The Moving Picture

This year in film has seen some record highs as well as some abysmal lows. Continuing the Hollywood trends, it has been a year of heroes and villains back for their second, even third, film appearances. 2006 also saw the remake of several classics to varying degrees of success and failure. A handful of popular novels made their way to the big screen and a couple of 1980s TV heroes made their big screen debut.
The year’s biggest box office hit set an all time record in its opening weekend, taking in $135,634,554. The crazy but crafty Captain Jack Sparrow returned for another swashbuckling adventure in “Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest.” Johnny Depp’s return as the morally ambiguous buccaneer earned Disney a grand total $423,315,812, placing the film second behind top overall grosser “Shrek 2” (2004). Depp also earned a second Golden Globe Best Actor in a Comedy or Musical nomination for the role of Captain Sparrow.
The murderous seductress Sharon Stone returned for another cat and mouse game with detectives, but stripped of the sex and nudity that made the best soft-core sex movie of all time a hit, this sequel crashed to the bottom of the box office heap. “Basic Instinct 2: Risk Addiction” made Sony Pictures a miserable $5 million domestic total, though it cost $70 million to make. It topped the charts for the biggest box office bomb of 2006.
Hollywood capitalized on the past success of a number of other film heroes in 2006. The mutant humans continued their fight for independence and vengeance in “X-Men: The Last Stand.” Like “Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest,” this film also set a box office record earning a top five seat in its opening weekend. Coming in at fourth on the overall charts, “X-Men: The Last Stand” earned $102,750,665 in its debut.
The hilarious critters of “Ice Age: The Meltdown” also returned to great success. This animated family film came in at 24th on the overall charts for its opening weekend, bringing in $68,033,544.
Given Hollywood’s insatiable appetite for profits and willingness to exhaust a good idea, several other heroes and villains made second and even third appearances in 2006. However, as is usually the case, audience reception waned from lukewarm to downright frigid. Amongst those that earned the greatest success was the prequel to the famous James Bond series “Casino Royale.” Audiences appreciated this early look at the suave secret agent before he became a heartless lady-killer.
America’s savior flew back from a five-year hiatus on Krypton, introducing another round of Superman adventures in “Superman Returns.” Though a well-done film despite the anticipation built up by all the hype, audiences’ reactions were mixed, seeming to always want and expect more from the caped hero. But isn’t that the story of Superman’s life.
And the Italian Stallion returned for one more pummeling in “Rocky Balboa.” After nearly 17 years out of the ring, his successful return was a doubtful one, but audiences seem to be enjoying the veteran boxer’s never-say-die attitude. And the risk that launched the rookie actor, director and writer’s Hollywood career, continues to pay off for Sylvester Stallone.
Other successful film continuations included Tom Cruise’s stint as the secret agent who makes the impossible possible in “Mission Impossible III.” And the strange love affair between Selene and Michael Corvin continued to cause insurmountable strife between rival werewolf and vampire clans in “Underworld: Evolution.”
Audiences continued to laugh at spoof and slapstick films such as “Clerks II” and
“Scary Movie 4,” though with less gusto. And films that elicited frightened screams their first time around — “The Grudge 2,” “Saw III” and “Final Destination 3” — did so with minor success in their second and third attempts.
Though hardly award winning, these films did not send audience members back to the box office to demand the return of their money, but there were several films in 2006 that did. “Freedomland” starring Samuel L. Jackson and Julianne Moore was this year’s seventh worse film at the box office. Audiences recognized this film for what it was — trash — and withheld their dollars. “Freedomland” racked in a measly $12 million and has yet to make back its production costs.
“Lady in the Water” also fell to abysmal lows, coming in as 2006’s sixth worse film of the year at the box office. M. Night Shyamalan’s movies are getting worse rather than better and audiences are catching on after getting burned by “The Village.” Shyamalan needs to go back to the drawing board after this one and expect to get a much smaller budget on his next film. “Lady in the Water” made only $42 million domestically, though it cost $75 million to produce.
“The Wicker Man” suffered even worse than Shyamalan’s debacle, coming in as the fourth worse film at the box office. This remake of the 1973 cult horror classic, cost $40 million to make and only made $23 million gross. Harsh critical reviews doomed it from the start despite being presented to critics late.
Though hyped up to the extreme and widely anticipated “The Black Dahlia” was reviled by critics and rejected by audiences. Despite an intense advertising campaign, nothing could save this film. The film noir did not impress anyone and left audiences and critics alike disappointed.
However, this year’s most ridiculous failure had to be “Snakes on a Plane.” From the title to the final credits, this movie was stupid. With two of 2006’s worst films to his credit Jackson is going to have to make some stellar decisions in 2007 to save his stumbling career.
This year’s most interesting box office failure had to be “The Fountain.” It came in at ninth on 2006’s biggest box office bombs, but poor advertising doomed this film from the start. Audiences went into the film expecting an action-adventure love story, not a metaphysical, philosophical diatribe on the meaning of life. Poor advertising caused this film to fly right over an unprepared audience’s head. “The Fountain” only made $9 million at the box office though it cost $35 million to make. However, this film is a good candidate for a cult hit and may possibly make more money as a DVD.
“Hollywoodland” is another film that held little appeal for mainstream audiences, but offered some amazing big screen performances. Ben Affleck delivered a role that proved he was an actor of substance and has a bright future ahead of him. His portrayal of George Reeves garnered him a Golden Globe nomination for Best Supporting Actor. “Hollywoodland” may not have earned the dollars its producers were hoping for, but it may redeem itself financially on DVD and critically at the Golden Globes.
The animated film genre saw many successes in 2006, including the recent hit “Happy Feet” starring dancing and singing penguins searching for their individual beats. This sweet story earned a Golden Globe nomination for Best Animated Feature Film. “Monster House” opened the year to critical and audience success. The tale of a house determined to devour young passersby also earned a Golden Globe nomination for Best Animated Feature Film.
“Hoodwinked,” the animated retelling of Little Red Riding Hood that was also released in January, delighted audiences of all ages with its clever script and crafty humor.
However, the animated feature did see one box office bomb in 2006. “Flushed Away” came in as the year’s 10th worse film, despite being well received by critics. The movie grossed only $61 million though it took $150 million to make.
Continuing its trend of sucking the life out of good ideas, Hollywood remade several successful films, few of which did anywhere near as well as their predecessors. “The Pink Panther” starring comedy veteran Steve Martin came and went with little fanfare. “The Omen” disappointed audiences whereas the classic still elicits frightened gasps.
However, this year’s worst remake offense was “Poseidon.” It was 2006’s fifth worst film at the box office. This monstrous failure cost $160 million to produce and only made $60 million domestically, for a total of $121 million gross.
There was one bright light in the darkness and the best was saved for last. “Charlotte’s Web” has been delighting audiences and critics since its release only a matter of weeks ago. This film is on the fast track to quickly surpassing its animated predecessor, which earned classic status.
The action adventure arena also saw major ups and downs this year. Tried and true action-adventure favorites Harrison Ford and Bruce Willis enjoyed moderate success with their respective films “Firewall” and “16 Blocks.” However, “Miami Vice” the hit 1980’s TV series did not transition well to the big screen. With the cocaine 80’s gone with the wind Jamie Foxx as Ricardo Tubbs and Colin Farrell as Sonny Crockett just did not have the same pizzazz.
Science-fiction action-adventure films “Ultraviolet” and “V for Vendetta” also did not fare well. There just seems to be something lacking these days in the gun-toting drama. Few films are earning the success of past greats, such as the “Lethal Weapon” series.
The biggest action-adventure bomb of 2006, however, was the time-period piece
“Flyboys.” This film’s horrible critical reviews for poor computer graphics, terrible performances and silly historical inaccuracies made it the third biggest financial failure of the year. This World War I dogfight adventure cost $60 million to make and only brought in $13 million before being ousted from American theaters.
Books to film did rather well this year, though transforming a great written work for big screen viewing is always a risk and rarely achieved to perfection. However, “The Da Vinci Code” set a record, coming in at 15th on overall box office charts with an opening weekend gross of $77,073,388. This murder-mystery was practically written for the big screen and despite a rushed plot transferred well.
“The Devil Wears Prada” earned Meryl Streep critical recognition, including a Golden Globe nomination for Best Actress in a Musical or Comedy. It also garnered Emily Blunt a Golden Globe nomination for Best Supporting Actress. And overall, it is up for Best Picture Musical or Comedy at the Golden Globes.
The family film “Nanny McPhee” also survived the big screen transformation with great financial success, though without the critical acclaim of other 2006 book to big screen creations.
However, one of this year’s biggest disappointments for readers has to be Christopher Paolini’s coming of age story “Eragon.” This tale about the rebirth of dragon riders in the fantasy world of Alagaesia was a film hack job at best. However, the long-awaited highly hyped up adventure drew massive crowds its opening weekend and curious viewers continue to flock to theaters.
The genres that enjoyed the greatest success in 2006 included uplifting feel-good films, romances and sports flicks. “Little Miss Sunshine” not only pleased audiences, but also earned rave reviews from critics to the tune of a Golden Globe nomination for Best Picture Musical or Comedy, as well as a Best Actress in a Musical or Comedy for Toni Collette.
The quirky comedy “Stranger than Fiction” starring Will Ferrell brought both laughter and tears to audiences’ eyes, as well as an appreciation for the joys and disappointments of life. Ferrell earned his first Golden Globe nomination for Best Actor in a Musical or Comedy for his role in the film as the doomed Harry Crick.
The family film “Akeelah and the Bee” also did well in the theaters and continues to lift the hearts and spirits of viewers.
The dark comedy “Running with Scissors” based on the true memoirs of Augusten Burroughs did not enjoy wide audience appeal, but did earn critical acclaim. Annette Bening earned a Golden Globe nomination for Best Actress in a Comedy or Musical for her role as the self-centered, emotionally disturbed, glory-seeking mother. And though the dark subject matter of “Running with Scissors” turned off a lot of audiences, this film had a big heart and a profound message.
Feel good film “The Good Year” was director Ridley Scott and actor Russell Crowe’s 2006 bid for a box office hit and critical success. They failed in both categories. “The Good Year” proved to be a bad one for both, sitting as the eighth worse box office film of 2006. This tale of redemption set on a family vineyard was a poor fit for Crowe’s swashbuckling image. It grossed only $26 million though it cost $35 million to make.
In the romance genre, “Casanova,” which opened beside “Tristan and Isolde” in January, each did well with audiences. Critics did not appreciate the recreated love stories, but viewers soaked up the romantic tales.
“The Lake House,” on the other hand, the American version of a Japanese tale, did draw praise from both critics and audiences. Sandra Bullock continues to be successful in the romantic drama and shined in this tale of love in the right place at the wrong time.
Sports films, with their often uplifting message, continued to please audiences in 2006, though none earned the critical acclaim of past greats, such as “Any Given Sunday” and “Chariots of Fire.” The recently released “We Are Marshall” is doing well in theaters with holiday audiences looking for a feel good film.
“Invincible” starring Mark Wahlberg fared well in the theaters, despite Wahlberg’s flat performance, and is selling well on DVD.
“Glory Road” was 2006’s biggest sports film success, with its depiction of successful risk taking that changed the way a game was played and how an entire race was viewed.
Then there were the films depicting recent real-life events. The two films “World Trade Center” and “United 93,” portraying the horrible events of 9/11, both did well with critics and with audiences. Despite the films’ dark content and emotional impact, audiences and critics were pleased with the presentation.
And then there was Oscar season, with its last minute mad rush of dozens of films to the theater. Topping the charts this year and earning Golden Globe nominations for either or both Best Picture and Best Director included Clint Eastwood’s “Flags of Our Fathers” and “Letters from Iwo Jima,” Martin Scorsese’s “The Departed,” Mel Gibson’s “Apocalypto,” Emilio Estevez’s “Bobby,” Stephen Frears’ “The Queen” and Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu’s “Babel.”
Leonardo DiCaprio and Will Smith are most likely the top runners for Best Actor in a Drama for their respective films “Blood Diamond” and “The Pursuit of Happyness.” DiCaprio also earned a second nomination for his role in “The Departed.”
The big screen version of Diana Ross and the Supremes rise to fame is also racking in the box office dollars while pleasing critics. “Dreamgirls” earned Golden Globe nominations for Best Actress and Best Supporting Actress in a Musical or Comedy (Beyonce Knowles and Jennifer Hudson), Best Actor in a Supporting Role for Eddie Murphy, as well as a nomination for the top title of Best Picture Musical or Comedy.
Other films making critical waves are “The Good German” and “The Good Shepherd,” though their late arrival to theaters denied them a shot at the Golden Globes. Both films boast all-star casts and stellar scripts, which promise to earn them Oscar nods.
However, two films left out of the awards races — though they strived for critical success in 2006 — were “Marie Antoinette” and “All the King’s Men.” Sophia Coppola’s character study of the most hated queen in French history earned boos at the Cannes Film Festival and mixed reviews, at best from Americans. Though “Marie Antoinette” may have been denied Golden Globe recognition, it may get an Oscar nod for its costuming come Academy Award night.
However, the second biggest box office failure of the year was “All the King’s Men.” This artsy mainstream film boasted a star-studded cast and a script based on a Pulitzer Prize winning novel, but savage critics killed the film before few could even hear of it. The movie cost $55 million to make yet only pulled in $7 million at the box office.
The overall theme in film in 2006 was Hollywood is always a guessing game. Remakes and reprisals of classic films and characters are always hit or miss. In an attempt to make a quick buck movie studios usually produce a quick flop. Movies often do not live up to the unfailingly misleading hype and a good read is often better than a two-hour viewing. However, if you are willing to take the time to sift through the months of Hollywood junk you are bound to find a diamond in the rough.

Posted by Vanessa D. Overbeck at 04:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

“Children of Men” is the best science fiction film of 2006. It puts other recent futuristic looks at society, such as “V for Vendetta” and “Ultraviolet” to shame. It manages to criticize society’s fear of the “other” and how opposing ideologies displace their humanity for their sake of their one-sided causes while not slowing down the film’s action.
“Children of Men” is set in the year 2027 when societies all over the world have crumpled reverting to a state of chaos after a childless generation has left humanity without hope and facing the end of days. In one of the most convincing portraits of humankind’s future, advanced technology exists side by side with degradation and abject poverty in England, one of the few countries still maintaining a sense of order under a strict regime.
Ex-revolutionary Theo (Clive Owen) makes his way past cages filled to the brim with illegal refugees rounded up for deportation as well as bombings to his paper-pushing job at the Department of Energy. Then one day his ex-wife (Julianne Moore), the rebel leader, shows up asking him to use his government connections to acquire transit papers for a young refugee girl. Theo agrees for a price.
However, his priorities change after the love of his life is killed during the trip and he learns that the girl in question is carrying humankind’s first child in more than 20 years. He takes it upon himself to make sure that she arrives safely at the Human Project, a group of scientists working in secret on humankind’s infertility problem.
“Children of Men” manages to effectively balance social criticism with an exciting action packed chase. It is never too heavy-handed or too slow. However, there are points in the film where it is obvious that parts of the original novel were deleted in the interest of pacing. For instance, the ending is a bit abrupt after a 30-minute chase sequence. An extra 10 minutes of exposition would not have slowed the film or deadened the ending a bit.
However, it is these final 30-minutes that are the most interesting. There are several long, continuous shots that put the viewer right in the midst of a desperate firefight between rebels and the British military. Then, in one of the most compelling moments of the film, the battle stopped; all shooting halted as Theo and the new mother cradling her day-old infant make their way through the combatants to safety. The sudden silence and the desperate hope on the faces of the soldiers and bystanders alike was gut wrenching.
This film also boasted some interesting characters and excellent deliveries. Owen as the barely sober do-gooder was as powerful as always and Michael Caine as the pot-growing hippie philosopher was a light in the dark film. However, the true star was Claire-Hope Ashitey as Kee, the mother of mankind’s future. She was funny, tough and delicate as the pregnant refugee.
“Children of Men” is a quality film that even non science-fiction fans can enjoy. If you are not normally a fan of futuristic films, you may just find something in this movie for you. It is less about science and more about people and for this reason it has a message for us all.

Posted by Vanessa D. Overbeck at 04:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

“Pan’s Labyrinth” has something for every moviegoer, except for children. It is a war drama, a fantasy adventure and an action film, but despite its title there is nothing in this movie for families. It is a dark, disturbing and often twisted drama that happens to blend a child’s fairytale with the dark realities of life.
However, despite its dark, gruesome and often scary plot “Pan’s Labyrinth” is one of the best films of 2006. The film reminds viewers that all stories, including fairytales, are important. There are stories all around us and all speak truths, including the ones with fairies and fauns. In fact, fairytales are a reflection of reality and in actuality there is very little difference between the harsh truths of daily life and the morally succinct endings of children’s stories.
The young and imaginative Ofelia moves to the Spanish countryside with her mother to live with her new stepfather, the brutal Capitan Vidal who’s mission it is to wipe out the rebels attempting to free the Spanish people from the oppressive Fascist regime in 1944 Spain.
Her first night in the creaky, creepy old forest home a fairy leads Ofelia to the center of an old labyrinth near the house. There an old faun reveals that she is possibly the reincarnated soul of the daughter of the King of the Underworld. If she completes three tasks by the full moon she can take her place by his side. Frightened by the sudden changes in her life and struggling with the death of her father and his replacement by the cold Capitan, Ofelia embarks on the fairytale adventure.
There is a strong connection between Ofelia’s fairytale and the desperate struggle of the rebels. The doctor caring for Ofelia’s pregnant mother asks the rebel leader if he thinks such a small force can really hope to overthrow the well-equipped, well-trained Spanish army. Both Ofelia and the rebels are pursuing a fairytale ending. Ofelia wants a loving father and mother together in a place where she feels safe and the rebels want to make Spain safe for everyone. Both get what they want, but at a price neither expected to pay. Fairytales do come true, but all happy endings are costly. This theme is immediately established at the film’s opening with an image of Ofelia bleeding and dying as the narrator begins telling the fairytale.
One of the major themes of “Pan’s Labyrinth” is that life is hard and cruel and even fairytales have a cutting edge. Ofelia’s mother tells her daughter that she will soon learn that life is hard and she is all too right. Innocence often gets caught between the harsh realities of life and though there is magic all around us, which can have a profound effect in dark times, there are no happy endings. Endings are bittersweet by their very nature.
Not only is the careful weaving of the film’s dual plot line fascinating and compelling, but the creatures are as imaginative and interesting as they are disturbing. The entire look of the film is captivating. Though it is dark and sometimes scary you do not want to avert your eyes for fear of missing a single spectacular vision.
“Pan’s Labyrinth” is well deserving of its Golden Globe nomination for Best Foreign Language Film and should attract moviegoers to theaters. Do not miss this film on the big screen as this one is surely worthy of the exorbitant price of a movie ticket.

Posted by Vanessa D. Overbeck at 03:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

This year’s Golden Globes promises to be a tight race in many film categories while in other areas the top choice is more obvious. In some categories its veterans against the up-and-coming and in others experience is not going to be the deciding factor.
One of the closest battles is going to be for the Golden Globe for Best Drama. The nominees include “Babel,” a condemnation of the tragic state of affairs due to humanity’s inability to positively communicate, “Bobby,” depicting the final day of Bobby Kennedy’s life as seen through the eyes of the guests at the Ambassador Hotel, the cop-mafia tale of betrayal “The Departed,” an urban look at the consequences of failing to grow up in “Little Children,” and a behind-the-scenes view of the royal family’s decisions surrounding the death of Princess Diana in “The Queen.”
Amongst these films by up and coming directors it is likely the veteran Hollywood man Martin Scorsese who is likely to take home the top prize. His competition is up and coming and most have earned critical acclaim for previous films. However, the slew of Golden Globe nominations “The Departed” earned — six — is going to tip the scales heavily in its favor on awards night.
Though actor turned director Emilio Estevez’s “Bobby” was worthy of critical attention for its artful and heartfelt social commentary, it was this director’s first serious film and is likely to be the odd man out in this race. Alejandro Inarritu is also likely to miss out on the big prize for his socially critical film “Babel.” He has two critically successful films to his name (“21 Grams” and “Amores Perros”) and it was time he earned award attention, but Hollywood likes a man who pays his dues. For the same reason Stephen Frears’ “The Queen” and Todd Field’s “Little Children” will also have to settle for earning their first Golden Globe nods. Both directors have showed great promise, but are far from becoming established.
In an unusual twist, though Scorsese’s film is most likely to earn Best Drama, he will have to watch another director go home with the Best Director Golden Globe. With two nominations to his name for his films about the battle of Iwo Jima — “Flags of Our Fathers” and “Letters From Iwo Jima” — Clint Eastwood is going to be tough, if not impossible to beat. Despite offering tough competition, Frears and Inarritu, as well as Scorsese will watch one of Hollywood’s favorites become one of the most winningest directors in American film history.
Eastwood is also going to take home the Golden Globe for Best Foreign Language Film for “Letters from Iwo Jima.” Critics have hailed this film as not only one of this year’s best, but also as a film destined to become a cinematic classic. Mel Gibson’s Mayan epic “Apocalypto” is likely to finish a close second. Though the film was more than deserving of critical attention, Gibson’s recent notoriety is sure to place him behind one of Hollywood’s most popular directors. The rest of the nominees include the German drama “The Lives of Others,” the Spanish fantasy adventure “Pan’s Labyrinth” and the Spanish drama “Volver.”
Another obvious winner is in the category of Best Musical or Comedy. The nominees include the slapstick comedy “Borat: Cultural Learnings of America For Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan,” the comedic look at how the fashion industry challenges one young journalist’s integrity in “The Devil Wears Prada,” the ups and downs of a dysfunctional family on a road trip to a children’s beauty pageant in “Little Miss Sunshine” and “Thank You For Smoking,” a dark comedy about the life of a tobacco lobbyist. However, there is one nominee that outshines all the others and that is the musical extravaganza “Dreamgirls” about a trio of black female singers rise to the top of the pop charts in the 1960s. This film achieved near cinematic perfection and will walk off with the award that proves its triumph on Golden Globe night.
“Dreamgirls” is also bound to earn at least one more prize for Best Original Song. Not present in the original Broadway musical, “Listen” was specifically written for the big screen and powerfully presented by Beyonce Knowles. It would be a surprise if “A Father’s Way” from the film “The Pursuit of Happyness,” “Never Gonna Break My Faith” from Bobby, “The Song of the Heart” from “Happy Feet” or “Try Not to Remember” from “Home of the Brave” ran off with the Golden Globe.
However, Best Original Score is likely to go to a film recognized for nothing else, other than perhaps being the most interesting failure of 2006 — “The Fountain.” The music of this film was inseparable from the action, not just complementing it, but also adding heart and the soul. This is the definition of Best Original Score and composer Clint Mansell is more than worthy of the Golden Globe. His scores for “Requiem for a Dream” and “Pi” also drew critical attention for their power and presence. “The Fountain’s” competition includes “The Painted Veil,” “Babel,” which also had a powerful and moving sound composed by Gustavo Santaolalla, (who also wrote the scores for 2005 notable films “North Country” and “Brokeback Mountain”), “Nomad” and “The Da Vinci Code.”
Now it comes down to the individual winners, the actors and actresses that poured their hearts out on the big screen for our cinematic pleasure. It is going to be a tough race in the drama categories, but the stars of the comedy arena are most likely to shine the clearest. In the category of Best Actress in a Musical or Comedy the clear winner is sure to be Annette Bening for her portrayal of the emotionally unbalanced mother of Augusten Burroughs in “Running with Scissors.”
She has some tough competition from fellow Hollywood veteran Meryl Streep as the she-devil fashion icon in “The Devil Wears Prada” and young star Rene Zellweger as the author of the Peter Rabbit tales in “Miss Potter.” However, Bening’s role required her to stretch her wings the farthest and reach the deepest to deliver a convincing performance.
Other nominees include Toni Collette for her role as the tell-all honest mother in “Little Miss Sunshine” and Beyonce Knowles as the beautiful lead singer in “Dreamgirls.” Collette’s performance, though delivered well, was not a role written to win awards. Any number of performers could have delivered her lines with equal success. And though Knowles proved she could hold her own on the big screen as well as behind a mike, she did not have to reach very far to play the sweet singer.
The winner of the Golden Globe for Best Actor in a Musical or Comedy is also likely to be a sure bet. Despite competition from Hollywood favorites, such as Johnny Depp for his second stint as the quirky pirate Captain Jack Sparrow in “Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest” and Will Ferrell for his first award-worthy performance as the doomed Harry Crick in “Stranger than Fiction,” Sacha Cohen will walk away with the prize for his portrayal of the laughable tourist in “Borat: Cultural Learnings of America For Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan.”
Depp was once again fabulous as the morally challenged pirate, but it was nothing new and having done it once it is no surprise he was able to please audiences again. Ferrell’s character was simultaneously loveable, laughable and laudable, but this was a role others could have played with equal success.
Aaron Eckhart was nominated for his portrayal of the tobacco lobbyist trying to maintain some integrity before his young son in “Thank You for Smoking.” And though this was a role he delivered exceptionally well, again, Golden Globes are awarded to those who brought something no one else could have to a role no one else could have delivered. This was not one of those roles.
Finally, Chiwetel Ejiofor was nominated for his role in “Kinky Boots,” a film about a down-and-out shoe company that finds a niche selling sexy men’s boots. Ejiofor is going to be the odd man out in this race because, despite a solid performance, who’s even heard of this film? He will have to continue paying his dues before he gets to take home a top Hollywood prize.
The winners of Best Actor and Actress in a Drama is going to be the toughest call to make with some incredibly stiff competition pulling the vote in multiple directions. Leonardo DiCaprio is finally getting the critical recognition he deserves having picked up two Best Actor nominations for the action-adventure dramas “Blood Diamond” and “The Departed.” DiCaprio was brilliant as the self-centered, greedy African diamond smuggler in “Blood Diamond” and almost as powerful as the undercover FBI agent in “The Departed.” If he wins, however, it will be for his mastery of the African accent he convincingly carried all the way through “Blood Diamond.” Having picked up two nods, it would seem that this awards night is sure to be his night, but he may once again lose out to a Hollywood veteran.
Peter O’Toole has been nominated for an Oscar six times in his 50-year career and has never won. In 2003 he earned an honorary Oscar award for his many contributions to cinematic history. He is up for the Golden Globe for Best Actor in a Drama for his performance in “Venus,” a film about a pair of aging actors whose lives are turned upside down by a young performer. Critics enjoyed this film, but primarily praised O’Toole for once again carrying this drama to success. Hollywood is likely to finally recognize this veteran’s many award-winning deliveries with the Golden Globe, leaving DiCaprio out in the cold once more.
Will Smith also earned a Golden Globe nod for his role as the struggling father trying to make a better life for himself and his son in “The Pursuit of Happyness.” His performance deserved critical attention, but again, any one of a number of actors could have delivered this role with equal success.
Finally, Forest Whitaker earned a nod for his performance as the brutal Ugandan dictator Idi Amin in “The Last King of Scotland.” His breakout performance will keep Hollywood’s attention on him in the future and open doors that were shut before. However, he will have to prove his delivery was not a fluke and continue to pay his dues before he will earn a top Hollywood prize.
One of the toughest categories to call is that of Best Actress in a Drama, mainly because most of the nominated roles were delivered in independent films not readily available to the general public. Penelope Cruz is nominated for her role in the Spanish family drama “Volver,” Kate Winslet for “Little Children” and Maggie Gyllenhaal for “Sherrybaby,” all of which have yet to hit mainstream theaters and may not at all depending on how they fare through the awards.
However, the forerunners in this category are not likely to be Gyllenhaal and Cruz, who are still relative newcomers to center stage. Hollywood veterans Judi Dench for her role in “Notes on a Scandal” and Helen Mirren for her portrayal of Queen Elizabeth II in “The Queen” will lead the race. Dench has 50 years in the business to her name, as well as three Oscars to her credit. Mirren is not far behind her with 40 years in Hollywood and two Oscar wins. However, though Mirren portrayed the often-criticized queen with a grace and sensitivity only a person of her experience could have, the role did not have the feel of an award-worthy performance. The role lacked the spark and uniqueness common to the big prizewinners.
Also right there in the thick of things is Winslett who is the youngest actress to have earned four Oscar nominations. She is a Hollywood favorite who makes good role choices. However, if the past is any indication of the future, then Dench will likely add another victory to her resume.
The tightest races are going to be run in the Best Supporting Actor and Actress categories, which are chalk full of roles written to win awards. Two actresses in “Babel” picked up Golden Globe nods, Adriana Barraza for her part as the Mexican-American housekeeper and Inko Kikuchi as the deaf and mute Japanese teenager struggling with the suicide of her mother. Both of these roles required the actresses to draw on their acting reserves and are worthy of award attention. The stronger of the two was Kikuchi’s who was the heart and soul of the film. Without her delivery “Babel” would have lost much of its critical steam.
Then there is American Idol contestant Jennifer Hudson’s commanding performance in “Dreamgirls” as the shunned singer Effigy White. With her big, booming voice she swept audiences away with her rendition of “And I’m Telling You I’m Not Going.” Few could have matched her star quality and the Golden Globe would do well to go her way.
And, of course, Academy Award winner Cate Blanchett has earned critical attention this year for her role in “Notes on a Scandal.” She is one of Hollywood’s brightest stars and difficult to look past.
Then there is Emily Blunt who earned her first award nod for her role as the hard-nosed fashion assistant in “The Devil Wears Prada.” Again, this was not a role written to win awards. Though delivered well any number of actresses could have played the unforgiving, snob of a personal assistant.
Despite Blanchett’s popularity this race should come down to Kikuchi and Hudson with Blanchett coming in an incredibly close third. If there is any justice in Hollywood then Hudson should take home the Golden Globe though one can expect more great things from Kikuchi in the future.
Finally, in the Best Supporting Actor arena Ben Affleck may beat his good friend Matt Damon to the awards podium. Affleck delivered a breakout performance as the first Superman George Reeves. “Hollywoodland” did little else right, but Affleck’s performance made the film worth a watch.
However, Affleck has some tough competition from a surprising source, comedic actor Eddie Murphy who played the soul singer on his last leg James “Thunder” Early in “Dreamgirls.” Murphy’s performance was a treat to watch and played to perfection.
Two actors from “The Departed” also earned nods. Veteran performer Jack Nicholson who is no stranger to awards picked up a nod for his part as the Irish mafia boss. Mark Wahlberg followed suit for his portrayal as the tough-talking FBI agent. Though both delivered great performances, it was not a far stretch for Nicholson to play the smooth talking sinister character and Wahlberg’s role lacked the depth common to Golden Globe winners.
Brad Pitt also earned a nod for his role in Babel, but his handful of minutes on the big screen were hardly noteworthy. Any of a number of actors could have played the husband doing his best in the midst of a horrible crisis.
When it comes down to it it is going to be either Affleck or Murphy accepting the Best Supporting Actor Golden Globe and in all fairness it should be Affleck.
The last hard call is that of Best Screenplay. “Babel,” “The Departed,” “Little Children,” “Notes on a Scandal” and “The Queen” all boasted award winning scripts, but the most effective was “The Departed.” It offered some amazing lines and every word was important. There was never a dull moment nor a wasted thought. “The Departed” should walk away with the Golden Globe, though its toughest competition will come from “The Queen” and it would not be a big surprise to see this clever script rob the action packed drama of the award.
This year’s Golden Globes promises some tough competition and unlike last year, it looks like mainstream cinema rather than independent film will rule the day. The pendulum has swung the other way in 2007. Though there are some independent competitors the Hollywood blockbuster has garnered the most attention and the popular films are going to achieve the most success.

Posted by Vanessa D. Overbeck at 03:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The audience rose to its feet loudly applauding the big, booming voice that thundered a passionate rendition of “And I’m Telling You I’m Not Going” at a mid-afternoon, midweek showing of “Dreamgirls” at the Fairfield Edward Theater. If such an overt show of admiration is any indication, then Jennifer Hudson is a shoe in for the Best Actress in a Musical or Comedy at the Golden Globes.
Hudson’s commanding voice was equally matched by her commanding performance. In every scene she was in of the Broadway musical hit turned big screen blockbuster she stole the show. She is likely to steal the show on Oscar night, as well. Though she faces some stiff competition, it would be a surprise to see anyone rob this talented young actress/singer of the coveted statue.
Hudson’s star was not the only one to shine brightly in “Dreamgirls.” Singer turned actress Beyonce Knowles’ performance also earned a Golden Globe nomination for Best Actress in a Musical or Comedy. However, it was not much of a stretch for her to play the beautiful, sweet singer and big awards normally go to those who reach big. But her presentation of “Listen,” written specifically for the big screen, was also worthy of a standing ovation and will likely earn the Golden Globe for Best Original Song.
Another performance by an unlikely candidate also earned critical recognition. Comedic actor Eddie Murphy earned his first Golden Globe nomination for Best Supporting Actor. Murphy was brilliant in his best role yet as James “Thunder” Early, a soul singer whose time has come and gone. He faces some stiff competition, but its Murphy’s time and he hit the right role to ear himself the coveted Golden Globe.
The film boasted other performances from veteran acting stars, including Danny Glover as Marty Madison, the aging manager of Early and Jamie Foxx as Curtis Taylor Jr., the manager of Dreamettes who ultimately loses his soul along the path to musical success. They completed the all-star cast and without their support the film would not have been the stunning presentation it was.
Overall, the story of a trio of black female soul singers who crossed over to the pop charts in the 1960s is also likely to earn the top prize Best Musical or Comedy on Golden Globe night. This spectacular visual and auditory extravaganza achieved the heights of cinematic perfection. It is entertaining yet thoughtful, examining race relations, musical trends, the meaning of family and the price of fame and success. There is never a dull moment and the entire film is chock full of outstanding performances.
“Dreamgirls” is worthy of an Oscar nod for Best Picture and it would not be a surprise if the Academy gave it the recognition it deserves. This musical outdid recent big screen award winners, such as “Chicago” and “Moulin Rouge.” Director Bill Condon (directed “Kinsey” and “Gods and Monsters,” wrote the screenplay for “Chicago” as well as “Dreamgirls”) may have a couple of more notches to add to his belt after the Golden Globes and the Academy Awards.

Posted by Vanessa D. Overbeck at 03:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

With the best Oscar predictor only a meager two weeks away, Oscar watch continues with its focus on dramas. In that spirit “The Queen” and “The Good Shepherd” are two great dramas worthy of award attention, though they may hold little attraction for anyone but the film connoisseur.
The average moviegoer would likely be bored by these intricate, slow-paced dramas, but film connoisseurs would be pleased by the big screen presentation of these real life tales.
“The Queen,” directed by Stephen Frears, depicts the events in the British royal house at the time of Princess Diana’s death. The title suggests its focus upon Queen Elizabeth II and her decisions, or lack thereof, after the tragic car accident that took the life of the princess and Mohamed Al-Fayed.
However, the film is equally concerned with the rise of Prime Minister Tony Blair. In fact, the film opens on the day he won the election though it begins with the queen’s impressions.
“The Good Shepherd,” directed by Robert DeNiro, chronicles the birth of the CIA and the manner in which it survived its first major misstep, the Bay of Pigs. Starring Matt Damon as the CIA’s lead intelligence officer, this film plods through the events leading up to America’s failure to overthrow communist leader Fidel Castro.
These behind-the-scenes looks at two pivotal historical moments were enough to captivate. However, their slow and persevering movement might have made the task seem dull to an action seeking moviegoer.
On the other hand, both films exhibited excellent acting, intriguing scripts and amazing cinematography. Helen Mirren as the besieged queen of England was riveting, portraying this tight-lipped, emotionally restrained woman with elegance and grace. Mirren captured the emotional sacrifices the queen was forced to make through her 50 years as the head of an empire. She assumed the thrown after watching the crown destroy her father, led the empire through a world war and more difficult times than any single leader in modern history. She was left a seemingly cold, calculating woman defined by formality and tradition. Mirren’s performance allowed none of this to be lost on the audience.
The story of Edward Wilson in “The Good Shepherd” was a tale of similar sacrifices. Caught up in a life he never meant to lead, Wilson sacrificed his soul and humanity for the sake of the United States. Uniquely qualified for the job of intelligence officer with his closely held emotions and thoughts, his career exploited these attributes, leaving him devoid of a human soul and nothing but an intelligence drone. He ended up friendless and even ostracized from his wife and son. His tragic destiny caused the viewer to question imperialism and intelligence gathering in light of the consequences to humanity. Damon portrayed the also tight-lipped, emotionally frigid intelligence officer with a sensitivity worthy of critical attention.
Both roles have earned the actors Golden Globe nods with a Best Actress nomination for Mirren and a Best Actor bid for Damon. However, despite their excellent performances, neither role is exactly worthy of taking home the award. A Best Actor or Actress award should go to a performance which no one other actor could have delivered with such perfect execution. A dozen different actors and actresses could have played the cold queen or the reticent spy. Now an excellent delivery deserves a critical nod, but not necessarily the opportunity to take center stage. With an additional nod from Oscar both Mirren and Damon will have earned all the acclaim their respective performances deserve.
Both Mirren and Damon also owe much of their performances to scripts deserving of critical acclaim. “The Queen” was as funny as it was powerful and as compelling as it was methodical. “The Good Shepherd” was packed full of intrigue and interestingly presented through well-constructed flashbacks and flash-forwards that allowed for little confusion. With such great material to work with neither actor had to reach very far for great performances.
Finally, the cinematography of both “The Queen” and “The Good Shepherd” was as exemplary as both their acting and scripts. The sweeping hills of the royal family’s getaway as well as the shots of Buckingham Palace were as much a character of the film as the queen was herself. The dark alleyways and underground chambers of “The Good Shepherd” said as much about Wilson’s transformation from human being to human spy as the words of the friends and enemies he encountered.
Both of these films are two of this year’s top highlights and are worthy of a viewing. However, if you hunger more for the fast-paced, action adventure, but do not want to miss out on two of 2006’s best films, then rent “The Queen” and “The Good Shepherd.” This way you can move the sedate dramas along at your own pace.

Posted by Vanessa D. Overbeck at 03:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The idea was bright, but the delivery dim in the holiday family film “Night at the Museum.”
Once the sun goes down Egyptian ruler Amun Rah’s magic tablet causes all the exhibits in the natural history museum come to life — from the African animals to the miniaturized Roman soldiers — all traipse through the museum causing mayhem and mischief to the detriment of night guard NAME.
The film’s premise promises delightful merriment and comedy, but only halfheartedly delivers. The special effects are spectacular and are the film’s real charm, but Ben Stiller’s stumbling attempts at improvisational humor nearly saps the film of delight. Though the script was cliché and simplistic at times, Stiller would have served the movie better by sticking to what was written.
Worse yet, Stiller’s name appeared ahead of even the title of the film. It does not get more pretentious than that. With such slapstick comedy hits as “Meet the Parents,” its sequel “Meet the Fockers” (of which the real stars were Academy Award winners actors Dustin Hoffman and Barbara Streisand) and “Zoolander” to his credit, Stiller is up and coming, but hardly there yet.
Furthermore, despite being the lead actor of “Night at the Museum” it was not even appropriate to have his name appear before acting legend and Oscar winner Dick VanDyke, or Mickey Rooney for that matter. I know the producers are selling “Night at the Museum” to a younger generation, but their parents are the one’s buying the tickets.
Including seasoned actors VanDyke, Rooney and NAME as the villainous retirees was a nice touch and it did not serve the film well to belittle their presence.
The idea behind “Night at the Museum” was brilliant and handled by a more artful hand could have achieved such family film success as “Jumanji.” However, the script was inappropriately dummied down for a younger audience. This was a children’s movie, but children do not like to be talked down to and there is often very little reason to do so. This was a great idea that could have been done better with a slightly more sophisticated script. Better dialogue and a more stylish presentation of the film’s moral would have elevated the movie to the status of excellent.
However, despite Stiller’s clumsy delivery and an overly simplistic ending, the special effects saved “Night at the Museum.” This film is worth a viewing on the big screen if for nothing else than to see a tyrannosaurus rex chase after its own rib bone, tail wagging excitedly in the air.
Robin Williams also gave a delightful presentation as Teddy Roosevelt. In fact, the film’s producers should have hired Williams to play the night guardsmen and left Stiller out of the picture all together.
The miniaturized war between Owen Wilson as Jedediah Smith and NAME as the Roman general NAME were also hilarious and worthy of a big screen viewing.
Despite “Night at the Museum’s” flaws, children will love it and adults will at least get pleasure out of seeing some of Hollywood’s legendary greats on the big screen — even if only briefly — and all will love the romping fun of the special effects.

Posted by Vanessa D. Overbeck at 03:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)