Flashback: Cold Mountain

I’m working on a review of another Minghella film, and after touching on his The Talented Mr. Ripley for the Movie Meme yesterday I felt like watching Cold Mountain. In retrospect I suppose that Cold Mountain’s chancing of a genuinely warm reception were sunk before it was even released. The golden age of Miramax was at a peak coming off the banner year that was 2002 for them, Nicole Kidman and Renee Zellweger were two cinema’s brightest stars, and Jude Law was no black hole himself. Truthfully, I resent the way that’s Cold Mountain is remembered today because I really do like it. Is it the shameless attempt for Oscar glory that it’s advertised at? Tough question. Perhaps…but that doesn’t really say much.

Cold Mountain is two stories in one. On one side of America Ada Munroe is working on keeping her spirits up as she waits for a man she never really knew to return home. She’s befriended by an intrepid drifter, Ruby Thewes, and together the two start to work on Black Cove farm. On the other side W. P. Inman is making his way back to Ada after having deserted his troops in the Civil War. Cold Mountain is one of those infuriating love stories that have the couple in question apart for the majority of the film. I’m sure I wasn’t the only one seduced by the possibility of Jude and Nicole together, even though they’re more often than not apart. Really, Cold Mountain’s never really a love story. Some other (potentially clichéd) maxim would probably do it more justice – finding your true selves, overcoming odds; etc. 

It’s strange, somewhat, when Cold Mountain came out Nicole Kidman was immediately forgotten in favour or Jude and Renee. Granted, she’d just recently won the Oscar (deservedly) for her work in The Hours but she’d easily have displaced three of the actual nominees that year. Today, Renee Zellweger’s win is regarded as one of the Academy’s largest travesties. I chuckle at that one. I don’t know if that’s the reason that she seems to be so hated now, but it seems silly. I like Cold Mountain, and generally everything about it and I don’t find her performance offensively bad – I don’t find it bad at all. But I’m digressing…there’s no point in turning this into an entry for defensive cinema.

At its heart, it’s a war story in the best of – and worst of – ways. But for a few random moments it never goes to the forefront of battle – and even those aren’t particularly significant, but it shows the effect that war has on a small town, the effect it has on its people, especially those left behind. It’s adapted from a novel, and that makes it that less subtle when it comes to touching on the important issues, but that doesn’t make me any less fond of it. It’s on the nose, but in a good way. There’s a scene where Ruby stands in a bar, “They make the weather and then they stand in the rain and they, ‘Shit! It’s raining!’”. In all its obviousness it’s a perfect summation of war and its effects. It’s a bit of a departure for Minghella in some ways, because Cold Mountain is decidedly more sentimental than anything I’ve seen from him before. I’m willing to admit it spends about thirty minutes settling into itself as it should – but I forgive it those strange moments because even in those odd moments where the story seems to falter it’s only innocuous. The film is still technically proficient. The main trio are good, but Kathy Baker, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Brenda Gleeson, Donald Sutherland and Natalie Portman and Jena Malone in brilliant cameos do good work too. No one ever thinks of Cold Mountain in terms of an ensemble cast, but it is. And it has one of the most brilliant scores of the decades, backed by beautiful music from Alison Krauss. Perhaps, general nepotism makes me fond of it but I often think that Cold Mountain’s not given enough credit.

          

What did you think of Minghella’s final epic?

Flashback: Something’s Gotta Give

For some reason I always find myself going easy on Nancy Meyer, and if I trace the reason I’d probably end up at Something’s Gotta Give - a film I’d easily place somewhere in my top ten of 2003. The thing is – I often feel as if I’m alone when it comes to appreciating the somewhat atypical romantic comedy. In retrospect Something’s Gotta Give’s sleight of hand (focusing on the mother of the romantic heroine instead of said presumed heroine) is not as inventive as it likes to think, but I’m damned if I don’t find it fresh and enjoyable nonetheless. A young woman brings home an older man and due to medical problems her mother ends up looking after him. The ending is probably obvious from the inception, but no matter - Something’s Gotta Give still has a whole lot to give (weak pun, I agree).

It seems like a non-argument to lament on it, but it’s a rare thing seeing two thespians, both over sixty, helming a film. It’s even less likely to see such a film that is not a drama focusing on inevitable loss of life (or parental woes). A romantic comedy for the aged? Unlikely. What’s more unlike her latest feature, which I just couldn’t love, Something’s Gotta Give doesn’t get its bearings from seeing older folks act like children. Sure, Nicholson’s playboy is still holding on to his youth – but he’s definitely an old chap and of course the always luminous Diane Keaton is wonderful just because she’s so mature. I think I’ve intimated as much before, but Keaton effortlessly stands out as my favourite female performance of 2003. Moreover, I’d find it difficult to say just what makes me so impressed with Keaton’s outing here. She’s a talented comedienne, that much is a given. She’s arguably the best of her era at comedy (even more than Dench and Sarandon and Streep and Mirren), but she’s so often in those horrendous comedies we tend to forget. The odd bits of subtlety in Something’s Gotta Give always surprise, and then Keaton is just doing so much to make her Erica deliciously interesting while still retaining that bit of weirdness.

It doesn’t take a genius to tell you that the third act of Something’s Gotta Give is not as tight as its previous too. Then, there’s just the slight feeling that Meyers solution to all the drama (albeit, comedic drama) is just a little too rote, but I will occasionally let those issues go because of the gusto with which the entire thing is created. Something’s Gotta Give probably started out as a foray in two Oscar greats working alongside each other, but it turns into a one woman show. Sure, Amanda Peet and Frances McDormand offer nice supporting bits, sure Jack Nicholson is surprisingly emotive at times and yes Keanu Reeves is shockingly on par with his cast – but this is all Diane Keaton. From the first shot we’re enamoured with this woman. Meyers is lucky she got such a talent; with her Something’s Gotta Give turns into more than the sum of its parts.

   

Am I too effusive with praise? What do you think of Keaton and Something’s Gotta Give?

Jottings on…The Lord of the Rings: The End (…of the trilogy not of the series)

It’s one of the biggest Oscar mysteries – to me at least. When The Return of the King swept the ceremony was it being praised as the best of the trilogy or was the Academy simply rewarding the entire venture at once? Who knows?

           

It’s strange, even though the actual film only covers a few months it’s striking to note how much change occurs, and none more than in the Hobbits. The dirtiness of Sam and Frodo (Gollum can’t get any dirtier) is remarkable when we consider how sheltered the two were at the beginning of the journey. I like Elijah Wood, but for the life of me I often find myself bored with him. I’m not sure, though, if my issue is with him or Frodo because he’s really playing the part as well as it can be played. It’s no wonder that with his stoic reserve and Sam’s overanxious sidekick I end up more interested in the other two hobbits, even though they’re not the centre of the instalment. I’ll forever say that Boyd is the best of the four, and it’s in Minas Tirith where he shows it best. When we consider the childlike nature that Tolkien intends with the hobbits, no one brings it out as much as Boyd. Of course, that’s because of the craziness of Pippin but even silently as he takes that fateful look into the ball his mannerisms are childlike. His “maturing” is played realistically, and I always single out the entire Minis Tirith portion of the film as my favourite. John Noble is exquisite is a bit eerie as the troubled king and Boyd does an excellent job of balancing Pippin’s fear with his inquisitiveness.

I’m probably one of the few persons who don’t understand the anticlimactic claims put forward for this instalment (they should read the actual book for that). It fits with the concept of the story resting with the Hobbits, and Bilbo. It’s actually one of the deviations I particularly love. Even Wood seems to be feeling the moment, there’s a weird sort of serenity as he tells Sam goodbye (probably convection from Cate’s Galadriel). It really is about the hobbits, though. When I think of The Return of the King the first image that pops into my head is this one:

Sure, Jackson is not exactly subtle – but sometimes a little bit of blatancy works and in a way in reminds of the first step they took beginning the journey since way back when.

It’s true, The Return of the King is very epilogue-ish, but if it’s an epilogue it’s one hell of an epilogue. It does make me conscious that the appreciation for it, and perhaps the whole series is probably more fanatical and less serious than I’d care to note – but since I began making this list last year and I realised the quandary I’d be in I knew that this was going to be a list of favourites and not best…and you will remember, I want to ban that word from the dictionary nonetheless.

I’ll return to this incarnation, not only for the final entry in the trilogy when it cracks my top ten next week but just because I love it so much. It’s proof that I shouldn’t be writing this review (and it’s not even that) when I’m falling asleep at the computer…and I may end up returning to the final chapter even as I write about The Fellowship of the Rings soon…still, though it’s not as universally loved as I wish it would be The Return of the King is easily my favourite sequel. Blasphemy, perhaps…but that’s usual from me...The Return of the King appears at #11 on my list of favourites which means I'll be heading into the top ten soon. Prepare for loads of verbosity starting on Monday.

A Different Tim Burton

If all goes well I should be seeing Burton’s Alice in Wonderland next week. I don’t expect the film to be perfect, and I won’t be angry if I don’t love it as much as I wanted to. It seems that so many hate Burton now and with the announcement of his imminent reimagining of The Addams’ Family (which I think could be excellent) the trolls have emerged; but I digress. Whenever I hear the claims of Burton’s lack of restraint I always feel the urge to slag someone off by citing my favourite live action Burton film – an imperfect masterpiece that thrills me as much as it moves me, 2003’s forgotten Big Fish.

Big Fish is a drama, a fantasy, a comedy, a romance and a mystery all rolled into one atypical bundle from Burton. It is the story of Ed Bloom a dying man forever at odds with his son. On his deathbed he tries to explain himself to his son. In this way Big Fish is two stories in one. On the most obvious of levels it’s difficult to believe that Ewan McGregor grew up to become Albert Finney, not because Albert Finney isn’t charming. To be fair Finney’s early work in Tom Jones is not that different from the young Ewan in the film. Finney just gives the feeling of a man whose light has been snuffed out for whatever reasons, even though he’s not unhappy. Jessica Lange plays brilliantly in the small role of Finney’s wife. I’ve always been a fan of Lange and her manner of imbuing so much emotion to a nondescript role is effective. As earnest and delicate as the times in the present are, it’s difficult to deny the sheer (aesthetic) brilliance of Big Fish when it retracts to the past. It’s a fanciful tale, but that’s precisely the point which is why Burton is so effective, but the present moments in their sombreness is done excellently. The visuals are an important of the film, but it’s the not the defining entity. That would be the acting.

Helena Bonham Carter made my top 5 of 2003 for her brilliant performance in a dual role. It’s the most sensitive role Burton has given her and she handles it perfectly. It’s difficult to balance her charm against the beauty and stability of Lohman/Lange and Carter never turns it into a cliché. Ewan McGregor gives his best performance as Ed. It’s that fanciful innocence that suits him, and even the accent tends to get obtrusive in some moments it’s still an absolutely brilliant incarnation and Albert Finney does so much emoting with so little time (this man continues to be excellent even in his old age). Big Fish also features Marion Cotillard in a small role as Billy Crudup’s wife.

I am a fan of Burton so I really can’t say whether or not I’m the most infallible critic, but then who is? Big Fish delights me and it stirs me. It’s an excellent creation and a treasure of the last decade as far as I’m concerned. It features on my list of favourites at #41.

Performances of the Decade (Male)

I suppose it get’s a bit monotonous when a particular film keeps showing up on this list, but I can’t help it if some films just have good casts. The thing is, it’s strange, because I’m not even a fan of Clint Eastwood. His technique and oftentimes maudlin storylines always annoy me, but Mystic River is just a film that impresses me on all counts. It’s also important because without it, this brilliant man would have gone Oscar-less.

         

#7 Tim Robbins in Mystic River (2003)

 In some ways Tim’s performance reminds me of Helen Mirren’s turn in Gosford Park. It’s not that his performance depends on subtlety, as quiet a man as Dave is Mystic River demands a large amount of physical acting. The thing that ties the two together is that both performances demand a certain secretiveness. Both Dave and Mrs. Wilson play their roles knowing something that the other characters don’t. We can assume, but we’re never absolutely certain just what happened to Young Dave when he was kidnapped; and more importantly he’s the only one that knows why he came home bloody on that fateful night. It’s not until after I’ve gotten all the facts that I fully appreciate how outstanding a performance Tim Robbins.

For example, I take notice of the interrogation scene played brilliantly by Laurence Fishburne (the guy needs a proper role) and Kevin Bacon. Of course the film has us guessing towards the end, but we can now account for the look of fear and simultaneous honesty in Dave. He is after all innocent of that particular crime. If Dave is really guilty of anything though, it’s the obvious. He’s been so traumatised by his own demons he doesn’t know how to communicate with those around him. Sure, his marriage to Celeste is not a horrible one, but there remains that slight but somewhat impenetrable divide between the two. Obviously, he doesn’t know just how communicate this and it’s ultimate the reason for his demise.

…And what a demise. Mystic River is one traumatic moment after another and it’s at something of a peak during the killing of Dave. Sean Penn is all beastlike as he tries to discover the truth and it’s disconcerting to watch Dave as he realises that he’s the prey. Tim needs to reach deep and make those final moments of Dave as distressing as possible because if there’s any fault in Mystic River it is that the characters are more external than internal. But Tim doesn’t act from the inside out. Why does he give the wrong confession to Jim? Does he really expect Jim to let him go? Watch him closely and you can almost pinpoint the moment where he gives up, and it’s horrible to watch. But no one said Mystic River was an easy film.

            

I said that Marcia gives my favourite of the film, but Tim is exceptional giving a well deserved Oscar winning performance. Do you agree or were your rooting for someone else in 2003?

Performances of the Decade (Female)

I always end up having strange relationships with characters I come to love, venturing off into strange arguments about people that were never real to begin with. I don’t think I’m alone, though. The thing is, when a character I like is misunderstood I always feel particularly indignant; but when that character becomes so hated I just end up seeing red. I mean, no one’s perfect. If I were to recall one of the most hated (and misunderstood) film characters of the last, this one would be rather high up.

     

#8 Marcia Gay Harden in Mystic River (2003)

 Celeste Boyle. It’s the name I remember most vividly from Mystic River. In a way, even though I love Mystic River, I don’t leave the film caring about anyone in particular. The sympathetic Dave has died, but if I feel apathetic towards all else I can’t help but feel compassion for Celeste. Celeste is a mouse of a woman married to one of our three protagonists Dave, played excellently by Tim Robbins. The two have a son together and have a fairly average marriage. Due to his horrific childhood kidnapping and molestation Dave has never been a confident man and neither is his wife. There are unanswered questions, but Celeste seems to have a slight fear of her husband and an early moment I recall of Marcia’s talent is the scene where Tim comes home late one night covered in blood. Curiously, it’s the same night that Dave’s daughter was murdered. But I’m getting ahead of myself; Celeste doesn’t know this yet. Dave is a perpetually nervous man and the story he gives is an obvious line. The fear on Marcia’s face is pronounced even as we see her wondering what her husband is hiding. Celeste is simple, but she’s not an idiot.

 

 There’s something for being knowledgeable about things and though Celeste thinks she has the facts she really doesn’t know anything much. This is precisely what makes her so pathetic. And it’s also what makes her so endearing. Celeste is a victim of her circumstances inasmuch as the Greeks. In some way’s Lehane’s multifaceted piece bears resemblance to Greek drama with the characters being forever at the mercy of the Gods. All Celeste really wants is to be close to her husband, but Dave has been so broken in life that he can’t let anyone in – even his wife. Debate has been plentiful regarding Celeste’s visit to Jim. Even in the film Laura Linney’s sly wife asks, “What kind of wife would do such a thing.” And I suppose, it’s a good question. But is it really that difficult to see why she does? I said before she is a mouse of a woman and as Dave becomes less and less responsive to her she is at her wits end and her simplicity becomes obvious. In her naivety she truly hopes to do the right thing and feels that Jimmy should know, not only because his daughter could be the victim but she obviously sees in him what she doesn’t see in Dave she sees in Jim. Someone who can be assertive and find the truth. Of course, she doesn’t realise how unlike Dave Jim is.

I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised that Celeste has found little sympathy with audiences though. It’s difficult to hate Jimmy because of the trial he’s gone through and she makes an easy scapegoat. Still, the strongest portion of Marcia’s excellent performance erases any anger. It’s my favourite scene of the film even if it’s not really that ostensibly important. As Jim and Sean have their final conversation the parade begins and with an acute sense of the ominous Celeste may have realises just what’s happened to her husband. No lines are spoken but we just see her frantic running down the street with that frenzied look on her face. It’s then that I realise just how broken the families of this film will be afterwards. It’s an acting moment few can achieve, but Marcia’s face alone pierces me and turns into one of the most harrowing scenes of the decade. A truly great performance...

     

...Or is it? Do you think that Marcia’s Celeste was a performance worthy of recognition?

Performances of the Decade (Male)

Is a performance any worse because it has the all the usual things that we consider awards bait? – crying…shouting…loud shows of anger…? I think the obvious answer is no, but what else can we hold against this brilliant performance? Why should we hold anything against it? (Spoilers ahead, duh)

           

#9 Sean Penn in Mystic River (2003)

An actor always has a specific scene in their performance that grows into the pivotal one in the film. It’s become known as the Oscar scene and often the rest of the performance is assessed from the perspective of that scene. For Sean Penn here, that scene has his discovery of his daughter’s death. I always remember it vividly, even when I haven’t seen it in a while: the foreboding confusion as he draws near, then the tormented look of realisation and that horrifying scream of anguish. It’s easy to look at it and accuse him of overacting or of hamming it up but that’s an injudicious accusation I feel. Each of the three men, in some way, is emotionally stunted and Jimmy’s line of work demands that he be staunch and cold on the exterior but there always seem to be something at work in Sean’s head, as if something is building and the reaction here seems completely accurate.

I said in my review of it that Mystic River really is not a comfortable film, and it's hard not to come out hating many of the characters. The final scenes between Penn and Tim Robbins are some of the most harrowing scenes of the last decade and only become more morose after we've been giving all the facts. Sean Penn is no newbie at playing these difficult characters, though, so I suppose Jimmy is not really a great departure for him. He has a talent for moving line-readings. I always remember theending of the film when Sean comes up to Jimmy, he suspects what's happened. He asks: So Jimmy when was the last time you saw Jimmy? and the answer he gives: The last time I saw Dave...that was twenty five years ago, going up this street, in the back of that character. Regardless of how you feel about Jimmy's actions that line always moves me, and even though the end of the film belongs to another actor Sean makes an indelible mark on the film.

I can’t say why Sean Penn has become such a underrated actor. He gave one of the most brilliant performances of the last twenty years in Dead Man Walking and although he didn’t top that feat in Mystic River, it was still a formidable attempt. In some ways it’s as if he was born to play Jimmy – the harsh physicality juxtaposed with the unexpected bouts of emotion. It’s a difficult role to pull off and Penn does it excellently. I can’t fault his performance here.

                 

But do you agree? Was Sean Penn excellent here?

           

Previously...

Ben Whishaw in Bright Star

Philip Seymour Hoffman in Before the Devil Knows You're Dead

Ed Harris in The Hours

Ian McKellen in The Lord of the Rings

Brad Pitt in Burn After Reading

James McAvoy in Atonement

2003: Breaking It Down

So I’m done with 2003. That was easy. Wasn’t it? I’ve seen 89 films that were officially released [American] in 2003. Of course it's my luck that the year I see a bunch of films many of them were horrible, so in ascending order here is the lot.

F: #89-#76

What a year, fifteen films failed. Here they are.

Kangaroo Jack, Scary Movie 3, The Lizzie McGuire Movie, Boat Trip, Duplex, Haunted Mansion, Daredevil, What A Girl Wants, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Bad Boys 2, Stuck On You, Cradle to the Grave, Love Don’t Cost a Thing, Anger Management, Johnny English

Each left something a bad taste in my mouth and I don't care to see any again. They're in ascending order, but I found Anger Management especially horrible since Marisa Tomei tried so hard. But that film was just terrible.

       

D: #74-#70

Offensively bad, but it could have been worse

American Wedding, My Boss’ Daughter, Daddy Day Care, Honey

             

D+: #69-#59

They’re not very good, you probably should avoid them…but there are moments…

Gothika, Malibu’s Most Wanted, Girl With A Pearl Earring, Legally Blonde 2, How to Lose A Guy in Ten Days, 2 Fast 2 Furious, Just Married, View From the Top, Uptown Girls, Agent Cody Banks, Biker Boyz

   

C-: #58-#51

Guilty, but not so pleasurable. They’re not all bad though.

Fighting Temptations, Underworld, Terminator 3, Holes, Hulk, Tears of the Sun, Matrix Revolutions, Dickie Roberts: Former Child Star

        

C: #50-#40

Hmmm. Passable.

Old School, Charlie’s Angel: Full Throttle, I Capture the Castle, Whale Rider, Sinbad: Legend of the Seven Seas, Once Upon A Time in Mexico, Brother Bear, Lara Croft Tomb Raider: Cradle of Life, Head of State, Cheaper By the Dozen, Intolerable Cruelty

           

C+: #39-#33

Guilty pleasures…or good in parts but sometimes disappointing

Bend It Like Beckham, Cat in the Hat, Under the Tuscan Sun, Freddy vs. Jason, Beyond Borders, The Italian Job, Bruce Almighty

        

B-: #32-#18

Some are good, some are fine, some are odd…but they’re all good. ish.

School of Rock, Monster, How to Deal, The Human Stain, X Men 2, Freaky Friday, Matrix Reloaded, Bringing Down the House, The Cooler, In America, Calendar Girls, Missing, Master & Commander, House of Sand & Fog, Pieces of April

          

B: #17-#12

They’re good. Really good.

Down With Love, Mona Lisa Smile, Kill Bill, Love Actually, Seabiscuit, 21 Grams

         

The Top Eleven

#11 – Lost in Translation [B+]

As I said, I don’t think I got it as much as the mass. Sure I liked it, and sure Scarlett and Bill were wonderful together. It was a nice little film, and in that realm it was successful. One of the best things about it was that it wasn’t self conscious. Coppola did well.

              

#10 – Le Divorce [B+]

I will never understand the hate for this. It currently holds 37% on Rotten Tomatoes which bewilders. It’s light but not a bauble and it features a great cast. Sure it’s not as socially aware as we would assume, but I think it knows that. It’s blessed comedy for Christ’s sake!

            

#9 – Something’s Gotta Give [B+]

Sometimes it gets a little too full of itself, but it’s Nancy Meyers. It’s more than Keaton’s great performance. It’s a nice film altogether.

              

#8 – Peter Pan [B+]

Underrated. I really can’t say much more than that. This one really makes me tear up, and I hate the Peter Pan story. One depressing thing.

             

#7 – Phone Booth [B+]

It turns into this very pervasive character study with a solid performance from Farrell. It’s a good film, and worthy of a look.

            

#6 – Finding Nemo [B+]

Didn’t love it like a diehard, but it’s my favourite Pixar by a mile. Ellen D. steals the show of course, but all things considered it’s great.

          

#5 – Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl [B+]

As I said in my review, it’s a perfect crowd-pleaser. I hope that it’ll redeem itself with the next instalment, though I will miss Knightley and Bloom.

             

#4 – Cold Mountain [A-]

Unfairly maligned, in my opinion. It’s a beautiful piece from Minghella. Kidman, Law and Zellweger are the driving forces and they’re good…but it’s little performances from Kathy Bakers haunting portrayal to Donald Sutherland’s cameo of sorts along with Natalie Portman and Jenna Malone taking a few lines and making them resonate and of course Phillip Seymour Hoffman – the perfect ally. Add that to those technical achievements, and you’ve got a good film.

                 

#3 – Mystic River [A]

Eastwood can’t get any better for me. It’s a solid ensemble and each performance is outstanding. The script is subtle and so is the direction [surprisingly]. It’s just good.

         

#2 – Big Fish [A]

I have to review this sooner or later. So I’ll save it all for then. I like it much. That’s obvious.

              

#1 – The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King [A+]

I’m a fanboy. I have the novels, I’ve got the DVD. I can quote the script. I’m not going to lie, maybe I’m prejudiced. But how could you not vote for this?

                      

So. There you have it. What topped your list? Which of top 11 shocked you? Is Le Divorce crap? Do those 15 films deserve Fs? What do you think?

2003: Written & Directed By…

Adapted Screenplay

Big Fish

Cold Mountain

Le Divorce

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King

Mystic River

Alt. Peter Pan, House of Sand & Fog, Freaky Friday

Big Fish was horribly snubbed by the Academy and every other major precursor in the big categories. It was an intelligent and poignant film and much of that depended on its screenplay. Easily the best of the lot for me, Mystic River and Cold Mountain battle it out for the runner up spot with the former just edging out in front.

          

Original Screenplay

Love Actually

Lost in Translation

Down With Love

Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl

Something’s Gotta Give

Alt. Phone Booth, Finding Nemo, 21 Grams, Kill Bill

I never really went all out for Lost in Translation; it made me feel like I did with Sideways in 2004 – as if I was missing something. Down With Love had one of the silliest but self-aware script and it was second only to Something’s Gotta Give. I don't know, it's not that smart. But it hits me.

        

The Directors

Tier Two

Sofia Coppola, Lost in Translation
P. J. Hogan, Peter Pan

Alejandro Gonzalev Inarritu, 21 Grams

Joel Schumacher, Phone Booth

Andrew Stanton, Finding Nemo

I almost had James Ivory here, but I switched to Hogan who did good work with his underrated piece. Inarritu almost made my top 5 with his good work in 21 Grams and Schumacher did good with the bluntness of Phone Booth.           
            

The Nominees

Tim Burton, Big Fish

Clint Eastwood, Mystic River

 Peter Jackson, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King

Anthony Minghella, Cold Mountain

Gore Verbinski, The Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black

An easy five, but it's easy to rank them. If I had to I'd throw out one I'd throw out Verbinski first. Not because he's bad, but because they're all good. Eastwood's Mystic River is my favourite of his, but he'd go next. The picture is good, his direction is not the driving force. Neither is Minghella's Cold Mountain - his screenplay is the beacon there. So it's down to Burton and Jackson and it's actually really tough. I'd say Burton just for the maturity of the piece, but I'd be lying. Jackson it is.

              

So what are your thoughts on my choices?

2003: The Acting: …Then the Men

So now it's on to the men. I suppose my picks are just about as strange as the men, but I stand by choices especially in the Supporting Actor category that was royally f***ed up. Okay not quite, but still - just saying...

           
Supporting Actor
Tier Three
Kevin Bacon, Mystic River
Billy Crudup, Big Fish
Djimon Honsou, In America
Derek Luke, Pieces of April
Viggo Mortenson, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
Okay Viggo had done his best work of the trilogy in the second installment, but they could have thrown him a bone. I can't be too pissed at Honsou's nomination, I like him,  but I really wasn't all that blown away. And what made Bacon's work in Mystic River so unimportant?

                        
Tier Two
Sean Astin, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
Alec Baldwin, The Cooler
Ian McKellen, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
Philip Seymour Hoffman, Cold Mountain
Cillian Murphy, Girl With a Pearl Earring
I really was not heavy on Oscar buzz back in 2003, but I remember loads of people predicting Sean Astin. For the record I was not a fan of Sam, but damn he carried Frodo up the freakin' mountain and you can't even give him some love. Astin is really good here, depressing, but good. Cillian Murphy was one of the few things I could tolerate in Girl With a Pearl Earring, he is desperately in need of a good role. They could even have thrown a second nomination to Gandalf. Perhaps Hoffman wasn't any good in Cold Mountain. But then again, nah.                       
The Nominees
Billy Boyd, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King

Benicio Del Toro, 21 Grams

Albert Finney, Big Fish
David Hyde Pierce, Down With Love

Tim Robbins, Mystic River   

So two Oscar nominees are here, and three performances that were thoroughly overlooked. I guess my one and two would be Robbins and Del Toro [in that order], they were amazing – I’ve said it before. As I’ve said that Albert Finney, my third choice, was good. Boyd was always my favourite of the hobbits, and his Pippin in this third film was perfect. Of the hobbits, he did the most growing and it was a great performance. Hyde Pierce had amazing comedic timing in the under loved Down With Love.
             
The Actors
Tier Three
Anthony Hopkins, The Human Stain
Tommy Lee Jones, Missing
Tobey MaGuire, Seabiscuit
Ewan McGregor, Down With Love
Jack Nicholson, Something’s Gotta Give
I probably should rewatch The Human Stain. I don't remember it fondly, but I do remember it with some respect. . McGregor and Tommy Lee Jones are the best of this lot...Ewan just had a great year and yet he was ignored like nobody's business. Gah!
                    
Tier Two
Collin Farrell, Phone Booth
Russell Crow, Master & Commander
Ben Kingsley, House of Sand & Fog
William H. Macy, The Cooler
Sean Penn, 21 Grams
Am I crazy with the love for Farrell? It's so weird how Russell picked up almost no traction - they've really fallen out of love with him. Sean Penn is someone else who had quite a year. Luckily they rewarded him for Mystic River. Not that 21 Grams would have been undeserving, but it would have been way too predictable. Kingsley was good of course, hr just didn't make my top 5.

         
The Nominees
Johnny Depp, Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of Black Pearl

Jude Law, Cold Mountain

Ewan McGregor, Big Fish 
Bill Murray, Lost in Translation

Sean Penn, Mystic River 

Well this is pretty easy. Sure Penn and Law battle it out and no one's a winner,because I'm a coward. Ewan gives his best performance that no one seems to care about in Big Fish, so do Depp and Murray actually but people take notice of them. Altogether, it was a very good year for the men - but damn them for not even taking a look at Ewan. Ugh. Fail.
            
So what are your thoughts? McGregor, Law, Penn, Penn. Or, Robbins, Del Toro, Finney?

2003: Technical Talk

I didn’t realise until recently that in my own discordant and inadvertent way I’ve been recapping the decade. Yes I have, I’ve been posting my assessment of each of the past ten years. So far I’ve covered 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 – five years, which is actually not bad. It’s always interesting to do retrospectives and even though this often ends with me unintentionally letting you know what my top 100 will look like I’m going to continue the trend and jump to 2003. The information is already here on my computer, so what the hell?

                   

So for today, let me take a look at the technical aspects of the year, I’ll eventually post on the acting and then on the films. Bear with me.

           

Costumes

Cold Mountain

Down with Love

Girl With A Pearl Earring

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King

The Missing

          

Art Direction

Cat in the Hat

Cold Mountain

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King

Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl

Peter Pan

          

There was a freakishly large amount of period films in 2003. Maybe not the typical period films, but those films with the lush costumes and rich sets. Many films that had both still couldn’t catch a break, noticeably Big Fish and Master & Commander. The Lord of the Rings was a shoo in for sets, and that sort of went without saying. I was toying with the idea of giving Down With Love the costume award [like the designers were biting their nails waiting on the results].They sure had the original side of their jobs down, but eventually it was Cold Mountain which I’m sure sounds really generic, but it was either them or The Lord of the Rings, and Cold Mountain had that lived in effect that made it look all authentic.

          

Visual Effects

Big Fish

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King

Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl

     

Need I explain this? I hope not. The Lord of the Rings was just a visual spectacle, in the best way possible. A picture would belie the grandiosity of it all, but I'm going to put one anyway.

          

Sound

Big Fish

Kill Bill

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King

Master & Commander

Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Pearl

       

So this was easy too, although I must say Pirates had some exceptional technical work. But The Lord of the Rings took it, again.

Cinematography

Big Fish

Cold Mountain

Kill Bill

The Lord of the Rings: Curse of the Pearl

Master & Commander

         

Editing

Big Fish

Cold Mountain

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King

Missing

Mystic River

       

It seems so blase, but once again it's The Lord of the Rings. I don't know why people were all in a tizzy when it swept the [technical] awards. It's not like it didn't deserve the majority of them.

 

Score

Big Fish

Cold Mountain

Finding Nemo

Girl With the Pearl Earring

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King 

 

All these films, even the loathsome Girl With A Pearl Earring, had excellent scores and I can only imagine how tough it was for the voters...then again, maybe no. It came down to The Lord of the Rings as a major force, but eventually Yared's Cold Mountain score won me over.

         

Original Song

"Scarlet Tide" from Cold Mountain

"You Will Be My Ain True Love" from Cold Mountain

"Into the West" from The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King

              

What were your technical thoughts in 2003?