Johnny Simmons

I’m not even going to interject on the state of current animation where Pixar has the definitive monopoly. Because, really, what would be the point. What’s kind of weird, though, is that with Pixar recognised as the authority on the form there seems to be a kneejerk reaction to animation from any studio. I was immediately interested in Hoodwinked. Its somewhat original take on the classic “Little Red Riding Hood” reminded me in some ways of Stephen Sondheim’s fairytale-mindf*** of sorts “Into the Woods”. I don’t care to lie, naturally the presence of the legendary Glenn Close didn’t hurt any. I’m not especially skilled in the visual arts so perhaps pay as close attention to animated form as many, I’m mostly interested in the story – and it was there that Hoodwinked landed its very first homerun.

Hoodwinked turns the generally cut and dry tale of children disobeying rules into a whodunit film. Turns out that the wolf may not be the one guily after all – we thus go on a number of vignettes assessing all the parties involved involved. From the not so hospital grandmother, to the very astute Red, the bumbling wolf, the boorish woodcutter and a disconcerting forest creature. If you look hard enough the big reveal at the end of the film is not that difficult to guess, but Hoodwinked works because it’s so hilarious along the way. The concept of looking at appearance and reality perhaps isn’t that poignant because – really – don’t all films try to include that as an overreaching arc? Still, it works especially for Hoodwinked because fairytales are practically begging for close perusals with all their red herrings. Edwards does a good job of turning the generally bland tale (“Little Red Riding Hood” is an awful story) into something interesting and even witty at times.

Yes, the final act has some issues but the resolution ends up working despite that. The voicework is brilliant, not only Close who I'm a big fan of. I'm usually less than pleased with Anne Hathaway but she 's hilarious as Red managing to read off her lines with the perfect tinge of sarcasm. James Belushi and David Ogden Stiers are two other standouts. I’m sure many people didn’t care to give Hoodwinked a chance when it opened in 2005, the reviews weren’t that positive. But I have no faith in Rotten Tomatoes. I saw it, and I liked it – I’m probably alone on that,but I think five years after the fact would be a good time for critics to reassess the initial antipathy towards this one. I don't think they'll be sorry...

Woody Allen is a bit of anomaly himself. His work is always tinged with what seems like wild abandon while still retaining that obvious smidgen of self conscious that makes you aware that he’s very aware that you’re aware of all the little tics he’s giving his characters (in terms of dialogue). His attempts at being self-effacing work as much as they don’t and it’s probably why he’s most “suited” for comedy (though I’ve still to see a number of his important dramas). Match Point is every bit like that, and the fact that it’s protagonist and de facto female lead are consciously and deliberately using their words to trap us only make the film seem a little smug, but I like smug. Early on Chris asks Nola Rice, “What did I walk into?” After a sudden turn of events she replies almost immediately, “What did I into?” By this time, the audience is probably wondering the same thing and it’s too Woody’s credit (but not his alone) that we leave the film still uncertain of what we’ve just taken part in.
Match Point is not a rags-to-riches tale, though such a description could suffice for a time. Chris is a personable and ambitious young man who temps as a tennis trainer; he meets an affable rich girl and strikes up a romance and steadily climbs in her father’s company as he overcomes the troubles in their marriage. The end? Yes, but not the whole story. Nola Rice is a struggling actress and the girlfriend of Chris’ brother-in-law. She’s temperamental and American and nothing suitable for this British upper-class family. Like Chris she’s an outsider, unlike Chris she’s not that good of an actor. Unsurprisingly, they’re drawn to each other and their relationship turns Match Point into many things – a melodrama (perhaps), a fantasy (likely), a tragedy (to a point), a thriller (always), a whodunit drama (maybe, maybe not). But Match Point isn’t interested in being part of a genre. It is similarly like and unlike anything we’d usually see in the cinemas. It was moderately successful upon its release and months later its brilliance had waned (according to the public at least). It went from a potential Oscar dark horse, to a nominee for its screenplay – nothing more. Yet I’d list Match Point easily among the decade’s best. Woody’s writing is a staple; I sincerely believe there’s nothing that he cannot do. His writing is so good we tend to forget how adept he is at bringing out the best in his actors (see Wiest, Farrow, Tilly, Keaton), and if the house of Match Point is built on Woody’s words then the acting is everything else.
I have been a fan of Scarlett Johansson for a long time, before it was the cool thing and after it was the cool thing. I still consider her to be one of the best actresses in her age bracket. Her problem, like so many is realising her strengths. She is more resourceful than we realise (just look at the three performances Woody has led her to) but Nola Rice is the perfect creation for her. It’s the sort of woman we don’t know when to trust (if at all) and Johansson’s natural cadence works well even in moments where Woody almost falters (e.g. that coffee shop confession piece plays like a gem despite it’s script issues). What do I know? Maybe she is playing herself? But what the hell do I care when she’s playing it so excellently? She doesn’t have the shouting voice so Woody’s words let her get all those soft line readings in just beautifully. I wonder if erred on Wednesday in leaving her pairing with Jonathan Rhys Myers off the list of beautiful screen couples. When Woody has Chris say “Has anyone told you you have very sensual lips?” I can’t help rolling my eyes. Just look at them, for god’s sake. Ugh, they’re gorgeousness makes me sick.
Looking in from the outside Match Point’s payoff shouldn’t work, but I’d be the first to tell you that it does – excellently. Jonathan Rhys Myers is talented (even though I forget sometimes) he’s doing excellent work on The Tudors and with the exception of maybe Woody himself (and perhaps John Cusack) he’s my favourite Woody leading man. It’s not a popular choice, but each of Rhys Myers strange acting idiosyncrasies (his penetrating stare is a bit scary at times) works perfectly for Chris. The supporting cast don’t stand out as much as most Woody films, but Brian Cox and Emily Mortimer particularly are delights to watch, well as delightful as one can be in such a dryly humorous tale. Anyone who says Woody's heyday finished in the nineties is clearly not paying attention.

         

…and I’m not talking about The Nightmare Before Christmas, which he didn’t even direct. I’ve said it before, I’m a fan of Burton even though I don’t love his work wholly. He’s no Scorsese – but, few are. The man has issues, but I think credit should be given where it’s due. It’s ironic somehow that my two favourite Burton pieces are two that I rarely hear people championing. I admitted my love for Big Fish before, and the 2005 magnum opus (I kid you not) that was Corpse Bride appears in my list of favourite films. It holds the distinction of being my favourite animated film. It’s probably not incidental that Corpse Bride features Helena Bonham Carter and Johnny Depp – mainstays of Burton’s filmography. The film introduces us to a young man, something of a simpleton, set to be married. Whilst practising his vows in the forest he mistakenly gives the eponymous Corpse Bride the impression that she is the object of his desire – and thus, the drama ensues.

When we think of things that are Burton-esque thoughts of dark, somewhat macabre humour are evoked. We recall dark and gloomy sets with nary a piece of light, and of course we imagine a fascination with death and such things. Corpse Bride serves up all, and I suppose it’s easy to mistake it for Burton’s lack of wit or unoriginality. Perhaps, but each time I watch this film I’m constantly amazed at the complexity and sensitivity that Burton manages to infuse in an eighty minute animated tale. The atmospheric nature of it probably means that children will be diverted by the look of it, but Corpse Bride is not about the aesthetic – at least, not alone. Helena Bonham Carter is someone I’m very fond of, and her incarnation of the Corpse Bride is the strongest work she’s done alongside Burton – but for the whole animation glitch. There’s something profoundly real about the deliberate self-delusions she yields to and it’s precisely why the film is named after her, even if it takes some time for us to actually meet her. Her poignant departure from the film always moves me, even if it’s just a little too pat.

Speaking of that “pat” ending, I’m well aware that Corpse Bride is not without its glitches – but I suppose the fact that I like it despite them (or maybe because of them) that makes it a favourite of mine. It’s maddeningly short, so that just as you’re about to experience the first swallow of contentment it’s all over. And of course, because it’s animated, there’s the rare penchant to infuse it with some inane form of physical comedy, but Corpse Bride triumphs nonetheless. As someone who’s openly (but not on the blog) disliked Wallace & Grommit I consider it a great disservice to animation and Tim Burton that Corpse Bride lost that Oscar 2005. But, then again, isn’t that the usual? The decade ends and with its apparent sleight of hand in animation everyone remembers Pixar only and the odd Shrek or Fantastic Mr. Fox. When Coraline **came out least year (#3 of 2009) I championed it for its atmospheric similarities to Corpse Bride. Coraline didn’t win the Oscar either, so I guess Corpse Bride isn’t bad company…but it’s unfortunate that it’s rarely remembered when we stop to talk about the aughts and how it changed animation for the better. Corpse Bride is a proud entry in my list of favourite films at #32. Hopefully, I’m not the only one who remembers it with such fondness.

Comedy. It’s become a loaded word when we thing of critics, and award ceremonies and all that jazz. I’ll be honest, drama is my thing. Still, I do like a good comedy performance as much as the next guy. I just don’t like slapstick. For me, comedy constitutes more than the tritely humour we’ve become accustomed to, and in some ways I suppose there is little hilarity to be found in this entry. It is the final entry though, I’ve been covering the women who impressed me most this past decade and in many ways this was a no-brainer. I feel no sense of reluctance to call it my favourite of the last decade, and it is also my favourite comedic performance of the last decade.

                

It’s one of those prosaic rules to film – when we see an actor drinking alone and watching television we know they’re a drunk. It’s the same with Terry Ann Wolfmeyer. Her husband has disappeared with his wallet and passport one morning; he was being released from his job in the near future and the Swedish secretary he’s been eyeballing just happened to have left the country at the same time he disappears. Terry knows she’s been left. She’s not whiner, and she’s not a softie. She is direct, abrasive, grounded…in fact – she’s a bit of a bitch. For better or worse. Sure, her daughter Popeye tells us that she used to be the nicest woman in the neighbourhood. We don’t care about that, because we can’t be certain that that’s true. Terry is a woman good and angry.

                          

Each time I watch this film I realise more and more how evenly spread the narrative is. The first time I watched my memory was of Joan only and it’s not until much later I realised that the film is not completely focused on her Terry as she would have you believed – but that’s to her credit. The film is diverting, but imperfect. Still, when the screen catches her Joan commands it and turns it into brilliance. There’s a scene in the middle of the film that’s not really as good as Joan makes it. Her daughter Hadley is graduating from college and breaks the news of her pregnancy and imminent wedding. Terry is – of course – aghast. She’s even more incensed that the groom’s parents have been ecstatic about the news for some time. “How long have they been ecstatic,” she asks her daughter who seeks to evade the question. “DAMN YOU, HADLEY! HOW LONG HAVE THEY BEEN ECSTATIC?” Off the top of my head, this is somewhere among my favourite line readings of the decade. Joan is completely in touch with the woman she plays and as Terry storms through an embarrassing engagement party of sorts we never miss the chance to empathise with this woman even when she’s at her most shrewish.

                    

It’s like the way she approaches the relationship with Denny. We can almost see Terry close up every time the stakes get high and Denny implies something more than just cheap, meaningless (drunken) sex. It’s one of the things that Joan is excellent at, actually. She is fully capable of giving us a fully nuanced performance even when she says nothing. I love her line readings to death, but she doesn’t need them to be excellent. There’s the scene where the camera pans around the dinner table in a circle and Terry imagines her daughter’s boyfriend’s head blowing up, her response is an eerie smile. It’s an excellent response for Terry from Joan, so true and yet so funny and she never milks it too much even when it seems a tad too ridiculous – the incoherent mutterings she utters as she sees her teenage daughter in bed with a man a few years her junior. Then, there’s the glibness of her expression and the coolness of her voice as she utter lines like – “I’ll be in the kitchen finishing dinner. Maybe you can come in and help me. Who knows? You may get there in time to pull my head out of the oven.”

            

I like The Upside of Anger way more than I should. It depends on a twist that really has no business being there, but yet I find that it works so well. I should take this moment to point out that the entire cast is excellent – Alicia Witt, Erika Christensen, Keri Russel, Evan Rachel Wood, Mike Bender (the writer and director) and an understated Kevin Costner. Joan plays off each of them excellently but even then, we don’t care because the film belongs to her and her alone. In fact – the entire decade does, as far as I’m concerned. It’s a performance like no other.

                

One of the best ways for us to take notice of an actor is when they play two characters simultaneously, or perhaps that’s an inaccurate summation. But let’s look at performances like Baxter in All About Eve or Streisand in Funny Girl. After pivotal character changes it’s as if both women begin playing different people. Still, neither of them has it as difficult as this next entry.

       

2005 was my least favourite year of the decade for many reasons. It was a weak year for films and the consensus of the Award Ceremonies that year was (for the most part) quite generic. I still am glad that Philip Seymour Hoffman won for his Capote since I think the performance is incredible. But he plays second fiddle to Mortenson in Cronenberg’s polarising film. Tom Stall is a local restaurant owner and with his quiet, polite, unassuming manner he’s the epitome of sagely goodness in his Millbrook community. This all changes when two gangsters attempt to rob their store and with a precision that’s almost chilling Tom kills them. It’s a given that Tom is not who he pretends to be, and A History of Violence is a film that functions excellently as a top-notch thriller as well as a heightened character study – Viggo Mortenson has much to do with this.

Viggo Mortenson is an actor who can be charismatic without being overwhelming. There’s a quietness to his charm and he uses this to great effect in A History of Violence. He is a man who is caught between two worlds – his past and his present and unease in Mortenson’s face is palpable as he moves through the middle of the film. It’s the quieter moments of Viggo’s performance that impress me more. The effusive devotion to his family is piercing and Mortenson is a particularly subtle actor using his eyes as much as he uses his body to establish his point. He works excellently against Bello and the moments where he must confess to his sins is excellently done. That’s not to say that when he returns to the world of Joey Cusack he isn’t as good. There is the constant hint of something more sinister below, but even as he returns to his brother we never see Viggo go completely assassin like, Tom Stall remains as a part of him and Viggo stresses this in his movements as we sense the reluctance to become Joey again.

It’s weird about this performance, because it’s essentially about the physicality of Tom/Joey. Viggo must convinces us of his agility and his skill in killing people but it’s his facial expressions that work the most. That final dinner scene is excellently played as Viggo reacts superbly to his surroundings. I’m glad Seymour Hoffman won because he was second choice but it’s a crime that Viggo Mortenson went snubbed in 2005 since none of the nominees that year (not even Capote) displayed this level of skill.

The cool guys over at Ross v Ross invited me, along with a couple other bloggers to battle out the 2005 Picture race with them. It was fun, even though I suppose I had the easy task of defending Brokeback Mountain. Check it out here. Did you think that of the five Brokeback Mountain was obviously the best, or do you disagree with me?

I recently started counting down my favourite (male) performances of the last decade, so on to the females. 2005 was my least favourite year cinematically speaking of the decade, though there were a couple of performances that shone a ray of light on the darkness. Don’t forget spoilers are ahead.

         

The Constant Gardener was a film that I (unlike most) was very fond of. The gardener of the title was Ralph Fiennes playing a character he knows all to well – the introverted English man. Justin Quayle. Tessa begins a tempestuous romance with Justin and travels with him to Africa. Before their journey, though Rachel already establishes Tessa as a formidable woman and as a strong character.

                  

Her first meeting with Fiennes’ Justin is brilliant. Justin, a diplomat, is holding a meeting. He is as a calm as the clichéd Englishman and he is surprised and attracted by Tessa’s inhibition. 

Sir, I've just got one question. I just wondered whose map, um, is Britain using...when it completely ignores the United Nations and decides to invade Iraq? Or do you- do you think...it's more diplomatic to bend to the will of a superpower...and-and politely take part in Vietnam, the sequel?

It’s important that this is how Mereilles let us meet her since it’s a major part of her character. Tessa is one of those women we imagine only exists in the imagined world – she completely believe in the greater good and as she debates with Justin about the demerits of diplomacy it’s fascinating to see Weisz’s eyes sparkle. Moreover, it’s also interesting to note how she is so much softer during the quiet moment in between.  There romance is unorthdox, but not unbelievable. Tessa’s journey grows when the two meet Africa. Tessa is a completely free spirit and even though we know that, it always surprises when Weisz burst forth with some discourteous comment on the social affairs in the country. Not even Justin is completely used to her, even though he is the perfect gentleman, throughout.

The scope of the African nation shown is formidable and Mereilles’ use of camera is important here. Moreover Weisz’s sincere chemistry with the African children is beautiful to watch. In fact a favourite moment of mine regards the relationship between them. After losing her child we see Tessa at her lowest. This is not the vigilant woman we’ve come to know and love, but a broken woman. When Justin comes to see her, she’s holding an African new born in her arms. I love her line readings – This one was born healthy, though. Weren't you, my beautiful, beautiful darling? His name is Baraka. It means blessing.

Still, below all its politics The Constant Gardener is a love story, albeit an atypical one. That’s one of the reason the film never fails to impress me. Justin and Tessa’s relationship is not the classic one of romance. He is unable to emote and she is too caught up in her work, and yet the two share true feelings for each other. The quiet moments when Fiennes and Weisz share the screen are beautiful to watch. I always note that Fiennes is never unwilling to give the floor to his female co-stars and Weisz does excellently opposite him.

Rachel Weisz’s task in The Constant Gardener was not simple. She had to create a woman so lovable, yet so infuriating and the candid script didn’t sugar-coat it. It’s so easy to see Tessa as selfish, as annoying but Rachel manages to create a nuanced and brilliant character. Fiennes grounds the latter half of the film, but we really do miss Tessa when she leaves, and that is all because of the excellent work done by Rachel Weisz. It’s a performance worthy of remembrance.

           
So, were you a fan of Rachel? Or did her Oscar win make you angry?

Forgotten Characters was probably the lone lucid feature that I had on my blog, even if I’ve done nothing to reignite it recently. I’m still ignoring the overwhelming chatter of Oscar predictions that abound but what better way to incite Forgotten Characters fever than by looking at someone who’s probably getting a nomination come Tuesday. A favourite of mine last year:

             

I’ve already waxed about my overwhelming affinity to Pride & Prejudice. I remarked that as far as the sisters go the show belongs completely to Ms. Knightley with Rosamund Pike as a worthy ally. The other sisters don’t get that much legwork, which of course is the reason for their forgotten status. Kitty is the youngest of the Bennett girls, most noted for being the ally of her sister Lydia, played by a pleasant Jena Malone [the fourth sister]. The film opens to the two chattering incessantly about the imminent Mr. Bingley. We see them as they shrieking anticipate the ball and along with their similarly vacuous mother go out to see the regiment marching, their own Elizabethan version of watching celebrities, I suppose.

Carey’s significant moment comes somewhere in the middle of the film, and is ridiculously silly. Lydia is offered the chance to go away for a Holiday and Kitty is both annoyed that she’s been denied a chance at this “adult” occasion and the thought of losing he rally. She descends into hysterics as Lydia maliciously chatters about the prospective experience. Carey is a good crier – as we saw in An Education – although here her crying needs to be definitively histrionic. It is. Hilariously so. Pride & Prejudice is the story of Elizabeth Bennett, not of the Bennett girls. However, Joe Wright crafts it all so beautifully that for some moment each of the girls gets their chance to shine. Nevertheless I still can’t think of Carey in it without remembering her and Jena Malone’s irrepressible giggling as Mr. Collins proposes to Eliza. And, I suppose, that’s how it should be.

                    

I studied Jane Austen in school and firmly believe that Pride & Prejudice is and was her finest work. It isn’t as sentimental as 'Sense & Sensibility' as allegorical as 'Mansfield Park' or quite as funny as 'Emma'; but it always represents, for me, the classic piece from Austen, it is beautifully written and although light in tone it is not flimsy. It is a wonderful piece of literature. Enter a fresh director looking to make his film debut, a beautiful young actress looking to prove her talent and a television writer ready to make her mark. And what do you get? …a thing of beauty...and #77 on my list of favourites.

                                                                    

I say it unabashedly: Pride & Prejudice was my favourite live action film of 2005 surpassed only by Tim Burton’s animated Corpse Bride. As I’ve said in previous writing, I love the British, especially on film. When a film is filled with incessant British chatter their just seems to be a special panache about it [re Gosford Park, Howards End, Sense & Sensibility in recent times]. For any film with heavy dialogue it needs a talented cast to pull it off. The casting begins and ends with the Bennett’s. The Bennett parents are casted to perfection with Brenda Blethyn and Donald Sutherland. A match made in cinematic heaven, but not for the obvious reasons. In the novel, Mrs. Bennett is a bit of neurotic fishwife who can sometimes be as vacuous as her teenage girls. Mr. Bennett a well mannered man of the books is sometimes annoyed at her relentless stupidity, but there are moments when we can see that they really are devoted to each other. That is something this casting is able to do perfectly. I did watch the 1995 miniseries version of Pride & Prejudice and this is one of the things that they could not capture from the novel. But in this 2005 experience we can believe that there was a time when there was no other attraction for Mr. Bennett. In a way their conversation at the beginning of the film sets the tone for the rest of the film.

                                                                                

Of course, though, the exemplary character of Pride & Prejudice is its heroine Elizabeth Bennett. I was always fond of Keira Knightley. She was never my favourite young star but she had shown what seemed like promise in the blockbuster Pirates of the Caribbean. With Pride & Prejudice she was able to realise this potential. One of the wonderful things about this film is indeed its casting. Unlike the previous incarnations of the story, this Elizabeth Bennett was actually close to the age of the original character. In fact Keira was exactly the same 20 years as Ms. Elizabeth Bennett. Her somewhat unconvential good looks made her a realistic Eliza and her charming personality makes her endearing and likeable. She’s not some overstuffed English duck. Elizabeth’s sisters are also well casted. In terms of acting the best of them is Rosamund Pike as the older Jane Bennett but the others are not casted badly either Lydia Bennettt [an irrepressible Jena Malone], Mary Bennett [an almost silent Talulah Riley] and Catherine Bennett [an underused Carey Mulligan]. It’s hard enough getting two persons seem like real siblings and for the most part the quintet are honest representatives of sisterly love.

                                                                              

Continuing with the female power Judi Dench is cast to perfection as the formidable Lady Catherine De Bourgh. In her two scenes Judi Dench is as terrible and commanding as she was in Shakespeare in Love proving why she is the go to person for British women over 50. But it really is something that Keira Knightley is able to hold her own against this awesome woman. It’s not that I expected her to fail, but this IS Judi Dench and I had just figured that her Elizabeth would quiver under the weight of such a talent. But surprisingly, the scenes with Dench are some of Knightley’s strongest and it shows why she has such promise as an actress. She plays off her costars and it’s obvious that the chemistry between Dench and her takes both their performances to greater heights, which is altogether wonderful for the film.

                                                                                    

The others, however, do not fare quite quite as well. Yes, Claudie Blakely as Elizabeth’s best friend does wonderfully as the plain Charlotte Lucas. Tom Hollander another cast member of Gosford Park is also well casted as Mr. Collins. Matthew McFayden as Fitzwilliam Darcy is both a blight and a delight as Darcy. I’m not sure what I expected his interpretation to be, and I figure it’s not that his interpretation was off – it’s just that he’s not a strong enough actor. There are some scenes where he’s surprisingly spot on.. There’s a scene – that’s really Keira’s, where she walks around the room with the young lady who plays Ms. Bingley. Their efforts are purported to be an attempt to find fault with Mr. Darcy. The scene is played wonderfully and despite not being the actual centre of it McFayden is good. But then there are some scenes like the famous dinner scene with Ms. Dench. McFayden seems little more than a prop piece. But it’s all good. He tries his best, and the few inconstancies do no not spoil the flow of the film.

                                                                               

One thing that comes dangerously close to spoiling the film though is the character of Mr. Bingley, played by Simon Woods. For some reason the character is played as something of an airhead. It does lead to some laughs in the first half, but at the end of the day the calm and unpretentious Rosamund Pike deserves someone way better, Mr. Bingley is supposed to represent the model of a conventional romantic hero a la Richard Burton whereas Darcy is a sort of antithesis a sort of a Paul Newman. Of course Matthew McFayden is no Newman, but he puts up a valiant effort. Bingley on the other did not particularly impress me.

                                                                      

I rather feel that Rupert Friend who played the roguish Mr. Wickham who in some scenes seems like a startling look a like to Orlando Bloom would have done a better job as Bingley. He has the sort of bland charm that we unearth from Bingley in the novel. But don’t feel that I’m trying to recreate the novel verbatim in the film. There are things excised from the novel for the film version. But the beauty of Pride & Prejudice is that it doesn’t feel truncated or incomplete.

                                                                 

There are two scenes in Pride & Prejudice that I absolutely love. In addition to the Judi Dench scenes mentioned above. There is a moment in the second half when Elizabeth receives a dreadful notice about her sister Lydia . She walks in and out of the room where her aunt and Uncle sit with Mr. Darcy. Unable to speak she is barely able to sputter the words out in tears. The second occurs towards the end. It’s a hot summer day and the house is lethargic. Jane has just sworn that she is over Mr. Bingley when a sister spies him coming to the house with that dreadful Mr. Darcy. The house flies into a flurry of quick cleaning to make themselves and the house presentable. It lasts less that a few minutes, but Ms. Bennet’s line Everybody act naturally is almost a theme for the film.

                                                                                                   

Pride & Prejudice is NOT a period piece of the usual type. In this period pieces the houses are not spotless, there are pigs in the houses, clothes hang on the line and are wet by the rain, the hems of our heroine is covered in mud and the cast really do act naturally. Don’t be a purist, and don’t stick to the book like some high priest. This film is wonderful. Approach it with a free mind and willing mind. I really don’t think you will be disappointed.

                                                                      

And here's my rundown of the major categories.

BEST PICTURE
Brokeback Mountain
The Constant Gardener
Corpse Bride
A History of Violence
Pride & Prejudice
That’s my top 5 – in alphabetical order. As much as I liked Brokeback Mountain, I didn’t like it near as much as most the world – blogging and otherwise. But I did believe that it was the best of the Oscar nominated best pictures. My favourite film of the year was Tim Burton’s Corpse Bride barely edging out Joe Wright’s debut Pride & Prejudice, of which I am an unabashed fan of. The Constant Gardener was in third with A History of Violence the fourth. Other than this five, I was impressed with King Kong and Matchpoint, both of which were great if not underrated films of that year. Walk the Line was in the running, too, close but no cigar…

BEST DIRECTOR
Woody Allen, Matchpoint
David Cronerberg, A History of Violence
Peter Jackson, King Kong
Fernando Mereilles, The Constant Gardener
Joe Wright, Pride & Prejudice
I’m never too certain of the relation between direction and animated, so Tim Burton came in sixth for me. My winner was Cronerberg for A History of Violence, which just barely superseded Mereilles for The Constant Gardener. Woody Allen’s work in Matchpoint [third] was unjustly ignored by all except the Globes as far as I can remember. Ang Lee and James Mangold were runner ups.

BEST CAST ENSEMBLE
Corpse Bride
The Constant Gardener
Matchpoint
Pride & Pride
Walk the Line
Pride & Prejudice won this hands down. Corpse Bride was second. Although this was an animated flick, the work of the cast was really important. Matchpoint collects third, although it’s not the typical Woody cast. Walk the Line really had some superb performance by the cast members especially Waylon  Payne who was superb as Jerry Lee. I’m tempted to say he was the best in show with his five minutes of screen time.

BEST ACTOR
Ralph Fiennes, The Constant Gardener
Philip Seymour Hoffman, Capote
Heath Ledger, Brokeback Mountain
Viggo Mortensen, A History of Violence
Joaquin Phoenix, Walk the Line

If 2005 was noted for anything in terms of film, it was the large number of oversights on behalf of the AMPAS and their nominees. Viggo Mortensen gave the best performance of his career in A History of Violence and after a somewhat a spotty precursor showing he failed to gain an Oscar nomination. Still, he was my pick for best actor followed by eventual Oscar winner Philip Seymour Hoffman who finally got that plum role to make everybody stand up and take notice. I was also quite impressed with Phoenix’s take on Johnny Cash. It was a good year for the actors though. In addition to my top Jeff Bridges, Russel Crow, Jonathan Rhys Myers and Terrence Howard were all outstanding somewhat in their respective leading roles that year.

BEST ACTRESS
Joan Allen, The Upside of Anger
Judi Dench, Mrs Henderson Presents
Keira Knightley, Pride & Prejudice
Reese Witherspoon, Walk the Line
Renee Zellweger, Cinderella Man

No one could outdo Joan Allen for me. Her performance in The Upside of Anger was one of my favourite leading performance of this century and she was unjustly ignored at almost every major award. This is probably the best thing she’s ever done and even manages to sell the iffy ending. Keira Knightley is someone else who gave her best that year with her take on Elizabeth Bennett. She was a delight to look at. Reese Witherspoon has not aged nicely in terms of esteem, but I still was a fan of this performance. It worked so well with her, because in many ways it was a romantic quasi comedy performance, which she has always excelled. Judi Dench rarely goes wrong as far as I’m concerned and although Zellweger got no notice I was impressed by her work in Cinderella Man, although she could get hammy at times. Laura Linney and Naomi Watts did good work in The Squid & the Whale and King Kong respectively. But Felicity Huffman and Charlize Theron who played the deglam card in Transamerica and North Country were not terribly moving as far as I was concerned.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Paul Giamatti, Cinderella Man
Jake Gyellenhaal, Brokeback Mountain
Ed Harris, A History of Violence
William Hurt, A History of Violence
Donald Sutherland, Pride & Prejudice

Oh why couldn’t AMPAS give Paul Giamatti the Oscar he so deserved for Cinderella Man? I honestly thought he was the best of the year, but alas he was shut out. At least the SAG awarded him. They couldn’t even pass the baton to Gyellenhaal who was just as impressive. It’s strange how he never became a contender, though. Hurt and Harris were both impressive in A History of Violence and Sutherland was the perfect paternal figure in Pride & Prejudice. Kevin Costner in The Upside of Anger and Terrence Howard in Crash were both impressive too.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Amy Adams, Junebug
Maria Bello, A History of Violence
Scarlett Johansson, Matchpoint
Catherine Keener, Capote
Rachel Weisz, The Constant Gardener

I didn’t have any problem with Rachel Weisz winning for The Constant Gardener. I was rooting for her all the way. Johansson and Bello were both wonderful in their, in some ways upstaging their male counterparts. Yet, both failed to gain notable awards traction and did not receive Oscar nominations. Catherine Keener did give a cameo on Capote, but it was still well done and Amy Adams was a delight in Junebug. No one else really did it for me in this category. Brenda Blethyn was fine in Pride & Prejudice, but she was overshadowed by her [many costars].

ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
Brokeback Mountain
Capote
The Constant Gardener
A History of Violence
Pride & Prejudice

ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
Cinderella Man
Crash
Matchpoint
The Squid & the Whale
Walk the Line

What was rocking your boat back in 2005? Any of these? None? Can you even remember? If you can, head over to Awards Circuit and place your vote. There’s not time like the present.

Coraline tells the story of a young girl who discovers a new world where everything, including her typically remiss parents are improved and incredibly doting...and world of perfection. But as with most things that seem perfect, she soon realises that it is too good to be true. The aftermath of this discovery is both funny and haunting in synchronicity. In looking at the wonder of the film we cannot undermine the contributions of the voice actor especially Teri Hatcher who is surprisingly spot on as the villain of Coraline. Although the general tone of Coraline is not as dark as Corpse Bride the overall theme may be more resonating for the adults watching which makes sense seeing that Coraline is something of a children’s story for adults.

I know that by the time fall comes around the good live action films [An Education, ShutterIsland, Nine, Bright Star], but I don’t think any animated film is going to impress me as much as Coraline did...and I pray to God that the Academy will reward it where they didn’t reward Corpse Bride, with an Oscar for Best Animated Feature.