Johnny Simmons

I’m a bad Scorsese fan. He’s my favourite director, but I’ve only seen just above half of his filmography. That probably explains why I prefer his more recent stuff, because I have not seen enough of his old. But however you look at it, Scorsese is the boss. In 2004 when I first saw The Aviator, I was blown away. It’s something that I could not explain, but from that moment I knew that that was it. I was hooked on film. I know that the audience response to The Aviator is for the most part split down the middle; but it is one of my favourite films. Smack right at #25.
                 

Were the thirties and forties the best time that Hollywood had ever seen? If there’s one thing that Scorsese’s film does to you, it’s make you wish that you were alive for that period. The stories of the making of The Aviator are all over the internet. The use of different hues to accent each time period, the meticulousness of the editing and cinematography and the list goes on. Yes, The Aviator was created from years of much planning. But that doesn’t mean it lacks that certain it factor thought to be found only in spontaneity. This is a not a rehearsed biopic that aims to hit you over the head with the facts. When Cate Blanchett says, movies are movies. They’re not real; it’s almost a reflection of the film itself. This is not a History Lesson it’s a cinematic triumph. This is not the real Howards Hughes, but that does not make it less of a film.
                                             

The Aviator was a turning point for its two main stars – Leonardo DiCaprio and Cate Blanchett. Each had starred in an Oscar winning Best Picture and both had one Oscar nomination a piece. Both had been overlooked for their last good performances [Catch Me If You Can; Bandits] and both were liked but underrated in their respective fields. But as I said, The Aviator was a turning point for both. Leo finally graduated from a boy to a man; and the world finally realised that Cate Blanchett was of the best actresses of her era; but also one of the most gracious. As Howard Hughes and Katharine Hepburn – in a relationship that was more fiction than reality; the somehow managed to get the audience wholly invested in their romance. They would have given their real counterparts a run for their money. From then on they’ve only improved giving greater and greater performances and becoming more and more respected. All within reason, of course.

                          
And in some ways it was a turning point for Scorsese too. Up to that point The Aviator marked his most financially successful...and critically it was his most successful since GoodFellas. Fourteen years earlier. I was a fan of Casino and Gangs of New York, but response was reticently positive, if even that for the two. The response to The Aviator was more voluble. Once again [as had happened so often before] he was tipped to win the Oscar – he didn’t. But still. It was a good feeling.
                                             

The Aviator was also responsible for another good deed. The cinematically ubiquitous Alan Alda earned his only Oscar nomination for his role as Senator Brewster. I still find it surprising that this man has never been nominated before. Every movie lover [from the 70s and 80s particularly] know him. And it’s a wonder that his success on the small screen has never translated to the big screen. Still, Alan Alda is a great actor. Whether or not Oscar thinks so. And success with them is not the measure of an actor’s talent.
                           

The Aviator was the first film that I took offense to persons not liking. I remember feeling miserable when friends and persons on the internet would criticise the long windedness of the movie...and its alleged tedium. So The Aviator was a turning point for me. Whenever I think about starting my love affair with cinema I thank The Aviator. It wasn’t the first good film I saw and it wasn’t the first film that I enjoyed but it made me realise that Shakespeare was wrong; and it was the film’s the thing.
                                             
                      

Sometimes it’s great to look at a film that you know is absolutely unreal. It’s not really a fantasy film, to be exact, but it’s a fantasy nevertheless. It was some time before I saw Chocolat. But one Christmas Eve while doing some Christmas shopping with my sister I decided I’d try this movie. And I was not disappointed. Chocolat is the story of a woman, Vianne, and how along with her love of chocolate she changed  a little town – Tranquilité. Chocolat is not a film that aims to delineate what life was like in those days. In fact, we can’t be certain the specific time period of the film, it's unimportant. It can be anywhere between the 1940s and the 1987s. But it is still a beautiful little film. And #85 on my list of favourites.

In the blistering snow one morning, two hooded figures trudge through the snow. It is the season of Easter, and in the little town of Tranquilité everyone can be found at Church. They are observing the beginning of Lent. Vianne and her daughter Anouk are meeting Armande Voizin. Vianne is buying her patisserie – turning it into a surprise shop. I’m sure we can all deduce what the surprise is. Burt this is not a thriller. There is an early scene that shows us Vianne’s character. It occurs when the town’s Mayor, Comte de Reynaud comes to visit her. He invites her to Sunday Service as she cleans the patisserie. She turns to him and smiles. We don’t go to church. This is the beginning of the major issue. Tranquilité is a town of religion. The Comte has a problem on his hands. And the solving of that problem is the story of Chocolat.

There is a nice scene early on. A nice montage begins as Vianne sets up her shop. It is underscored with some delightful music from Rachel Portman. Some little boys peer into the unfinished shop to see just what Vianne is doing in there. I heard she’s an atheist, one boy says. Another answers confused, What’s an atheist? The reply? Don't know? And with the opening of the Chocolaterrie everything begins to change in Tranquilité.

The beauty of Chocolat lies in the performance of Juliette Binoche as the protagonist. Juliette is one of the most effervescent European actresses and her work in The English Patient is my favourite Female Supporting Performance of the 90s. In Chocolat she does not have as profound a role as Hana, but it’s nice to see her play just for the romance. She is a major part of the reason that Chocolat is not just a flimsy film. It’s a showcase for her, and she elevates her character. I really enjoyed her performance. It’s not an ostensible comedy, but it’s just completely relaxing and enjoyable.

Of course, even though this film is a complete showcase for her, she does not do it all alone. Alfred Molina is wonderful as the Comte. It’s not a villainous role; the Count is just an extremely pious man. I love the scene where he’s fasting for Lent and he smells a piece of bread to assuage his hunger. It’s endearing. Judi Dench does her Mrs. Henderson shtick for the first time here, and she’s deliciously entertaining. I love Judi Dench in this mode, and it's my favourite supporting performance from her. Lena Olin and Carrie Ann Moss do well. Pitted against Binoche and Dench, they do not illuminate the screen...but they do the best with their roles. And despite some less that perfect scenes, there are moments of pure delight...and they have great chemistry with the cast. Hugh O'Conor in a throwaway role as a learning priest is quite good, if only showing the promise of what he could have become. And, then of course there is Mr. Depp. Notice I didn’t talk about his role in the film. If you haven’t seen it, I’ll leave it for you to see. Juliette and he seem like such an unlikely couple, but they’re sizzling together.

However, an important part of the film though, often forgotten are the two children Aurélien Parent-Koenig  as Luc Clairmont and Victoire Thivisol as Anouk and.... despite not being a children’s film, there is much about children in the film…and they do well in their respective roles. Of course it’s nothing like Jamie Bell did in Billy Elliot that same year, but its nonetheless impressive.

Of course Chocolat and its pat resolution are not mirrors of real life. But that does not make it any less enjoyable as a film. Where is this utopian Tranquilité? Nowhere that I know. Where the only faults of people are being too good? This is not life...it's a stolen season. But movies are not always to be real, sometime they can just be a perfect relaxant something to take us away from our troubles.

I don’t think that the people who dislike the movie dislike it for itself. They dislike it because it earned five Oscar nominations including Best Picture. I have no problem with Chocolat’s nomination as I love this movie. And what’s the funny is that the same people who hate this film’s nomination are pushing for Spiderman 2, The Dark Knight, Dick Tracy &etc to earn Best Picture nominations. Comic books adaptations are unrealistic, so why can't a non comic film be unrealistic too. Chocolat is not a badly made film, so don’t hate it, appreciate.

A few days ago through The Movie Blog, it came to my knowledge that there was a rumour spreading that Megan Fox was to be cast in Chris Nolan’s third Batman film as Catwoman. Can I just say? Kill me now. I refuse to dedicate a post to Megan Fox and all that she stands for. But it got me thinking, if Nolan did decide to continue his Batman venture [of which I’m not exactly a fan] who would be the perfect Catwoman? As such I decided to compile a list of nine potential Catwomen. This list is not exclusive, and some of these women definitely won’t be doing a Catwoman film. But it’s just wishful thinking...you know - wishing and hoping and... Well you get the idea?

I’m not sure how this would turn out. It’s probably just left over Buffy love. I don’t know if she’d really be able to go all Catwoman on us, but I really feel that somewhere, deep inside, there’s a good actress hiding... And why not start here?

Don’t ask WTF. Think about it. Amy is a pretty girl, in a somewhat unassuming way. We know she can go plain, but if you’ve seen her at awards you also know that she can look hot. She’s a good actress [see Changeling, Gone, Baby Gone] and we’ve never seen her go all sassy like Catwoman. I think she could do well in this role. I mean we didn’t think that Heath Ledger would make a convincing Joker.
                                  

Angelina is probably the least likely of all the ladies to actually take this role. Despite looking good for age Angie seems like too obvious choice I suppose; what with her Lara Croft background and all that. But I think she would work as Catwoman. She could do the role in her sleep. But she's so low because I doubt that they'd look to her.
                                 

I hate Underworld and all its spawn...but she's hot and she's not a bad actress either [Nothing But the Truth, The Aviator]...but is this too Underworld...probably. And I really can't see her and Christian Bale together...

Zoe is another acress in search of a killerrole. I’m not sure that she’s that great an actress, but I'm sure with a good role she could be impressive.
                                               

Is this a no go? I don’t know...but I’d like to see what Scarlett would do with this role. I know that it would be an unlikely choice. She doesn’t really look like a typical Catwoman...but I think she could be good. A different sort of choice, but Scarlett needs a good role.
                                     

Drew Barymore has some of the most luscious lips on any actress, and with her red hair she might be good in this. With Grey Gardens we can all finally say that she has at least some talent, and I would like to her and Bale face off. That would be hot. Very hot indeed.

I’m still waiting for Kerry to get a good role so that she can impress America. She’s pretty and she can play sassy well. And she’s not completely overexposed so there wouldn’t be any insurmountable expectations to overcome.
                                             

This is my favourite idea. An Asian Catwoman. Lucy Liu was smoking in Charlie’s Angels, regardless of what you thought of the venture as a film. She looks great in leather, and she was great in her bit role in Kill Bill. She would destroy this role.

So I finally saw Billy Wilder’s adaptation of Agatha Christie’s play Witness For the Prosecution and it was a thoroughly satisfying experience. It’s always great to experience old cinema and to see how different genres were treated in those days. After seeing this movie I was on the usual high that occurs after seeing any good film. At first I was tempted to include Witness For the Prosecution in my 100 Favourite Films, but I was still on that high. And I had to come down – it wasn’t until later that I realised that it is not as great a movie as it seems. It still is a really good movie – deserving each of its six Oscar nominations, and then some. But there is just that fractional margin that prevents it from being a masterpiece. And it is really is a small margin.
                                                                             

When an aging barrister, Wilfrid Robarts[Charles Laughton] suffers a heart attack his intrusive Nurse Miss Plimsoll [Elsa Lancaster] wants to prevent him from taking any cases that will be stressful and detrimental to his health. Despite being crotchety Rovarts realises that her advice is good, but when a most puzzling case falls into his lap he has no choice but to defend the unlikely suspect. The suspect is Leonard Vole [Tyrone Power], an out of work and would be inventor, who has recently befriended an older widow, who just so happens to be well off. When Mrs. French dies one night, evidently after a burglary, Leonard’s wife is certain that he will need a lawyer. This is how he ends up at Jones’ office. A congenial man, Leonard purports his innocence, not certain that he really is a valid suspect. But he is a valid suspect as an insurmountable amount of circumstantial evidence against him begins to row.

Well remember I did my list of top 25 Actors the other day, and I wrote an addendum that I had forgotten Willem DeFoe. Well there was still something nagging at me, I knew there was somebody else that I was missing...but who. Well it was Ethan Hawke. A bit silly that I missed him considering I'd just reviewed one of his films, but Ethan has become such a rarity on film. I was planning on dedicating a post to Ethan and then I remembered that he was eligible for this theme. The last two entries have been performances that were just a small fraction of a film's running time. But the worst type of Forgotten Character are those who have big roles, but are overshadowed by a costar in buzz or audience reaction. If you don't know what I'm talking about, it's

as Jake Hoyt

I'm not going to get into whether or not Ethan was as good as Denzel, that's unnecessary. And I'm biased, because I feel the same way about Denzel Washington as I do about Tom Hanks - overexposed and overhyped. But I digress...as usual. Ethan Hawke earned his only acting Oscar nomination for a Supporting role in this film. Taking place in one event filled day it tells the story of Jake a would be narcotics detective who embarks on the eponymous Training Day with a heavily heralded, more experienced policeman Alonzo Harris [Washington]. The day turns out to be nothing Jake expected as he learns that Alonzo may not be the good cop he seems to be.

I'm sure most of you have seen this film [it was the number one film at the box office in its releae] and if you haven't most of what I say would give away the plot. There is one scene in particular where I love Ethan. It's boring and kind of obvious, but its where he almost gets killed by some thugs and is literally begging for his life. He is just so believable and it's wicked scary too...seeing that we don't know what's going to happen. Ethan's nomination for this film was something of a surprise since no one saw it coming. But his role is more than just the stereotypical good guy he's been referred to as. In the greater scheme of things I suppose that Denzel's Alonzo will be more remembered, but that does not mean that Ethan's solid performance should be forgotten.

If I said it once, I said it a hundred times – I do not like Clint Eastwood…or his films. I despise him which is a rather strange thing to say. I’ve never met, he has not wrought any damage to my life or anyone I know, but I do. It’s probably because twice he and his films have won Oscars over my favourites. That being said, I love Mystic River. It is my favourite Clint Eastwood film – by a mile. I don’t feel as if he’s hitting me over the head with his moral shit – and more importantly – he’s not in it! That’s one of my main gripes about Clint – I hate his acting. But I’m getting off topic. Let’s get back to the Mystic.

Mystic River tells the story of three former childhood friends and how one event draws them together for with tragic results. This movie is actually pretty depressing to an extent, but it’s really, really good. The three mean are Jimmy (Sean Penn], Sean (Kevin Bacon) and Dave (Tim Robbins). It features each of these actors – almost – at the top of their game. I say almost because Sean Penn’s best, for me, will always be Dead Man Walking.

When Jimmy's  daughter is murdered one night it thrusts the three men together in ways they could never imagined. Years ago these men were best friends. Whilst playing on the streets one day Dave gets abducted by some men. We can only imagine what happens to him but it seems that he has been permanently damaged, even though after some time he does make an escape. This is the only glimpse we get of them as children because the scene fast forwards decades years later. Sean is the lead detective on the case and Dave, who is seemingly uninvolved was part of an alleged brawl the same night, coming home with blood on his hands.

Much of the power of the film lies in its wonderful screenplay and the denouement of events, so I will not say anymore, except, that it all makes for an extremely taut film.The cast is somewhat large. In addition to Tim, Sean and Kevin there are some vitally important supporting roles. Laurence Fishburne as a co-detective, Laura Linney as Jimmy's second wife but most important of all Marcia Gay Harden as the troubled wife of Dave.

As good as the men are in this movie - and they are really good. There is one performance that will always be great for me is Marcia Gay Harden. In case you didn’t know, I love her. I have not seen that many of her films, but I’ve seen enough. She’s a great actress. She should have won that second Oscar for her portrayal of Celeste in this movie. There’s that big scene at the end where her son is in this parade and not to give the plot away, but it’s all really sad and tragic and then she starts running, it’s my favourite scene from the movie. It’s no dialogue but just the look on her face it’s just so completely evocative and is some of the best actressing work. A true supporting performance for the ages. I figure a part of me is drawn to Marcia’s performance because of the backlash her character endures. If you scroll across the IMDB charts the amount of posters purporting her to be a bad wife is insurmountable. There is a telling scene where she goes to Jimmy and tells him something very important, but for all the wrong reasons. This is not a betrayal. This is a woman who is at her wits’ ends and who desperately wants not only to do the right thing, but to help her husband. This is really a difficult role and kudos to Marcia for a great performance.

I'm not going to go into Penn and Robbins, because what has not been said before. They're magnificent in their roles. That's really all I can say. But what about Kevin Bacon. He's not half bad. He's just as good as the two. He doesn't have that power role like the others, but his Sean is just as important. Sure, the recurring calls from his wife are a tad heavy handed, but Bacon does good. I like the look on his face at the end too, when he cocks an imaginary gun at Jimmy.You can see the sadness on his face. He knows all too well that they're not boys anymore.

This is a sad movie… I mean there are hundreds films with ostensibly sad endings but there’s always some sort of hope. This movie’s hope is insubstantial though, and I figure that’s where Mystic River fails. I can’t be sure, but I believe we’re supposed to feel the most for Jimmy and the tough decision he makes. And I do, to an extent. But at the end of the day the family I feel the most for is Celeste and Dave and the injustice done to them is just horrific. The entire film has been built up for us to feel Jimmy's side of the story...I'm all for a surprise ending, and the ending is a surprise indeed. I have not read the book, so I don't know, but in the movie you feel cheated that not only does the good finish last, but there seems to be no adequate character building for some characters. Notably Laura Linney's Annabeth who I just wanted to smash across the face.

Nevertheless, this is a terrific film. The acting is wonderful as is the writing…and Clint Eastwood’s unusually subtle direction works perfectly here. The cast, as mentioned earlier, are great. This is not a feel good film, though [those are so overrated]. But it’s a thought provoking one. Worthy of all the awards it won. This is why it's my #63.

In Contention has recently announced that plans to adapt Great Eepectations are underway. It's the first theatrical adaptation since David Lean did it way back when. A version I have, unfortunately never seen. I don't really like this novel that much to be honest. The abridged version scared the shit out of me as a child, for waht reason other than I was a freaky child...I do not know. I feel that adapting A Tale of Two Cities would be way cooler. But still, this could be good. Just because it's a British Period piece, and I am so a sucker for those. 

Having a strong cast for this will really be the cinch though, and the first thing that came to me is that they have to get Angela Lansbury as Mrs. Havisham. She would totally sink her teeth into that psycho role...and yes I do think Mrs. Havisham is a psycho.I like her, but she's still a psycho. But the main casting for this film will be Pip. The protagonist. And really I have no idea where they're going to go with this, but I'm going to prempt them and be all predictable and choose none other James McAvoy. Hell yes, he would be fantastic. Casting Estella - way more difficult. A young Helena Bonham Carter would have been ideal, but alas...life goes on and people get older. And I really have no idea. Whoever she is she's gotta be smoking.

What is it that people like about this movie [and I mean just this one and not the franchise]? What was it that made it one of the biggest films of 2003? Why were critics so impressed with it? Why or how did Johnny Depp manage to win a SAG award over pimped contenders like Sean Penn and Jude Law? These are all good questions, let me try to answer them.

Starring the aforementioned Depp with Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley, Pirates of the Caribbean is a Disney comedy film. Well I thought it was a comedy. But now I don’t know. The other day James was doing a list of potential action stars, and I commented that I’d like to see Keira [among others] in an action film. JD responded asking me what about Pirates of the Caribbean. Which got me thinking, is this an action flick? Is it a genre flick? I figure maybe I should back up and give you a plot rundown but if you don’t the plot…well…that’s just bad. Okay, fine. [You’re lucky I’m in a good mood.]

The film takes place during the time of colonisation in the Caribbean. While sailing to Jamaica with her father, the Governor, an adolescent girl happens upon a young boy unconscious boy floating on some wreckage. Elizabeth spies a necklace around his neck which she confiscates as the young boy is lifted unto the ship. Years later after some interesting machinations involving a rakish Captain Jack Sparrow we come to realise how Will ended up that wreckage as a child. Enough plot.
Standing at the top of Pirates of the Caribbean and its success is Johnny Depp. I believe this is the best performance that Depp has ever given. As the dashing Jack Sparrow with a slightly drunken flair there isn’t any self consciousness or any suggestion of trying too hard. It’s just ludicrous, over the top and deliciously fun. I was all for Sean Penn in Mystic River and Jude Law in Cold Mountain that year, but had Johnny Depp won, I won’t have minded at all. I don’t think anyone can deny the magnificence of this performance.

What I hate about people who remember this movie, though, is that the supporting performances are so often criticised. This movie is not supposed to be a game changer in terms of acting [Depp is just good like that], so why complain that Knightley and Bloom bring nothing new to their roles. They’re perfectly effective as the young couple. We’re supposed to feel three things. That Will Turner is too good to be an apprentice, Elizabeth Swann is more than a pampered rich girl, and that the two belong together. I don’t know about you, but I believed all that. And though the script was not bad, the treatment of their romance was not as prolific as the treatment of Jack’s escapades. So of course it pales in comparison. But the movie’s called Pirates of the Caribbean, Lovers in the Caribbean. Geoffrey Rush is also great as the token villain in the film.

The reason that it never occurred to me that this was an action film is probably the setting. A period piece action piece? Surely you jest! The film is beautiful to look at – the art direction, the costumes, the visual effects, the cinematography are all eye catching…and it sounds good too [props to the sound mixing]. Even technically this is a good film. And the special effects are not those that bang on your head like those horrid Transformer films. It's all done with a level of sophistication that belies Jack Sparrow's intention.

If you're one of those rare persons who've never seen this movie, I'm not giving away the plot...and if you are one of those rare persons who have not seen this movie...go out and get it NOW. It's a good film, and it'll keep you occupied for two hours and more. This film makes people happy and for something that's enjoyable and is well acted and produced...that's a rarity. I think that's a large reason for the rabid following that the film has picked up...and imagine all this in a Disney film. Really?

Pirates of the Caribbean was one of the films that I seriously considered including in my top 100 films. It did fall short [it’s in my 200].

So were you bowled over by the Pirates? Did you look and walk away? Do you think this is an action movie?

I've slept, I've woken and I still have Katharine on mind. Katharine Hepburn is my favourite actress of all time. I honestly believe that she is the greatest, most talented, most formidable female talent to grace the screen of the silver screen. Katharine is what one would call the quintessential leading lady; and as such I think of most leading female performances in terms of Kate. This got me thinking, if some of Kate’s films were to be remade which actress would play her. Of course I am against remakes, especially of Kate’s treasures. But it’s still an interesting thought. Here are some of her more acclaimed roles.

If there’s anything that Julianne Moore is notorious for, it’s for being a very bad mother. So this film would be right up that ally. Mrs. Venable is a character created by Tennessee Williams, one of his legendary malevolent Southern Belles. When her son dies in suspicious circumstances on an island she tires to perform a lobotomy on her niece who witnessed the death. It’s a truly horrific roles and one of those very unsympathetic characters. I think Julianne would succeed magnificently with this killer role. And we get to see her in period clothing again. Yay.

Susan Sarandon. No one else. For me, Susan remains the quintessential maternal figure in cinema. It’s not that she’s done many mother roles, she just has the bright tenderness in her acting style, and this role would be great for her. Of course this is one movie that definitely will not be redone, I’m almost sure about that. But still it would be nice to imagine Susan digging into this. To be honest I just want to see Susan back on screen. Hopefully her role in The Lovely Bones is worthy of her talent. But I want to see her in a leading role.


Two words. Joan Allen. Joan Allen is a good actress. An actress who by now should have an Oscar and an actress who looks very gorgeous for her age of 53. Summertime tells the story of [Jane Hudson ] an American tourist, a spinster, who goes to Italy to experience the beautiful place. She falls in love with the city and with an Italian shop owner, who may or not be a suitable companion. Not many persons know of this film, which sucks, but there’s still chance of it getting remade. Still Joan Allen, I believe, would be a good choice for the role. She hasn’t done anything quite like this before, which would give her the chance to show her change…and the last period piece I remember her in had her looking way too plain.

I wrote sometime back in IMDB that if this was to be remade Annette Bening and Warren Beatty would be great together. But it’s been a while now, and Warren Beatty is getting older every minute. It still would be great to see Annette Bening tackle this role. Of course this is another one of those iconic films that will never ever be touched. And it’s good that way. But still I like to imagine there is at least one good performance left in her, and this is a killer role. Off topic, I know...but Oscar totally got it wrong that year. Kate should have won the Oscar over Vivien Leigh and of course Brando deserved it way more than Bogart. Ah well. They all have Oscars at the end of the day...

Don't forget to VOTE

With following blogs...

I am currently following 81 blogs. Any blog that I come across that takes my interest...or not...I follow them. Just because I like to read. But it's getting sort of ridiculous. I'm on line ALL THE TIME. And when I'm not online, I'm thinking about being online. What the hell is going to happen when school opens? Is there somewhere I can go for Bloggers Anonymous. I think I am officially addicted.

As you should know by now, it's the seventieth anniversary of The Wizard of Oz - one of the most beloved films. I'm not sure if this was the first film I saw, but I know that Judy Garland was definitely the first woman [girl?] on TV I fell in love with. Anyhow, I felt bad that my nephew had never seen it. He likes music, he likes animals and he loves color. So, since I'm usually the one that gives him movies [he's five] and he has watched some stuff that was definitely not meant for a five year old [Sweeney Todd, Chicago, bits of Howards End, Big Fish etc]...he's a good sport but I really don't think it's appropriate cinema... but I digress. Today I went to the DVD store...well the one closest to me to get a copy of The Wizard of Oz. A young girl [she's probably about 18] asked me to repeat. Thinking "WTF" to myself, I did. She did some typing into her system and then asked me if I meant, The Muppets' Wizard of Oz. You know that cringe inducing crap with that wannabe singer Ashanti.

"No!" I said, annoyed. "The movie Wizard of Oz, the musical, with Judy Garland, from the 30s."
She frowned, then said "Sorry, we don't have that."


Don't think I'm making this up because I ain't. I wish I was. I'll just go downtown and get it somewhere else tomorrow. But I think that girl has to mentally ill. How can anyone not know about this movie? Tsk. Tsk.

Anyhow...check out these posts.
Movies Kick Ass Blog takes a look at the reception to the film in 1939
Movie Mania wishes it happy birthday [and I must say straight men love Judy Garland just as much]
In Contention gives ten Top Ten Lists it should be on
Film Experiene takes a look at that one iconic song

First Group
Spencer Tracy
Peter O'Toole
Warren Beatty
Richard Burton
Jude Law
Leonardo DiCaprio
Ralph Fiennes

Second Group
Cary Grant
Christopher Walken
Daniel Day Lewis
Marlon Brando
James Dean
Brad Pitt
Jon Voight
Ed Harris

Group Three
Montgomery Clift
Johnny Depp
Anthony Hopkins
Sean Penn
Russ Tamblyn
Albert Finney
Jack Lemmon
William Hurt
Dustin Hoffman
Philip Seymour Hoffman

If you ask someone what they remember about 1997 they’ll say Titanic if they’re honest. If they want to go against type they’ll say Boogie Nights, and if they’re a ''serious'' film enthusiast they’ll say L.A. Confidential. All of these films are great but one film I wish would get some remembrance for being wonderful in 1997 was Gattaca, one of my favourite science fiction films and #97 on my list of 100 favourite films.

Gattaca is thoroughly science fiction film, there is not other genre it could be placed in. It takes place somewhere in what may or may not be the near future. The world has become so technologically adept that parents are able to choose what type of children they want so that their offsprings are as perfect as possible. In this perfect world, of course these perfect specimens are the ones who get the superior jobs and they’re the ones who are respected in society. Enter Vincent, played by a brilliant Ethan Hawke. Vincent is an imperfect with a weak heart. According to science he should be dead by now. All his life he has lived as a degenerate with no respect from the world. Ignored by his parents in place of younger, perfect brother he has lived life in the shadows. But like the typical dreamer he has big aspirations; his are of becoming an astronaut. With his imperfect background these hopes are essentially unattainable. With the help of some underground personnel [Tony Shaloub in a deliciously cameo] he meets Jerome a miserable perfect who has experienced a crippling accident. With Jerome’s genes makes attempts to win the respect of this perfect world and a perfect woman played by Uma Thurman.
I don’t know what it is about this film that makes me love it so much…but I can guess. First there’s Ethan Hawke. He is one of the most underrated actors in the industry right now being recently notoriously snubbed for one of the best male performances this century in Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead. Vincent is not a showy character, so I can understand why recognition is not wrought for his performance in the film. But the beauty of the film rests on his shoulders. His Vincent is an everyman character. We root for him. He’s not annoyingly good, he’s not exceptionally good looking, but he’s relatable. We want Vincent to win, and seeing that most of the suspense in the film comes from whether or not Vincent will succeed Hawke does a good job.

With Ethan Hawke as the lead, the producers needed to cast an actor who would be the epitome of perfection…and they couldn’t have done worse than Jude Law. This is the first Jude Law film that I remember seeing and I was very impressed with his performance. I guess some would want to say that he was showboating, and maybe he was. But the performance demanded it. Jude’s tortured character is an important part of the film and his rapport with Ethan Hawke is impressive. There is a finale scene where the crippled Jerome drags himself up some stairs and the acting on Jude’s part is truly heart wrenching.

Where the film is not as strong for me though is with Uma Thurman’s role. Uma does a good job of playing Irene, a perfect woman whom Vincent falls in love with. The character seemed a bit undeveloped and it didn’t allow Uma to do as much as she could have. As is typical with so many science fiction films the women are little less than ornamental figures. Uma, as she usually does, makes her character [the only notable female] as strong as she can, but the film is not particularly working in her favour. Still, it doesn’t spoil the entire success of the narrative.

Gattaca is a superbly directed film. With the tight shots and the quick editing the pacing is wonderfully. It’s enjoyable and yet it’s not a vacuous experience. It’s a sci-fi flick, but it’s not some action ridded drivel lacking in plot. Despite being a big fan of a certain guy called Oscar, I have realised by now that goodness is not synonymous with Oscar, but this film deserved recognition from any awards ceremony.

Jude and Ethan really gave great performances and the in the face of the weak male performances that year it’s unfortunate that they didn’t gain any buzz. Of course, this was the 90s when science fiction had no correlation with awards worthy. But even better than the acting, the technical aspects of Gattaca are its strong points. From the bleak and almost repressive set design and costumes, the cinematography and editing, the sound and most important the haunting score. It’s regrettable that only the Art Direction received any Academy Award nominations. But no matter, this is still a great film…a great film that unfortunately has become forgotten. If you haven’t seen it, do so, something will impress you?

Have you seen Gattaca? What did you think? Or what science fiction films do you like?

I am obsessed with Katharine Hepburn. In the seven months I’ve started this blog, I’ve not highlighted my idiosyncrasies. Today the idea came to me that Katharine Hepburn rocks. More than I have already acknowledged to myself. As such, I’ve decided to hold the Katharine Hepburn Awards which will be completed by September 25th. The rules are simple, all of Kate’s films face off – the screenplays for each, her leading men, her supporting men, her featured women, the director. You vote for five nominees in each of the categories. You’ll be given two weeks…and then it’ll continue like a normal Awards race. I’ll count the nominees…post them sometime during the second week in September and then you’ll vote for your winner each category. It’s simple. Oh, I forgot to say, vote for five only and please be honest.

Thank you very much for voting, spread the word as much as you can – I want this to be as diverse as possible. Do you like the idea? Are there any other categories I should add? Which actors deserve their own awards? Speak up!