297. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

297. (02 Dec) The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012, Peter Jackson) 45



I wouldn't see another film projected at 48 fps if I were held at gunpoint. In the state of the art venue I saw The Hobbit, the film looked like it was being screened in fast-motion. It was distractingly cartoonish and never managed to trick the eye in the way 24 fps does.

Issues with the projection aside, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is deeply problematic despite the artistry of its production design, effects and sound work. This story is too episodic, tonally defunct and overloaded with action scenes to ever draw us in. Unable to create a relatable ensemble, Jackson and company rely on The Lord of the Rings nostalgia at every turn to keep us engaged. From Howard Shore's familiar musical themes to Cate Blanchett's unnecessary cameo, it's a reminder that the other films always felt more cohesive and accomplished than this ever does.

The nature of J.R.R. Tolkien's book is no small part of the problem. Overloaded with characters and featuring a death toll in the thousands as our heroes barely manage a scratch, it's hard to be involved when there's no hint of danger. An overuse of CGI and gimmicky 3D effects establish an aesthetic that matches a video game-like plot where characters survive against all probable odds. A scene involving rock monsters, for instance, looks stunning, but would clearly result in the death of every character if this has the slightest notion of reality. Even fantasy needs some credibility.

The high points here are Andy Serkis's return as Gollum and Martin Freeman's deadpan delivery of some solid one-liners. The low points include oafish musical numbers and undercooked villains that emphasize how segmented the story is.

The Final Conclusion - Best Actress 2007

2007

So the much anticipated ranking is:

5. Ellen Page in Juno
 I don't really know what to make out of Ellen Page's extremely weak performance. Although the character is incredibly annoying and as fake as possible, I really think that it's more due to Diablo Cody's  incompetent screenplay and Jason Reitman's forced direction. Ellen Page's only fault is that she's just not talented enough to make this character realistic and human. So after all, for me this work is nothing more than a failed effort.

4. Cate Blanchett in Elizabeth: The Golden Age
Cate Blanchett's second Elizabeth is a real disappointment, but I'm much more forgiving about it than others. Cate is always such a force on screen that it makes up for the flaws of the character a little bit. Although there's no depth or real development in Elizabeth, Cate is able to prevent the movie from being a total disaster and she kept me from turning off the tv set. A flawed performance for sure, but not a real failure.
 

3. Laura Linney in The Savages
Laura Linney gives an extremely relatable, wonderful performance as a person who doesn't seem to be likeable at all at first sight and yet we get close to her and sympathise with her character. She never goes for cheap tricks to portray the neurotic personality of Wendy. She excellently mixes comedy with drama, creating the ideal dramedy performance while seeming effortless all the time (something that one of her fellow nominees didn't really succeed in). 
 

2. Julie Christie in Away from Her
 As Fiona Anderson, Julie Christie gives an amazing, heartbreaking performance that stays with you long after you finished watching the film. She portrays Fiona's pain and suffering with an incredible amount of grace and dignity and that's what makes this movie even more effective and heartwrenching. Although Julie's acting might be too subtle and seem too effortless for some, for me this is a true masterclass in acting, which is easily among the greatest achievements of this fantastic actress.

1. Marion Cotillard in La Vie en Rose
In what's one of my easiest decisions ever, Marion easily walks away with this year. She is nothing short of amazing in every possible way an actress can be. Her performance has the effect of an earthquake: it makes you go through Édith's journey along with her and get to understand why this woman was such a brilliant artist. It's very unusual, extraordinary and unbelievable work from a truly great actress who gives probably the most  brilliant portrayal of a real life person.

So I can proudly announce

that the winner is...

Marion Cotillard

in 

La vie en rose

Easy win.

Final thoughts: What an unexcting year! Everything went the way I expected and things went pretty predictably. Marion simply killed her competition, Julie was shining, Laura was fine and then there were the two other ladies, far behind. With hindsight, I can't see how Marion could have lost this, she's so damn good here. Congrats to Andre Lepaun, Louis and Nues20 on your predictions! :) You can pick a year, that I'm gonna do some time, hopefully. :)

Omissions: 

• Anamaria Marinca in 4 Months, 3 Weeks & 2 Days

About the next year: I really needed to go back to my favorite decade and my most special actress for some refreshment. :) I think this is enough clue. :) 


What do you think? Any thoughts on your mind?

Cate Blanchett in Elizabeth: The Golden Age

Cate Blanchett received her fifth Oscar nomination for reprising her role as Queen Elizabeth I in Elizabeth: The Golden Age. At the time, people were stunned and pissed that Cate stole the spot of Angelina Jolie whose performance was hailed by critics and audiences all over the world. However, Cate managed to pull off the double nomination. Obviously, she had absolutely no chance of winning Best Actress and I don't think she wanted to win that badly (just remember her genuinely thrilled face when Marion won). Nevertheless, she remained to be one of the least liked nominees this category has ever known (though I feel that the bad memory's gradually gonna fade in people's memory). 

While Elizabeth: The Golden Age is an entertaining movie, I felt it was a completely useless effort. First of all, to me, the first Elizabeth is a real classic and it's the main reason I fell for the genre. It had everything: great drama, flawless acting, battle, intrigue, blood and sex plus above all, a fantastic, plus the brilliant-brilliant performance of Cate Blanchett (yes, I'm seriously considering making her my 1998 winner after all). The Golden Age was bound to fail in comparision with the first part and unfortunately it wasn't a pleasant surprise. It was surprisingly unbalanced and shallowly written and the battle wasn't as epic as I remembered. I just don't like it when historical movies turn out to be soap operas, simple as that.

However, I DO love Cate Blanchett and she always makes up for the mistakes of her movies. There's just a special aura of greatness around her, which makes you shake in your boots. What I mostly admire about her is her incredible range: it doesn't matter if she has to play a fallen teacher in Notes on a Scandal, Kate Hepburn in The Aviator or Queen Elizabeth for that matter. Being trained in the theatre is surely a great push for any actress and in that way she's just like Great Glenn: she brings her confidence and energy from the stage to her movie, which lead to wonderfully vital and balanced performances.

And yet, not even Cate is able to resurrect the legend in Elizabeth: The Golden Age. She's a brilliant actress but not a miracle worker. Actually, I feel it's easier to stand out in a bad movie with a showy character (just see the 65% of Meryl Streep's movies) than being in a so-so movie with an incomplete, one-dimensional character. Queen Elizabeth is a character that's so often portrayed that it's very difficult to add layers to her character and it takes a less-known story of her life to find out  something new and interesting about her. The story with Mary Stuart is a very interesting one and so is the one with the Spanish armada, but I felt the movie wanted a bit too much with showing both of them. As a result, we don't get a real insight into Elizabeth's life, we just get to se small, rushed chapters.

My main problem was that Cate seemed to give in way too early and turned out to be Joan Collins earlier than she could have. A bitchy soap diva might be amusing to see, but hardly Oscar-worthy. What makes Cate better than that is simply that previously mentioned energy of hers. Although some might argue that it would have better for her to go all the way with being campy, I think it was better to keep some sense of nobility and dignity around Queen Elizabeth. I think it's one of the biggest misconception of people that Elizabeth was a drama queen and that's what made the first Elizabeth so special: Elizabeth was portrayed as a powerful woman, full of passion and doubts about herself. I understand that power and being a queen changed Elizabeth as a person, I just refuse to believe that it could transform such a strong character in such a dramatic way. I don't think she became a whiny schoolgirl after all those years.

That being said, this Elizabeth doesn't develop more than characters from Melrose Place, you can just see patterns in her: she's bitchy, than she shouts and she calms down eventually. With such shallow writing, I don't think Cate could have done wonders with the part. She's given neither the time nor the opportunities the make up for all the flaws in the writing (she could have pulled it off if the movie had been just twenty minutes longer). Whenever something interesting is about to happen, there's a useless scene of an assasination or torturing, which is in Cate's way. As a result, none of the relationships seems realistic or complex enough.

And we got to another sore subject: the (lack of) chemistry between Cate Blanchett and Clive Owen. There were two good-looking, exceptionally talented actors and yet there's no fire and music around them: the five minutes that they spend together just doesn't convince me that this relationship caused such a crisis in Elizabeth's life. We supposed to believe something that is seemingly missing from the movie and all this just weakens Cate's efforts.

The same applies for the execution of Mary Stuart: instead of suggesting real moral dilemma, the movie decides to show a whiny Elizabeth who easily gives in to her advisors. This storyline is probably one of the most wasted ones ever in the history of film. And in spite of all these things, Cate was still able to draw my attention. And why is that? Because she's an f-ing brilliant actress and it's always a joy to see a performer at the top of her career, even if the role doesn't live up to her wonderful talent. Despite all the obstacles, Cate simply cannot lose her charm and powerful presence and that's what she has and Ellen Page doesn't: Cate is capable of showing her greatness even with the shittiest material (even if it's for a short period of time). And a great actress always remains one.

To sum up, Cate Blanchett's second Elizabeth is a real disappointment, but I'm much more forgiving about it than others. Cate is always such a force on screen that it makes up for the flaws of the character a little bit. Although there's no depth or real development in Elizabeth, Cate is able to prevent the movie from being a total disaster and she kept me from turning off the tv set. A flawed performance for sure, but not a real failure.

What do you think? (The very predictable conclusion comes today as well so that I can finally move on from this bland, uninteresting year to something REALLY excting.)

The Next Year

2007

So the nominees were:

• Cate Blanchett in Elizabeth: The Golden Age
• Julie Christie in Away from Her
• Marion Cotillard in La vie en rose
• Laura Linney in The Savages
• Ellen Page in Juno

A great-looking year, which I was lucky to follow at the time. Marion was a surprise winner over Julie Christie, let's see if I she'll be a winner here as well or I pick another fantastic lady. :) 

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

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, 2008
Directed by David Fincher
Nominated for 13 Oscars, Won 3
Lost BP To: Slumdog Millionaire

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is loosely based on the short story by F. Scott Fitzgerald. It tells the story of Benjamin, who was born as old man, and who ages in reverse. That is, to say, he gets younger instead of getting older. In this film version, directed by David Fincher, Benjamin was born the day the Great War ended. His mother died in child birth, and his father was horrified by the sight of him. He was born with cataracts, wrinkled skin, and arthirits. His father contemplated throwing him in the river but leaves him on the doorstep of a home (whether random or not, we're not sure). A young black woman named Queenie, who helps run a seniors home, takes him in and cares for him. Thinking he doesn't have long left anyway, Queenie keeps him. And he begins to get younger.

This story is told by the way of a young woman, reading Benjamin's diary to her dying mother, who is in the hospital during, what we think is, the beginnings of Hurricane Katrina. The old woman's name is Daisy. The love of Benjamin's life. Benjamin meets Daisy when he's very young (or still very old), and she's around 6 or 7. Her grandmother lives in the seniors home, and they are kindred spirits and become pals- in the way little girls and old men do.

The movie is Benjamin's entire life. Him getting younger, leaving home, living on a tugboat in Russia, having an affair with a married woman, working the tugboat in WWII, being attacked by submarine there, falling in love with Daisy, being apart from Daisy, being with Daisy, and getting younger.

The idea for this film had been floating around for a long time. The rights to the story was bought back in the 70s, Jack Nicholson originally slated to star. Other buyers of the rights included Steven Spielburg (in the 90's, with a Tom Cruise slated as Benjamin) but went on to direct Jurassic Park and Schindlers List. Kathleen Kennedy and Frank Marshall were sold the rights. Several different directors and stars were slated. Ron Howard (starring John Travolta), Spike Jonze, Gary Ross, and finally David Fincher, with several, several screenplays having been written. But finally, Brad Pitt was cast as Benjamin, Cate Blanchett was Daisy, and filming began in November 2006.

The film clocks in at 2 hours, and 46 minutes. The film spans Benjamin's entire life, from birth to death. The first time I watched this movie with my family, we complained it was so long, and so boring, and who cares. But then, as I've had before, I had the urging to rewatch it. So I did, and it's become a favourite film (just missing my top 10- taking the 11th spot). Many others have shared in my initial complaints that it was long and dull, and some have even compared it to Forrest Gump, being the story of a man born with defects that he eventually overcomes. He falls in love with a young girl while their both young, are companions, and aren't together for a long time (she rejects him), and eventually come together for a short time, shorter than they would've liked, lived on a boat, went to war, and had mother's who gave them quotes about not knowing what to expect of life. Eric Roth, penned the screenplays for both films and many have compared them, though they are incredibly different, even if they sound similar.

This is one of those movies that makes me feel an enormous range of feelings. Seeing Benjamin travel the world, making the most of his life, falling in love, and then, not being able to stay with Daisy makes me feel a lot of things. Its the movie that makes me feel the most.

Brad Pitt is, in my opinion, fantastic as Benjamin. He plays the subtleties just right, and acts the old man and the young man just right, making distinctions between both, all while having this wiseness beyond his years (ironically or not). Cate Blanchett is also lovely, playing both the teenage/young adult Daisy, the ballerina, and the dying woman we see in the beginning, who is unrecognizable. Other fun apprearances include Tilda Swinton, as Benjamin's first grown up love, in Murmansk, Russia and Taraji P. Henson as Queenie.

While this movie was nominated for 13 Oscars, the leading movie of the year, it only won 3. And the ones it won were truly, truly deserved. The Visual Effects, for the things like the "old man" baby, and the old Brad Pitt. In an interview with VFX Supervisor, Eric Barbra, he explains how the first 52 minutes of the film, is a 3D head. They made 3 head casts of Brad Pitt, aged 80s, 70s and 60s, then scanned into a computer, 3D. Brad would perform the facial expressions of a scene, as it was being digitzed, filmed from 4 different angles, and were matched to a scene/moment. Body actors were used on set, and essentially, Brad every facial movement and emotion was mixed with the digitized headcast (whichever age), and then photoshopped on top of the body actor. After the first 52 minutes, Brad does a full body performance, with makeup now deaging him, until he becomes a child and then a baby, when child actors are used. In the end, this gives me so much more appreciation for Brad's work on this film. Every facial expression was thought out, recorded without doing the action, only watching the body actors performance. It's incredibly complex, and the capturing of the facial expressions was the first of it's kind. (for more info on this all, see interview and the official Benjamin Button VFX Website). And how Brad Pitt doesn't have an Oscar yet is beyond me. Especially after this and Tree of Life.

In the end, I have a lot of respect for this movie, for how well it was performed, the technical and visual aspects, as well as the directing. And while it deserved the 3 Awards it won (VFX, Makeup, Art Direction), it deserved that and more. This should've been Alexandre Desplat's year for winning Original Score, in which his themes for Benjamin and Daisy was played forward, and then backwards (a technique used frequently in the film). He was truly, truly robbed. It's one of my favourite film scores ever.

However, I love this movie, understand why not everyone does, but I love it anyway. Forgive me for this long, technical review.

8.5/10

Hanna

Hints of Run Lola Run and even Kill Bill and part Leon, Hanna at times feels like a disjointed techno music video. It's edgy with sharp edits, and although the acting by the title character, played by Saoirse Ronan, is impressive, the film doesn't have enough depth to carry on convincingly till the end. With stars like Eric Bana and the deliciously evil and fun Cate Blanchett there is enough performance backing which unfortunately gets undermined by the shallow storyline.

Hanna is the story about an assassin (Bana) on the run who having raised and trained his daughter (Ronan) in the wilderness, away from society, returns to the city on her insistence. Both father and daughter go their separate ways, with predetermined agendas. What follows is total carnage as both go about on their respective missions, trying to take control of their past which holds many secrets.

The one good aspect about the film is that it doesn't drag. It ends as abruptly, yet aptly, as it starts. It concludes itself just in time, before the audience begins to get fidgety. The action sequences on the other hand were disappointing. They felt practiced and lacked authenticity. The supporting characters do have interesting traits to them, and while some don't get enough screen time, they still manage to leave a positive mark.

I would categorize Hanna as a film that has an independent feel to it and is experimental at times. For this it deserves credit. Had the story been a tad stronger, it would have made a much better impact.  

Rating 3/5 Stars     

Best 10 Films of Martin Scorsese

When Scorsese finally won a best director Oscar®, for The Departed, he said "I think I want a recount", making fun of the 2000 Presidential election, and the fact that he had never won an Oscar®

Ranked by my order of preference, click for my review

Raging Bull (1980) best actor Oscar® for Robert De Niro, No. 75 on the IMDB top 250, 21 awards overall [This is my favorite boxing film, and one of

HANNA

Written by Seth Lochhead and David Farr

Directed by Joe Wright

Starring Saoirse Ronan, Eric Bana and Cate Blanchett

Hanna: I just missed your heart.

As far as one can see, it is almost a complete blur of white. When the blowing snow passes, hundreds of trees reveal themselves. There is no noise to be heard except for that of pine needles rustling against each other and the occasional deer hoof cracking the otherwise pristine sea of snow on the ground. And while it appears to be the most remote corner of the world, untouched by mankind, there is a little girl hiding unnoticed amongst the trees and she intends to take down that deer. This is no ordinary girl though; this is Hanna, the title character in director, Joe Wright’s latest film. And just like the girl, HANNA is no ordinary movie.

At 16, Hanna (Saoirse Ronan) has never left her home in the woods. Her father, Erik (Eric Bana), raised her there from a very young age, only he wasn’t really raising her so much as he was preparing her. Wright reveals both her mission and her history very slowly and while his calculated restraint creates great intrigue, it is Ronan herself, working with Wright a second time after he directed her to an Oscar nomination in ATONEMENT, that cements the fascination factor. Her focus is uncanny, as she memorizes countless facts and trains relentlessly every day and her resolve is shockingly powerful for someone so young. She may not know what she is fighting for but fighting is all she has ever known and she is deeply committed to her father and his cause. Ronan carries HANNA almost entirely on her own and with almost as much intensity and bravery as her character must possess in order to survive.

Hanna is after a CIA agent by the name of Marissa (Cate Blanchett) and once Marissa knows Hanna is gunning for her, it becomes pretty difficult to decipher just which of the two is the hunter and which is the hunted. Blanchett plays Marissa as cold and deliberate, despite the warmth of her Southern drawl and her fiery red hair. Still, she knows something we don’t; she knows that Hanna is a force to be reckoned with and why that is exactly. She also knows that Hanna may have her priorities but that the world she now finds herself in – from Morocco to Berlin – will present a great number of distractions and that, despite her training, Hanna is still a 16-year-old girl and therefore curious. As good as Blanchett is though, Ronan’s ease keeping up with her shows incredible promise of what’s to come.

HANNA is an exhilarating film made by a filmmaker who isn’t afraid to make drastically different departures in his career. Wright makes strong choices with clear intention throughout the film, cutting back and forth between more natural settings and starkly contrasting modern motifs. The game at play is further driven forward by a Chemical Brothers score that is oddly sparse at times while explosive and frenetic at others. It is simply one of those pictures where you can see that everyone involved in the production is bringing their best work to the screen and that none of these contributors are afraid of the unfamiliar. The enthusiasm is undeniably infectious and the experience will not be easily forgotten.

The Final Conclusion - Best Actress 1998

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

5. Gwyneth Paltrow in Shakespeare in Love

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



4. Emily Watson in Hilary and Jackie

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



3. Meryl Streep in One True Thing

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

2. Cate Blanchett inElizabeth

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

Amazing work by an amazing talent.



1. Fernanda Montenegro in Central Station

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



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

Fernanda Montenegro in Central Station

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

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

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

Cate Blanchett in Elizabeth

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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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

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



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

The next year...

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

1998

And the nominees were:

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

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

Elizabeth: The Golden Age

“Bring back Errol Flynn” I thought to myself as I sat through “Elizabeth: The Golden Age.” It is beyond me how a film showing England’s defeat of the Spanish Armada could be dull, but that’s what “Elizabeth: The Golden Age” is. A sequel to 1998’s “Elizabeth” (has it really been almost 10 years?), I found the film surprisingly dull, more concerned with keeping ornate sets and costumes in full view of the camera, instead of using all that fancy hoo-ha to dramatize the story. It’s dramatically inert to the point of boredom.

This film has nothing to do with history and that didn’t bother me. I don’t go to movies for a history lesson. (Although I’m afraid viewers of the film will walk away with the impression that Sir Walter Raleigh helped defeat the Spanish Armada. The family of Sir Francis Drake should sue).

Because the sets and costumes are so lavish I wish the emotions on display had matched the backgrounds, but everyone’s playing it oh so respectable. Someone like C.B. DeMille would have taken all those sets and costumes, and give us a ripping good show to go along with it.

Stars Cate Blanchett, Geoffrey Rush and director Shekkar Kapur are all back for this second go-around. I enjoyed the first film well enough but have not seen it since it first came out. The sequel deals with Elizabeth’s actions as she faces the threat of the Spanish Armada, while Mary of Scotland (Samantha Morton) is poised to re-claim Protestant England as a Catholic nation.

Spain vs. England. Elizabeth vs. Mary. Catholic vs. Protestant. It should have been dynamic, but instead the material is presented in an almost somnolent manner.

A love triangle of sorts develops between Elizabeth, Sir Walter Raleigh (Clive Owen) and Elizabeth’s favorite lady-in waiting Bess (Abbie Cornish). It put me in mind of the love triangle between Elizabeth (Bette Davis), the Earl of Essex (Errol Flynn) and lady-in-waiting Penelope (Olivia deHavilland) in “The Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex” (1939). Blanchett, Owen and Cornish are splendid contemporaries of the above, but I’m afraid here they’re just listless.

Kapur’s direction is unnecessarily fussy. There’s a scene where Raleigh and Bess are performing a new dance for the queen and they are awkward and tentative. Placed in the foreground are huge pieces of furniture and columns as the camera swirls around the dancers. It’s jarring to say the least, and put me in mind of Fred Astaire and Joan Fontaine dancing to “Things are Looking Up” from “A Damsel in Distress” (1937). There, they had the excuse that ingénue Fontaine could not dance, so trees and fences were put in the foreground to hide her awkward dancing. But I didn’t get the reason for it here, but found it might distracting.

And then there’s the score from Craig Armstrong and A.R. Rahman, which represents everything wrong with contemporary scoring. No memorable melodies, everything played at same loud level of intensity. And they say scoring from Hollywood’s Golden Age is obtrusive? Max Steiner and Dimitri Tiomkin had nothing on these guys, but Max and Dimi could write memorable themes in their sleep. I couldn’t remember a single melody here if my life depended on it.

Rating for “Elizabeth: The Golden Age”: A disappointing one and a half star