she won't have to wait very much. Although nobody had a chance in hell of beating Helen Mirren, Meryl provided some ultra minor competition.

The Devil Wears Prada is movie that I wouldn't watch if it wasn't for Meryl Streep. It's an extremely standard story about a girl's changes. Anne Hathaway is an actress who doesn't impress me as much as others but I still consider her a good actress. Emily Blunt is, however, just excellent. Stanley Tucci is a fine character actor and he's also very good in this role. The whole movie is quite enjoyable and entertaining but it doesn't go beyond that. It's a perfect one to watch on a boring afternoon when you don't have much to do.

Meryl Streep is an actress who can really annoy me sometimes but whenever I see her act, I forget all my complaints. While she's very technical and when you think about that it's really annoying, her whole style works and it always pays off (though there are always people who attack her work). Miranda Priestly is one of her most popular and loved performances and nowadays many people think that she should have won her third for this one. However, there are many people who think that Miranda is a supporting role.

In a way, I agree that Meryl is supporting but I also believe that she's the driving force of this whole movie. Meryl is the reason why people like The Devil Wears Prada. She elevates the whole material to another level with her real brilliance. She's the one and only reason why the movie doesn't suck, really. Without her this film would have been forgotten in about two months. However, there came Meryl, won a Golden Globe, impressed everyone and Miranda became one of Meryl's most popular roles.

Miranda's part is actually not as complicated as it seems and I bet it was quite easy and enjoyable for Meryl. Throughout the movie, I felt that Meryl had a lot of fun in this role and yet she took this silly comedy very seriously. Miranda is very much like Patty Hewes from Damages. Tough, strict, brutally honest, sharp and above all, ruthless. Although Meryl doesn't have a brutal drama, she was able to achieve something almost as great as great Glenn in Damages. Meryl added a lot of depth to this very shallow comedy and as a result, we got a really impressive and almost dazzling performance.

The Devil Wears Prada has a very shallow and standard story but I'd say that Meryl's character was excellently worked out though I feel that Meryl had very much to do with that. What I love most about Meryl's performances that her brilliance keeps changing in every movie. Once, she's joyful and radiant (Julie & Julia), sometimes she's just terrifying (Sophie's Choice), sometimes she's painfully ordinary and believable (A Cry in the Dark, Silkwood) and sometimes she has this very sharp excellence (like in Doubt) that she shows in The Devil Wears Prada. She's incredibly subtle as Miranda and she becomes insanely hilarious occasionally. This ultra subtlty is probably the main reason why this performance is so great.

Moreover, the emotions Meryl attached to Miranda are really impressive. I actually felt some kind of a sympathy for this woman. Her breakdowns and fights over her marriage are very sad. We get the feeling that Miranda is not really happy. That big monologue she delivers about her divorce at the hotel is just perfect. But I could also mention the one in the car, which is (in my opinion) one of Meryl's best moments captured in a movie.

Although Meryl is fantastic all in all, the movie sometimes drags her performance down and I feel that she could have been given much more to work with. I still say that she's just excellent as Miranda Priestly, the merciless, vicious magazine editor but the movie prevented me from saying that I was totally blown away. Still, it would be really unfair to take away anything from Meryl as she's really fantastic.

In the end, I decided for a 4.5.

What do you think? Who should be the next reviewed lady (whose review will come on Thursday or Saturday)?