The Moving Picture

Review of Best Costume Design

Wed, 07 Feb 2007 10:07:29 -0800

The closest one usually gets to the Academy Awards is one’s television, but for the cost of a tank of gas they can be an arm’s length away.
For the past 15 years the Fashion Institute of Design & Merchandising in downtown Los Angeles has exhibited costumes from the year’s major films, including the nominees for Best Costume Design.
For no admission fee, visitors can peruse the bubbly attire of “Marie Antoinette,�? the flashy costuming of “Dreamgirls,�? the exotic robes and armor from “Curse of the Golden Flower�? and the subtle costuming of “The Queen.�?
The only costumes missing from the exhibition are those of the film “The Devil Wears Prada,�? all of which were sold for charity. It is the first time in 15 years that the institute was unable to garner costumes from all the nominees. Though a generous gesture on the part of the studio, in the eyes of costume aficionados it was a disappointment. The lack of costumes from a fashion film on display at the fashion school was particularly striking.
The forerunners for the Oscar are “Curse of the Golden Flower,�? “Marie Antoinette�? and “Dreamgirls.�? Yee Chung Man is most likely to run off with Hollywood’s top prize for his striking and intricate 10th century Chinese designs. The exotic attracted the Academy’s attention last year with Colleen Atwood winning for “Memoirs of a Geisha,�? (also on display) and the same is likely to occur again this year. However, Milena Canonero’s light and watery 18th century gowns and Sharen Davis’ showy stage attire will finish closely behind.
Although “Curse of the Golden Flower�? was a time period piece the costume design was more interpretive, because very little attire remains from that time. Therefore, the design gives the allusion of historicity, but is not necessarily so. The visual appearance of the film was particularly important, given the opulence of the later Tang Dynasty.
The Dragon Robe, worn by NAME, weighed 50 pounds and was one of the heaviest costumes museum curator Kevin Jones said he had ever worked with. The armor was made of silk, leather and metal. It took the film’s costume designers many attempts to develop something that stood out on the big screen and the actor could move in.
The lavishness of the time period was captured by the predominant use of gold, copper and autumn colors in the multi-layered costumes. Most of the outfits, including the beautiful Phoenix Gown, have four to six layers. It took 40 artisans over two months to construct the intricate designs.
Jones said the designer created the costumes to take on a three-dimensional quality on flat film.
“Once everything gets to the screen it’s two dimensional … the designer brings a three-dimensional design to the screen. The shades, shine, the texture and the layering give the costumes a pop on screen. You can see the different surfaces.�?
“Marie Antoinette�? was also a historical piece, yet Jones termed it “stylized historical.�? The costumes were much more interpretive than viewers probably expected. They were meant to reflect the mood of the film and the characterization of Marie Antoinette. The costumes were light, pastel colored, flowing and airy as if the entire film was done in watercolors. The costumes reflected the bubble in which Marie Antoinette lived — in a sheltered, protected life removed from reality.
Though “Curse of the Golden Flower�? had the most striking and perhaps time consuming costume design, Canonero has the resume to walk away with the Oscar and could very well be a surprise winner, despite the film’s unpopularity. She has made the 18th century her specialty and was already nominated for another film of this time period. Canonero won an Academy Award for “Chariots of Fire�? and was nominated for “Affair of the Necklace,�? “Titus,�? “Dick Tracy,�? “Tucker: The Man and His Dream�? and “Out of Africa.�? She has more than 30 film credits to her name.
“Dreamgirls�? designer Davis was also nominated for Best Costume Design for “Ray,�? another 1950s to ’60s film, a period rapidly becoming her niche. Davis’ costumes recalled the Supremes with their sparkly silver fabric and shiny blue ruffle, meant to shimmer under the stage lights. Davis was able to use period fabrics; however, no duplicate costumes were made due to the scarcity of the material.
In order to present Davis’ designs in the best light, Jones had to carefully position the mannequins. Designed to fit the bodies of the actresses, the dresses did not lay on the mannequins as ideally as hoped for. One mannequin faced backwards, showing the back of the dress, because the mannequin was Asian and this was a film about black, female soul singers. Jones positioned another mannequin sideways because the back of the dress would not zip up. Jennifer Hudson’s costume had to be carefully padded to fit on the mannequin correctly.
The dark horse of the Oscar competition is Consolata Boyle’s costume design for “The Queen.�? The subtlety of the design might have made this film easily overlooked.
“I was surprised and thrilled that the costumes on a film like this — though a fascinating world I was recreating — were perhaps perceived as low key and subtle, yet people understood their power and understood what was being said through the costumes. That has been my greatest thrill,�? Boyle said.
The costumes of “The Queen�? were almost as important and as revealing as the dialogue.
“The costumes are there to aid the performance and to tell the story. I hope that the feeling the costumes create is that you feel you know this woman and that they add to the feeling that you have gained access into her secret world,�? Boyle said. “Hopefully it helps you see this fascinating character as a stubborn, complex woman who deeply loved her family and feels very strongly about her responsibilities and has been brought up not to show her emotions; to understand that she is quite frightened by all of it in many ways and struggling with all of this.�?
This film portrayed Queen Elizabeth II’s seldom-seen private side and the costumes had to convince audiences of the realism of this presentation.
“You gather as much information as possible to create as complete a picture as you can, but the final result has to come from yourself as a designer,�? Boyle said. “It is an imagined world, but it has to be completely coherent so that the characters can live in it and ring true. We had to create a world that Queen Elizabeth II moved and lived in — a world people felt they knew a lot about. In the end it’s about putting together all those pieces and hoping that you bring the audience with you.�?
Boyle said she was surprised by her inclusion in this year’s nominees, but also pleased that the importance of her understated designs drew critical acclaim.
“I’m pleased and proud to be a part of this group. It’s just wonderful,�? Boyle said. “This is quite a subtle film and fairly low key, deliberately so. I’m delighted that the importance of this kind of costume design is being recognized.�?
Two films also on exhibit at the institute, but left out of the Academy Award nominations for Best Costume Design included “Apocalypto�? and “Flags of Our Fathers.�? The costumes of “Apocalypto�? were stunning, especially the headdresses. They were nearly as big as the actors wearing them and beautifully decorated with bright blue and green feathers and imitation jade. “Apocalypto�? was not nominated for its striking costumes, but was nominated for Best Makeup. The makeup was as much a part of the costuming as the headdresses and clothes themselves were, which was apparent from the elaborate body paint on the mannequins.
Unlike the costumes of Apocalypto, which were incredibly stylized, the costumes of “Flags of Our Fathers�? had to be exact matches of those worn by World War II soldiers. People are still alive today who remember these uniforms down to the tiniest detail. The mannequins even carried medic bags complete with unused medical supplies from the war. The film’s costume designer, Deborah Hopper, even came to the exhibition to be sure the mannequins were properly dressed.
“Every button and badge must be perfect or you get called on it,�? Jones said.
Hopper’s partnership with director Clint Eastwood began 20 years ago and includes such films as “Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil,�? as well as his Academy Award winning films “Mystic River�? and “Million Dollar Baby.�?
The exhibition also included costumes from “Superman Returns,�? “Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest,�? “Eragon,�? “The Fountain,�? “The Good German,�? “The Painted Veil�? and many others.
FIDM is the only place in the world where costumes from the year’s top films, including the Oscar nominees for Best Costume Design, can be viewed. To see them in person truly brings the films’ to life. Seeing first hand the designers’ painstaking attention to detail instills one with a greater appreciation for the importance of their art to filmmaking. Do not miss the opportunity to experience the soul of cinema magic for yourself.

INFORMATION
The 15th annual Art of Motion Picture Costume Design Exhibition
The Fashion Institute of Design & Merchandising
919 S. Grand Ave., Los Angeles
Open through April 5
Monday through Saturday, 10 a.m. to 4 p.m.
(213) 624-1200

Best Actress Review

Wed, 07 Feb 2007 10:05:42 -0800

Helen Mirren may have ruled indecisively in “The Queen,�? but her Oscar reign will begin decisively.
Despite being included in a group of stellar nominees for Best Actresses — Judi Dench of “Notes on a Scandal,�? Penelope Cruz of “Volver,�? Kate Winslet of “Little Children�? and Meryl Streep in “The Devil Wears Prada�? — Mirren’s only stiff competition comes from fellow British actress Dench. In “Notes on a Scandal�? Dench plays elderly spinster Barbara Covett, a lonely closet homosexual who becomes obsessed with the new, young art teacher at the inner city high school where she teaches history.
Covett spends her days in isolation. She is barely tolerated by her fellow educators and students. Her private life consists of endless hours spent scribbling caustic judgments on her fellow staff members and taking care of her aging feline. Then
Sheba Hart (Cate Blanchett) enters her life. The light and free ways of the beautiful woman captivated her and when she discovers the lonely, struggling teacher is having an affair with one of her talented 15-year-old art students, Covett sees it as a way to gain power over Hart, enabling her to manipulate the unlikely friendship. Eventually Covett’s insane jealousy causes her to betray Hart’s confidences, setting in motion a series of events that destroys both of their lives.
Both Dench and Blanchett delivered powerful performances in the film and both are honored with Oscar nominations. Both roles were written to win awards, but this year, up against the lead contender Mirren for Best Actress and Jennifer Hudson in “Dreamgirls�? for Best Supporting Actress, both performers will likely have to watch their competition run off with the Oscar. The Academy loves honoring performers for delivering convincing portrayals of real-life people and this is the push that puts Mirren at the front of the race.
The intense drama “Notes on a Scandal�? keeps you on the edge of your seat, despite the disturbing plot. It is the only other film with leading ladies that offered up roles written to attract Oscar attention. If you see only one other film this year nominated for its female performances, see this one.
Cruz in the Spanish film “Volver�? was also a delight and despite the occasional dark moments, overall this film had a “feel good�? quality to it. “Volver�? examines female relationships, particularly the dynamics between mothers and daughters, as well as between sisters.
Cruz’s character, Raimunda, struggles to make the ends meet as her deadbeat, drunken husband is ousted from job after job. One night his lust becomes too much and he attacks their pubescent daughter, Tia Paula. She successfully defends herself, but the end result is his dead body in the kitchen. Mother and daughter cover up the crime then turn to finding a way to support each other without his meager assistance.
At the same time Raimunda’s beloved aunt Paula dies. The death brings up unresolved issues between herself and her supposedly deceased mother Irene, who committed a tragic crime, faked her own death four-years before and has been secretly caring for her aging sister ever since.
This was a sweet film that emphasized the power and importance of female relationships and women’s lives. It is fitting that “Volver�? was included amongst the nominees for Best Actress. Cruz’s delivery was sweet and compelling, though little set it truly apart from her competition.
If the content of “Notes on a Scandal�? is too much dark reality for you, “Volver�? has a lighthearted, loving feel to it even with its dark undertones. Your heavy load would feel a little lightened after leaving a showing of this delightful and satisfying quirky drama.
Then there is “Little Children,�? a disturbing and depressing drama from start to finish. This cautionary tale is set in suburbia. A bored housewife (Winslet) and househusband have an affair between naptimes and play dates while their successful spouses work long hours at arduous jobs. As a subplot an emotionally disturbed ex-police officer terrorizes a convicted sex offender living in the peaceful, family neighborhood.
Bored with their half-hearted existences, all the characters are desperately seeking happiness in all the wrong places. “Little Children�? warns viewers to see the value in the joys that you have because a step in the wrong direction could bring the entire house of cards crashing to the ground.
The performances in this film were stellar, but like “Babel�? this was a film that relied more on an ensemble cast to carry off the plot rather than on any one performance. Winslet continues to deliver performances worthy of Oscar nods, but she has yet to hit on that one that screams Oscar winner. She was compelling as the intellectual trapped in the suffocating, unappreciated garb of a housewife, but another performer would have been equally successful in the role. Winselt will have to watch another actress walk away with the Oscar for the fifth time in the past nine years.
Finally, Hollywood legend Streep earned another nod for her role as the domineering fashion icon Miranda Priestly in “The Devil Wears Prada.�? This was a fun film and a fun role for Streep who is always captivating on the big screen. Streep has been nominated for 14 Academy Awards since 1979 and has won two. She won the Golden Globe this year for her portrayal of the cold and harsh fashion editor, but the victory was more of a nod for her continuously delightful contributions to the silver screen rather than a prediction of 2007 Oscar glory.
Of all of this year’s nominated films for Best Actress, “The Devil Wears Prada�? is probably the most accessible to the average moviegoer. If you are not into the artsy, heavy dramas and not a follower of the Oscar race, then this film is one Academy Award movie you would enjoy. The performances are strong without a heavy content bogging down the action and you will not leave a viewing more depressed than when you started the film.
However, if you are following the Academy Awards and looking forward to Feb. 25, then be sure to go to the Redlands Krikorian Theatre to see Mirren in the role likely to win her her first Academy Award in three nominations. Also, in order to prepare for any Oscar surprises, do not miss “Notes on a Scandal.�? Dench has won one Oscar already, and though the odds are against her, her sixth nomination could earn her a second.

Oscar Nominees

Wed, 07 Feb 2007 09:59:41 -0800

This year at the Academy Awards it is all about diversifying. There is a little of this and a little of that included throughout the categories. From the traditional heavy dramas to family comedies and everything in between action-adventures to musicals, all found their way onto the nominees list.
Action-adventures “Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest�? (three nominations, including Achievement in Visual Effects and Sound Editing) and “The Prestige�? each earned a nomination for Achievement in Art Direction and even a murder-mystery and a science-fiction film each made their way on the list for Achievement in Cinematography.
The otherwise disappointing “Black Dahlia�? earned an Oscar nod for its cinematography, as well as “Children of Men�? (three nomination also including Achievement in Film Editing and Best Adapted
Screenplay).
Despite the fact that the critically popular “Superman Returns�? bombed with mainstream audiences, the action-adventure film earned a nod for its achievements in the area of visual effects.
The critically hot and cold character study “Marie Antoinette�? by Sofia Coppola was included, unsurprisingly, for Achievement in Costume Design and the late released “Curse of the Golden Flower�?
snuck its way onto the nominees list as one of its competitors.
The critically acclaimed and publicly well-received “United 93�? (two nominations including Achievement in Film Editing) was also not left out, earning director Paul Greengrass a nod from Oscar for Achievement in Directing.
Not even the super sinker “Poseidon�? failed to earn a place amongst the nominees alongside “Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest�? and “Superman Returns�? for Achievement in Visual Effects.
A fantasy film was also included amongst the contestants. The dark fantasy adventure “Pan’s Labyrinth�? has been receiving rave reviews from critics and audiences alike and it showed with a slew of nominations, including Achievement in Art Direction, Cinematography, Makeup, Best Foreign Language Film, Original Score and Original Screenplay.
One of the oddest selections occurred in the Best Picture category. The quirky comedy “Little Miss Sunshine�? about a functional dysfunctional family made the list, ousting out the hit musical “Dreamgirls�? (led the competition with eight nominations, including Best Supporting Actor and Actress, Achievement in Art Direction and Costume Design, Best Original Song and Achievement in Sound Mixing).
Unsurprisingly, however, Golden Globe winner “Babel�? (seven nominations including two for Best Supporting Actress, Achievement in Directing, Film Editing, Best Original Score and Best Original
Screenplay) and receiver of the Critic’s Choice Award “The Departed,�? both for Best Drama, were included in the Best Picture category.
Golden Globe winner for Best Foreign Language Film “Letters from Iwo Jima�? (four nominations including, Achievement in Direction, Sound Editing and Best Original Screenplay) also moved up the list to Best Picture.
The nominees for Best Actor matched the Golden Globes and Critic’s Choice Awards to a “T�? with forerunners Leonardo DiCaprio for “Blood Diamond�? and Forest Whitaker for “The Last King of Scotland�? leading the way.
However, there were some small surprises in the area of Best Supporting Actor. Djimon Hounsou of “Blood Diamond�? rightfully made his way onto the list and Alan Arkin from Best Picture nominee
“Little Miss Sunshine�? was also included. However, Hounsou and Arkin will likely play second fiddle to Golden Globe and Critic’s Choice Award winner Eddie Murphy for “Dreamgirls.�?
On the other hand, there were no surprises in the categories of Best Actress or Best Supporting Actress with the nominees matching that of the Golden Globes and Critic’s Choice Awards exactly. The lists were led by Golden Globe winners Helen Mirren of “The Queen�? and former American Idol contestant Jennifer Hudson of “Dreamgirls.�?
Mel Gibson earned the biggest slap in the face from Hollywood for his recent transgressions. His brilliant Mayan epic “Apocalypto�? was left out of the Best Foreign Language Film category all together and earned only little nods for Achievement in Makeup, Sound Editing and Sound Mixing.
The stars of the show are likely to be “Dreamgirls�? followed closely by “Babel,�? but judging by the array of nominees, everyone is bound to get a little something on Oscar night. In an unusual twist from past years, the dark, heavy drama is not going to run away with all the statues. Hollywood seems to be opening up to more audience-friendly genres this year and rewarding their critically acclaimed efforts with Oscar nods. It looks like not just the film connoisseur, but the mainstream moviegoer just might get something out of the Academy Awards this year.

Year in Film in Review - 2006

Sat, 13 Jan 2007 16:04:18 -0800

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.

"Children of Men" for more than just the science-fiction fan

Sat, 13 Jan 2007 16:00:16 -0800

“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.

"Pan's Labyrinth" Brilliant, But not for Children

Sat, 13 Jan 2007 15:58:20 -0800

“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.

Golden Globe Predictions

Sat, 13 Jan 2007 15:56:12 -0800

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.

Jennifer Hudson in "Dreamgirls" steals the hearts of audiences

Sat, 13 Jan 2007 15:53:56 -0800

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.

"The Queen" and "The Good Shepherd" Appeal to Film Connosieurs

Sat, 13 Jan 2007 15:51:25 -0800

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.

Dim Delivery of "Night at the Museum"

Sat, 13 Jan 2007 15:49:32 -0800

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.

Golden Globes predict Oscars

Thu, 14 Dec 2006 09:03:09 -0800

The Golden Globe nominations are in and it looks like this could finally be Leonardo DiCaprio’s year.
The 32-year-old actor earned an almost unheard of two Golden Globe nominations in the same category. He was recognized for his work in “Blood Diamond�? as Danny Archer, the amoral smuggler who finds redemption, and for his role as Billy Costigan, the Irish mafia turncoat in “The Departed.�?
After 14 years in the filmmaking business and one Oscar nod for Best Supporting Actor, DiCaprio may finally take home the coveted statue for Best Actor. With two of the five nominations in the Best Actor category for the Golden Globes, Peter O’Toole (Maurice in “Venus�?), Will Smith (Chris Gardner in “The Pursuit of Happiness) and Forest Whitaker (Idi Amin in “The Last King of Scotland�?) would be hard pressed to snag the Oscar from DiCaprio this year.
The young actor was previously nominated for an Oscar for the role of Arnie Grape — Gilbert Grape’s mentally handicapped brother — in “What’s Eating Gilbert Grape?�? However, the veteran actor Tommy Lee Jones’ beat out the 19-year-old in 1993 for his role as Marshal Samuel Gerard, who hunted the escaped Dr. Richard Kimble played by Harrison Ford in “The Fugitive.�?
Who knows? Despite DiCaprio’s unwillingness or inability to play the Hollywood game, it may simply be his time this year and there can be no denying his talent. With two Golden Globe nominations for Best Actor, the Academy cannot write off his performances as a rookie fluke this year.
It is also a shame that Rudy Youngblood was not included among the contestants for Best Actor. His portrayal of Jaguar Paw in “Apocalypto�? was one of this year’s best. However, Hollywood is known for snubbing newcomers, expecting rookies to pay their dues before earning the businesses’ highest awards.
This could also be Clint Eastwood’s year once again. The actor turned director picked up two Golden Globe nominations for Best Director for his films “Letter from Iwo Jima�? and “Flags of Our Fathers.�? Again, with two nominations in the same category Martin Scorsese (“The Departed), Stephen Frears (“The Queen�?) and Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu will have a tough time defeating one of Hollywood’s favorites.
Eastwood’s double nomination in the Golden Globes also makes him a shoe in for an Oscar nomination. Should he take the coveted statue home this year he will become one of Hollywood’s most “winningest�? directors, joining the likes of John Ford, William Wyler and Frank Capra.
There was also a small Golden Globe surprise in the area of Best Picture. Not only were the likely candidates present — the critically acclaimed “Babel,�? “Little Children�? and “The Queen,�? as well as Martin Scorsese’s “The Departed�? with its high-profile cast — but the critically lukewarm “Bobby�? also made it into the top five films of 2006.
Director Emilio Estevez’s drama about a day in the life of 22 people surrounding Robert F. Kennedy’s assassination deserved a place in this year’s top films. It was emotionally powerful with its well-crafted script, which used an interesting roundabout storytelling method to capture the importance of Kennedy’s place in the world in 1968.
Estevez’s story spoke volumes about the United States in 1968 and he could not have selected a better time to tell it in today’s age of an unsatisfactory war, disillusionment and political hopelessness. His story proved timeless and relevant, trademarks of a film deserving of Hollywood’s highest award.
You also could not ask for a better cast headed by legendary greats Anthony Hopkins, Harry Belafonte, William H. Macy and Laurence Fishburne right on down to stellar newcomers, such as Elijah Wood and Shia LaBeouf.
Facing such stiff competition, “Bobby�? may not take home the Golden Globe for Best Picture, but its nomination makes it a candidate for at least an Oscar nod. However, its name is likely to be substituted for either “Apocalypto�? (which earned a nomination for Best Foreign Language Film) or Eastwood’s “Flags of Our Fathers�? may yet sneak its way in.
The category for Best Supporting Actor also contained a few Golden Globe surprises. Eddie Murphy and Mark Whalberg both earned their first nominations for their roles in “Dreamgirls�? and “The Departed,�? respectively. An even bigger surprise was Ben Affleck’s inclusion on the list for his portrayal of George Reeves in “Hollywoodland.�? Old standbys Jack Nicholson for the mafia boss Bobby Costigan in “The Departed�? and Brad Pitt for Richard in “Babel�? also made the list. However, Hollywood loves characterizations of real people and Affleck’s portrayal of one of its own just might earn him a Golden Globe. He would certainly deserve the victory and with a little luck, his name might at least be included on Oscar night.
One name that was left off of the list and should have been included was Adam Beach for his role as Ira Hayes in “Flags of Our Fathers.�? Beach’s performance stole the show and ended up being the heart of the film. His name deserved a place on the Golden Globe list for Best Supporting Actor. However, breakout performances are rarely recognized by Hollywood, which appreciates one surviving the test of time, but perhaps Beach’s name may yet sneak its way onto the Oscar list.
Some other apt selections included Annette Bening’s nomination for Best Actress in a Musical or Comedy for her role as the selfish, glory-seeking mother of Augusten Burroughs in “Running with Scissors;�? Adriana Barraza and Rinko Kikuchi’s nomination for Best Supporting Actress for their roles in “Babel�? as the Mexican housekeeper and the deaf-mute Japanese teenager, respectively and Will Ferrell as Harold Crick in “Stranger than Fiction�? and Johnny Depp once again for his unique characterization of the wacky Captain Jack Sparrow, both earned nominations for Best Actor in a Comedy or Musical.
If the Golden Globes are any indication of the outcome of Oscar night, and they usually are, then Leonardo DiCaprio and Clint Eastwood should have very good nights. The films “Babel,�? “The Departed,�? and “Little Children�? should also experience great success. However, the campaigning is far from over and there may yet be some surprises.

"The Nativity" is this year's most cowardly cinematic offering

Wed, 13 Dec 2006 17:38:13 -0800

By VANESSA D. OVERBECK
Staff Writer

“The Nativity�? is 2006’s most cowardly film. It takes no risks, offers no interpretation and instead presents the flattest, most boring renditions of one of the greatest stories in human history.
“The Nativity�? sucked all the joy and wonder out of what should have been a passionate and beautiful tale of love, faith and sacrifice. In its attempt at biblical accuracy, the film had little to offer cinematically. The script gave very little to the actors to work with and was practically emotionless. Perhaps not wishing to alienate Christian audiences, the film seemed to avoid any attempt at explanation at every turn. The writer and director may have succeeded in not alienating viewers, but instead they created a characterless, lifeless, uninteresting film.
All along the road to Bethlehem Joseph and Mary have only one conversation regarding their role as the parents of the world’s most miraculous child. It essentially amounted to we’re both scared and we don’t know what we have to offer him. The parents of the Son of God must have had a lot more to say and certainly must have had strong, complex emotions about their future role in the life of Jesus Christ. Yet this is all the producers of “The Nativity�? could come up with. What a cowardly copout. Show a little heart and take a little risk and offer your audience a little human emotion.
Furthermore, when the angel first tells Mary about the Immaculate Conception, the Bible reads that she humbly accepted her burden on faith alone. However, the big screen gives one the opportunity to elaborate on the complex feelings Mary must have had about her pregnancy, the terror she must have overcome and the joy she must have felt at the impending birth of her people’s savior. At best, these themes are only lightly touched on.
The director also offered nothing as to what made Mary worthy of bearing such a fabulous child. These flaws made Keisha Castle Hughes’ job not only difficult, but also next to impossible. Her performance was the weakest of the entire cast and that is in large part a result of the gutless script.
And what about Joseph? He delivered the best performance with what the pathetic script had to offer, but a gutsier interpretation would have given his delivery even greater strength.
Perhaps the film’s greatest offense was the presence of the three wise men at the birth of Christ. The film went to great and gutless lengths to stick closely to the Biblical tale, then goes completely cliché at the end, including the wise men in the manger scene. They did not arrive until months later. It was ridiculous to offer such a boringly accurate big screen rendition of the nativity story and then blow it in the final moments.
Most disappointing is, what with director Catherine Hardwicke’s solid filmography, which is characterized by gutsy risk taking — “The Newton Boys,�? “2 Days in the Valley�? and “Tombstone,�? — that she offered such a boring and flat cinematic presentation in “The Nativity.�? There is also no excuse for writer Mike Rich with such passionate and moving tales as “Radio,�? “Finding Forester�? and “The Rookie�? to his credit.
Shame on both of them for their gutlessness. They had a rich opportunity here to present a colorful, exciting and inspiring film akin to “The Passion of the Christ,�? but settled instead for a dull, stale and practically unwatchable film. Next time, in the interest of good art, do not settle for the safe road. Risk a little and you just might achieve both accuracy and beauty.

"Bobby" is more success than failure

Wed, 13 Dec 2006 11:32:14 -0800

“Bobby,�? Emilio Estevez’s third film from behind the camera, is a big step up from his last stint as director in 1996 for “Men at Work.�? Estevez attracted an all-star cast from Anthony Hopkins to Lindsay Lohan with his original script. However, the response from audiences and critics alike has been mixed, at best.
The film did not score big with audiences, who perhaps expected something less artfully crafted and more straightforward in its presentation. The film left the local Krikorian Premiere Theatre after three weeks of screenings.
“Bobby�? has also been more miss than hit with critics. Again, from the title film connoisseurs may have been expecting a docudrama on the life of one of America’s greatest politicians, not a character and time-period examination told through a day in the life of hotel guests and employees present at Robert F. Kennedy’s assassination.
“Bobby�? follows the lives of campaign volunteers, hotel guests and employees, a resident drug dealer and entertainers on the day Kennedy won the democratic presidential nomination. The film is set in the Los Angeles Ambassador Hotel in the kitchen of which Kennedy was shot after learning of his victory.
“Bobby�? attempts to depict the importance of the rise of Kennedy during this time of rising consumer consumption and materialism, class differences, racism and the war in Vietnam through the experiences of 22 different characters.
These different storylines vary in success from compelling and moving to flat and unimportant. However, despite the power, or lack-thereof, of the individual storylines, the overall feeling of the time, disillusionment and hopelessness, was successfully conveyed.
Kennedy represented a light in the darkness, hope where there was none and a future bright with possibility rather than dark with despair. Estevez’s storytelling method may have suffered from flaws along the way, but in the end he was able to convey the gut-wrenching importance of Kennedy’s assassination.
One of the compelling storylines was that of Diane (Lohan) and William (Elijah Wood), young friends who are at the hotel for their wedding. Diane is marrying William, who has been drafted, to keep him out of Vietnam. Her selflessness and his good heart are moving and powerful.
The scenes with the black cook Edward Robinson (Laurence Fishburne) and the Mexican-American kitchen helpers Jose (Freddy Rodriguez) and Miguel (Jacob Vargas) are some of the best-written scenes of the film, ones Estevez should be particularly proud of. Robinson’s diatribe on anger and strength of character are beautiful, capturing the soul of the film and Kennedy’s importance in several bright shining cinematic moments.
Then there are the storylines that fell hopelessly flat. William H. Macy gave a great performance as the hotel manager Paul, but the scenes involving his affair with the hotel telephone operator Angela (Heather Graham) and the confrontation by his wife, the hair stylist Miriam (Sharon Stone) seem completely disconnected from the central theme — Bobby. They added nothing and completely detracted from the overall message.
One of the film’s most delightful elements was the audio and film clips from Kennedy’s many moving speeches. “Bobby�? is worth a see if for nothing else than to hear Kennedy’s profound words once more.
Despite this film’s flaws, “Bobby�? is heartfelt and it succeeds in more ways than it fails. Though it may not reach the Oscar podium for anything this year, it is more than worthy of a viewing in theaters or at least a DVD rental. Just do not expect a docudrama, but rather artful story weaving and you will find much less to be disappointed in.

The Fountain: A Successful Failure

Wed, 29 Nov 2006 11:11:06 -0800

“The Fountain,�? director Darren Aronofsky’s first film in six years, will not achieve the critical success his earlier films “Pi�? (1998) and “Requiem for a Dream�? (2000) did. However, as a failure it is more interesting than most of this year’s successes.
“The Fountain�? chronicles three different storylines set in three different time periods. It begins in the 21st century with drug researcher Tommy Creo (Hugh Jackman) who is desperately seeking a cure for the inoperable brain tumor killing his wife Izzy Creo (Rachel Weisz). As part of her preparation for her impending death, Izzy is writing a novel about the search for the Tree of Life. Set in the 16th century, Queen Isabella sends a conquistador to New Spain in search of it. The film also jumps ahead 1000 years to the 26th century where Tommy is a Zen astronaut flying in a bubble with a dying tree on his way to a nebula.
The plot of this science-fiction historical adventure-fantasy seems silly and in every film festival from Toronto to Venice — where it was booed — “The Fountain�? has been called ridiculous, as well as audacious.
However, there is nothing silly about the film’s earnestness and intensity. The film does overreach, trying to cram all of the director’s thoughts and feelings about life, death and filmmaking into a single 90-minute epic. But even when you fall short reaching for the stars, the outcome can still be spectacular.
Though “The Fountain’s�? complexity makes for muddled viewing at best, it is more fun to watch a director reach for the stars than it is to see him sit back and play it safe. Besides, all of the elements of a great film are present in “The Fountain,�? from Tommy’s compelling struggle to face the incontrovertible fact of death, to the amazing cinematography and special effects to the Oscar worthy original score and finally to the captivating performances of Jackman and Weisz.
If you are only familiar with Jackman as the clawed superhero Wolverine, then you will be surprised by the depth and range he displayed in “The Fountain.�? In this film Jackman proved his intensity is readily applied in more than one limited direction. He is more than worthy of the title “actor.�? And, of course, Weisz once again delivered a stellar performance as the beautiful dying flower Izzy.
However, this film’s strongest element has to be its delightful musical score. The sound of this film drove the action and elicited more emotion than any other element. The cinematography and the special effects of “The Fountain�? made it easy on the eyes, but the music was even easier on the ears. Of all the films this year, “The Fountain�? deserves to stand on the Oscar podium and accept the Academy Award for Best Original Score. The music did more than just support the action of “The Fountain.�? Without its driving musical force the film would have been only half as compelling and interesting. The music was an integral part of the film’s success, not just window dressing slapped on at the last minute. That is what deserves the title Best Original Score. Think of the original “Star Wars�? series. John Williams’ music was half the heart of the films, without it “Star Wars�? would not have achieved the success it has.
Though “The Fountain�? is unlikely to earn the critical and audience acclaim it needs to garner Oscar success, it is not a film to be missed. Few films achieve such interesting results in the midst or critical failure. Though if you are more of a mainstream moviegoer, perhaps you should rent the DVD so you are not disappointed by the director’s artsy approach to filmmaking.

Best Film of the Year

Tue, 21 Nov 2006 19:03:07 -0800

“Stranger than Fiction�? is this year’s best film so far. There have been many releases this year featuring outstanding acting and a compelling story line, but few left one feeling better about life than when they entered the theater.
“Stranger than Fiction�? has heart, as well as brains. It makes one laugh and cry equally with delight. This is a great holiday film that makes one thankful for not only the good things in life, but simply thankful for life. One leaves the theater reminded to cherish the little things, the moments that are rarely recognized as moments — the off-hand caress of a lover, the rare, thoughtless act of a child or a good word from one’s boss.
“Stranger than Fiction�? tells the tale of Harold Crick (Will Ferrell), an IRS agent who discovers that he is the central character in tragic novelist Kay Eiffel’s (Emma Thompson) masterpiece. Determined to avoid the deadly fate written for him, Ferrell starts living the life he’s always dreamed of.
Director Marc Forster (“Finding Neverland�? 2004, “Monster’s Ball�? 2001) has once again delivered a heartfelt film worthy of standing atop the Oscar podium. Writer Zach Helm has few other writing credits to his name, but he certainly hit the big one with “Stranger than Fiction.�? Few scripts this year have boasted the originality, humor and honesty of this work of art. This film is certainly worthy of the Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay.
Despite the film’s unusual plot, one has no problem suspending disbelief. The characters take Harold’s preposterous situation completely in stride as if it were totally normal to find one’s self the central character of another’s work of fiction. In fact, the ease with which one accepts the plot points to the film’s other strength — the acting.
“Stranger than Fiction�? is character driven, thus without outstanding performances the stellar plot would have fallen hopelessly flat. Every actor delivered an amazing performance, from the morose Harold, to the despondent tragic novelist, to the eccentric literature professor (Dustin Hoffman), to the rebellious baker Ana Pascal (Maggie Gyllenhall) and the product driven writing assistant Penny Escher (Queen Latifah). By the end of the film one had fallen head-over-heels for each and every character.
Will Ferrell did an excellent job of playing the film’s leading man and comedic element without playing his part too heavy-handedly. The eccentric college professor was charming in his absurdities. The revolutionary baker Ana Pascal was delightful in her delicate torture of her IRS investigator, yet beautiful in her recognition of Harold’s own tragic state. And best of all was the tragic novelist, who in envisioning the best way to kill off Harold repeatedly imagines her own sorrowful demise.
Each and every character changes through the film, expanding their individual perspectives and outlook on life. Harold’s transformation is beautiful offering hope to every moviegoer, but his reversal is not the most powerful in the film. Harold’s awakening mirrors that of the writer. The recluse is able to reconnect with the world, emerging from her secluded existence to share her new outlook with the world.
Eiffel’s assistant also goes through a reversal. She learns to recognize the delightful chaos inherent in the act of creation. The baker realizes she does not have to thwart the government and land in jail to change the world. Pascal’s small acts of kindness make a big impact on the lives of those around her, such as Harold. The professor accepts Eiffel’s altered ending, recognizing the truth behind her realization.
There is not a weak element in “Stranger than Fiction,�? though it is highly unlikely that it will earn the recognition it deserves. Its presentation is simple and straightforward, though it offers all the complexity a film connoisseur could desire. It does not reach for the stars, but achieves greatness without seemingly doing so. This is one film not to be missed this year and one film you will surely want to add to your DVD collection.
The one area this film may stand on the podium for is Best Original Screenplay and it is more than deserving of this Oscar for its clever, heartfelt and delightful look at life, death and everything in between.