154. The Life and Death of Peter Sellers

154. (15 Aug) The Life and Death of Peter Sellers (2005, Stephen Hopkins) 53



Odd directorial choices abound in The Life and Death of Peter Sellers with some unnecessary breaking of the fourth wall and editing that rarely feels less than choppy. It's only a thoroughly absorbing performance from Geoffrey Rush that holds this together. He's continuously better than the too ambitious script. The film just can't delve into his personal life without coming across as disingenuous. For instance, scenes with his children all feel like this should be titled Daddie Dearest.

WAR HORSE

WAR HORSE
Written by Lee Hall and Richard Curtis
Directed by Steven Spielberg
Starring Jeremy Irvine, Emily Watson, Tom Hiddleston and fourteen different horses as “Joey”

The other day, I told a friend of mine that I had never in my life ever ridden a horse. She gasped in horror as if I had missed out on one of life’s most rewarding experiences. I’m not against the idea of it, although I can’t imagine horses enjoy that kind of weight on them for hours at a time. I have just never had the occasion and therefore, I have never had the chance to connect to one of these majestic creatures, like so many others. From what I understand, the bond between a person and a horse can be quite something but having no first hand experience with it, I have no idea why. And so, my lack of horse experience or appreciation may have unduly influenced my reading of Steven Spielberg’s WAR HORSE. Or maybe, it just wasn’t that great.

Based on both the original 1982 children’s novel by Michael Morpurgo and the 2007 stage play by Nick Stafford, WAR HORSE is the story of one remarkable journey, had by a horse. The horse, named Joey in the film, starts out born on a farm, and we are naturally present for that birth, and then, after being separated from his mother, is sold at auction in a pissing contest between a landlord and lis lessee. There, Joey must overcome his exquisiteness to become a work horse or the farmer will lose his land. Past that, he goes off to fight in the first World War and the film follows as he changes hands during his four years away from home. Some of the characters Joey meets along the way make for some tender and beautiful moments but given that the story is his, the perspective gets away from him all too often. A horse’s point of view is a little awkward but Spielberg should have reigned himself back in and focused more.

This horse movie is nearly three hours long and it is never clear what kind of movie we are actually watching. Spielberg is known for two types of filmmaking - family style blockbusters that are entertaining for all and graphic war films. WAR HORSE tries to be both of these films, which makes the experience a confusing one at times. The first hour, or at least it felt that way, is about Joey bonding with his young owner, Albert Narracott (relative unknown, Jeremy Irvine) and seeing if he truly can plow the field. The tone is light, the story tired and the shots somewhat plain considering the man behind the camera. Once he goes off to war, the tone changes drastically and the stylized violence Spielberg thrives on takes over, erasing all traces of family entertainment. Predictability follows and we wait for the horse to find his way home. We wait almost three hours ... for a horse.

479. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2

479. (26 Nov) Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 (2011, David Yates) 55



Considering how lame the final installment of J.K. Rowling's book series was, it was inevitable the film would be troubled. By splitting it in two parts, it amplifies how unremarkable the plotting is. For the sake of the runtime, the story is rushed on the scale that derailed Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. Consider the opening bank heist and the recovery of the Ravenclaw diadem. They're relatively unexciting and bizarrely episodic events considering the film only takes place over the course of a few days. It's not particularly thrilling when a conveniently placed dragon saves your ass or a minor character like Luna Lovegood solves a key mystery like the Ravenclaw horcrux.

Once the battle at Hogwart's begins, the film is crushingly brainless. The challenges that were overcome in Prisoner of Azkaban and Goblet of Fire were because of the cleverness and intellect of the characters. Now they're not even smart enough to think up a spell to stop the fire in the room of requirement or they lamely chase after a snake trying to stab it with a dragon tooth. At some point, the film is simply neither fun nor involving. It simply feels like work watching David Yates resolve a decade-long film series that had towering moments years ago.

The visual effects are still quite good, though the aging in the epilogue is a decided failure. I imagine they'll be the franchise's final Oscar nomination. An Art Direction nod would be inexplicable since there are practically no new sets throughout. Touting it for Best Picture or asking for a Rickman nomination is outlandish.

478. War Horse

478. (24 Nov) War Horse (2011, Steven Spielberg)* 44



In its first act, it seems War Horse is trying to look and feel like a '40s countryside drama in the vein of Lassie Come Home. There are obligatory elements like an animal that can't be kept and a farm that's at risk of being lost. But where a '40s film like The Yearling would've matched glossiness with emotional impact, War Horse is more tonally akin to a '70s Disney feature. It slides in utterly surreal comic relief like a goose that nips at people's heels while it should be fleshing out characters.

The fundamental failing of the film -- aside from the plot being so incidental and uninteresting -- is that it never allows us to forge relationships with the characters. The horse is the only constant in the film. People come and go from his life. Tom Hiddleston has the most thankless role of all as an English officer who dies before we get even the faintest hint of his backstory. Spielberg's inability to contextualize the death of a significant supporting character at the start of a war is disturbing, and he does it at least a couple more times throughout the course of the film.

The only series of scenes not centered around the horse is where Jeremy Irvine, who trained has an unhealthy attachment to him, is his brief stint in the war where he sees a little bit of combat before being blinded by gas. Neither he nor any other human in the film gains insight into the hardship of war. The very final shot has the horse staring off into the sunset after returning home. It's a totally bizarre closing shot, as the lessons of war's cruelty have all been learned by the horse and not the humans. That might be impactful if this was an animated film where the horse can talk and pontificate, but there are enormous battle sequences and lives lost. It's a bit too serious to not articulate any big themes.

The inevitable conclusion where the boy and his horse are reunited is unabashedly contrived and manipulative. Oscar voters are sure to weep at the silly moment, but I was too exhausted from the preceding and present ridiculousness to care.

The cast is, not surprisingly, totally wasted. No one comes close to making an impression except Emily Watson. She's acting in a more serious, involving movie than everybody else.

The crafts are almost shockingly unremarkable. The cinematography is lacking as the film is supposed to have scope, but there's no memorable imagery to be found. John Williams' score is perhaps his most pounding and dreadful. He emphasizes every little aciton and movement, determined to turn this dull film into something exciting through sheer will. It will likely dominate the craft awards at the Oscars, but I've seen Spielberg do these exact same battles on a grander, more effective scale.

Trailer for Steven Spielberg's War Horse hits

A few days late, sorry about that.  The master is back to work, after a series of popcorn fair and an ill-received fourquel, he's back in presumably prestigious ground.  This drama, adapted from the Tony-winning stage show, looks to pretty good from what I can tell.  Said adaptation is done so by the Oscar-nominated duo Richard Curtis (Four Weddings and a Funeral) and Lee Hall (Billy Elliot), and stars newcomer Jeremy Irvine and vets Emily Watson and David Thewlis. Those few I know who have seen the stage show say it's thrilling, if only a little melodramatic. How do you guys think it looks?  Could this spell Oscar for Spielberg? Trailer below.



It's set for a Christmas release.

The Final Conclusion - Best Actress 1996

1996

So the much anticipated ranking is:

5. Kristin Scott Thomas in The English Patient

I have really mixed feelings about Kristin Scott Thomas in The English Patient. I loved the beginning and the way she showed Katharine's behaviour but from the middle, this performance becomes painfully insignificant. Yes, it's 100% the movie's fault and yet the performance suffers from it unfortunately. Too bad as Kristin had the potential of becoming fantastic here.

4. Diane Keaton in Marvin's Room

Diane Keaton is quite proper in a mediocre movie and she really stands out. But here comes the question: is this really a great achievement? It's really good and I don't have any bad feelings about her and yet I feel a bit too indifferent about her. Yeah, there are many touching scenes but I was never very amazed by her. Still, it's Diane and she gives the best performance of the movie.

3. Frances McDormand in Fargo

It's really an OMG that she's only third with this achievement but the performances of the Top 3 are all so fantastic and I have to rank them somehow. Frances McDormand is a real moral compass in Fargo and she gives a beautiful, wonderful performance that is a shining light in the darkness of Fargo. An absolutely astonishing work by a wonderful character actress. I wish I could give out a three way tie.

2. Brenda Blethyn in Secrets and Lies

It causes me physical pain not to pick Brenda but between her and Emily, my pick is obvious, no matter how much I love Brenda's amazing, brilliant, wonderful performance as Cynthia Rose Purley. Yes, that telephone scene itself should have landed the Oscar in her hands and yes, the improvisative skills of Brenda are brilliant but I just can't make her my pick over Emily. I'm really sad.

1. Emily Watson in Breaking the Waves

A spiritual revelation. Emily Watson gives one of the best performances of all time as Bess McNeill. She's so painful, so true and so brilliant as Bess, showing her feelings so incredibly. The purity, the clarity, all the wonders in this role all justify the amount of love that Emily receives from everyone who watches the movie. This is really something for the ages and I'm grateful I could experience such brilliance.

So I can proudly announce

that my winner is...

Emily Watson

in

Breaking the Waves

Easy win.

Final thoughts: Oh my GOOOOD (in a very Janice way)! Three such brilliant performances that they would have made very worthy winners in any year. The thing is that both Frances and Brenda are extremely worthy of an Oscar and it's splendid that Frances won but still... it was Emily's Oscar without any contest. It's such a haunting, harrowing and wonderful performance for the ages. Brilliant, no other good word for her. And truth to be told, I really wanted to resist her. However, this is a strangely bipolar year as Diane and Kristin (two actresses I love more than the others generally) didn't give their best performances despite being very good, occasionally. Making Kristin #5 must be quite surprising but I felt it was Diane who grew on me the most. And at last I finished this year. It took a long-long time, I know but I was very-very busy in the past month. I can't wait to get to more years in the summer.

The ranking of the reviewed years:

1. 1944
2. 1969
3. 1974
4. 1989
5. 1959
6. 2006
7. 1996
8. 1964
9. 1939
10. 1977
11. 2010
12. 1997
13. 2009
14. 1980
15. 1941
16. 1972
17. 1963
18. 1966
19. 1973
20. 1983
21. 1990
22. 1978
23. 1954
24. 1948
25. 2002
26. 1957
27. 1940
28. 1998

About the next year: Finally, a year from a very ignored decade of mine (I can't do anything about it as the movies are so hard to find) . But I'm SOOOOO looking forward to it. There will be romance, comedy, drama, peasants, mothers, courtesans, soon-to-be ex-wives and a real star will be born, I think. OK, it's incredibly easy to find out but I'm very-very excited about it. :)

Emily Watson in Breaking the Waves

What do you know about this performance, son?

Only what I need to know, Father. A sinner human being received an Academy Award nomination for playing Bess McNeill, a young girl who had more faith than humanly possible. I think the sinner beings in the Academy fell for Emily Watson. Maybe she just missed winning by a hair. Only You know the answer.

And this Lars Von Trier?

In all, fairness, Father, I didn't like his style. I don't think that his film should have been this long and I really didn't get what he really wanted to say. And can I be really honest? Sometimes I was fascinated and sometimes I was just totally, incredibly bored.

How dare you contradict the consensus?

I really cannot say. It might be probably the fact that I wasn't in the right mood. Or I just didn't like it that much. Plain and simple. However, I think the performances were utterly amazing and I just couldn't take my eyes off them.

You're going on the wrong path, son.

I know, I'm aware of my limits. I'm aware of the fact that I just cannot focus. I know that You want me to mention Emily Watson and I will. I want to. I'm desperate. I must always tell the truth and the truth is that Emily Watson is an actress I don't always warm up to. I do respect the talent You have given her but I don't think that it's always used well. Or is it?

Of course, not. You're so silly. You have to see that nothing of men can be truly fair and just. Of course, she and the directors make mistakes.

Yes, but Lars Von Trier didn't make any mistakes in 1996 with casting Emily Watson as Bess McNeill. It's one of the best decisions ever made in movie business. The fact that Helena Bonham Carter turned down the role can't have been an accident. Emily Watson was destined to play Bess and be introduced to the world by this role. It's just something that had to happen. This was her first role and the purity and the lack of ego in her performance is just brilliant. She's pretty much transcendant and becomes Bess McNeill. There's no reality that she can catch so that this part is easier for her. There were no easy ways of playing Bess. I felt that Watson opened doors that I myself didn't know that they existed.

Why are you pretending to know so much about her when you don't understand the half of it?

Because I can talk and express myself about the things that I DID understand. The innocence of Bess, for instance. The child's curiosity in her eyes when she's making love for the first time. The first times are very significant in this part. There's a first time that she's watching a movie (probably). The smile on her face is just something that I'll remember for the rest of my life. The feelings I saw on her face were just unbelievable.

But the scenes where she's talking to Me...

are even more fantastic. The way she closes her eyes, the way her voice changes, everything is just mindblowing and extremely heartwrenching. The true faith and trust that Bess felt was apparent to movie and I was hoping along with her. But it's a moment of terror, shock and horror when she's abandoned in her sorrow. I wanted to rip my own throat out there. I felt totally shocked and I felt like not being able to move again. So brutal and illogical and yet everything makes perfect sense right now as I'm thinking about her.

What do you think about Bess' sacrifice?

The way Watson showed Bess' true belief that if she does everything for Jan, he's going to be alright is just fantastic. I don't know where that came from but the changes that she's going through are just... In fact, I'm totally speechless. Bess suffers from those sexual experiences and yet she does everything that she has to so that Jan gets better and she can save his life. I'm getting to understand more and more about Bess' motives but I can never really understand them in their whole. It's just impossible. Watson added so many layers to Bess that a person is not able to see all of them. Parts of it, yes, but never the whole thing. I guess that was the right way to do it.

You are silly and you got carried away.

I may have but the sufferings that Bess has to go through are just heartwrenching and unbearable for the viewer. The scene where they are throwing the stones at her and beat her is hauting. As Marge Gunderson said in Fargo "I just don't understand." And I didn't understand how much the evil can be present and how painfully small Bess was there. Helpless and miserable and Watson was just perfect. And the ending... Very distubing and extremely painful and I really never want to see it again. Still, I'll probably watch it again and againg to have the same feelings once again.

Why didn't you like her this much the first time you saw her?

I guess I wasn't really ready for her. I could say that I wasn't in the right mood or something but in fact, I wasn't ready or mature enough for this. That might be the case. Because not recognising Watson's merits here is just impossible. And why shouldn't I? She's just unbelievable and unforgettable and gives a performance that goes beyond what we call acting. So far, on my journey on this blog, I met only two others like hers. Emily Watson wrote her name inside the book of film history with an ink that is harder and more lasting than the paper itself.

And if she is so above everything, why are you still rating her?

Because I'm human and I have my mistakes. I am trying to find my talent but I think I found the talent of Emily Watson and rating is my way of honoring talent. It's very much pathetic but I don't really care. I need it.

The Next Year

1996

So the nominees were:

• Brenda Blethyn in Secrets and Lies
• Diane Keaton in Marvin's Room
• Frances McDormand in Fargo
• Kristin Scott Thomas in The English Patient
• Emily Watson in Breaking the Waves

Doing this year was a spontaneous decision but it was requested once and I feel like doing it, so let's see whom I'll pick.

What do you think? What are your predictions for my ranking? Who's your pick? What's your ranking?

Note: I will only start reviewing next weekend.

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.

Emily Watson in Hilary and Jackie

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

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

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

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

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

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

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







What do you think?

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

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?