Johnny Simmons

                

I’m not wholly smitten with the animated genre, but one of the reasons I loved the year 2009 to excess was because of the wide array of good animated films they had that year. My lateness in seeing Rango sort of represents my lateness in seeing almost every important 2011 flick. I didn’t go searching for reviews of it, but the quiet insistence that it was the first 2011 film to be assured of an Oscar nomination (for best animated flick) did pique my interest, somewhat. I couldn’t help but backtrack to 2009 when I was watching it, though. As a rule, I’m wary of animated films that become too overinvolved in having animals function as a stand-in for the film which becomes a spoof of a specific genre. The Fantastic Mr Fox is the exception to that, the situation works there because I’m much more willing to believe in the overall satiric nature of the situation there. With, Rango it’s a situation that’s much murkier.

 Rango is a chameleon with an overactive imagination who gets lost in the desert and through a series of well-intended lies becomes the sheriff of a town in need of hope and with a debilitating water shortage, which is even more of a problem because water is the town’s leading commodity. I’m not altogether against films with plots that are easy to surmise, so it’s not a problem that you immediately know where Rango is headed. You know, almost immediately, that he’ll be a part of a series of hijinks where happenstance will assure the ostensible veracity of his outlandish claims until that fateful moment when all will be revealed where he will endure moments of severe self-doubts and then return at the end to save the day. It’s not an inherent flaw of the film, I could spew off a number of films which follow the same plot – some of them animated, some of them excellent. What Rango seems to lack, most obtrusively is a sense of humour and it’s a situation that’s especially damning when your film seems intent on being billed as an animated comedy.

             

…Not that Rango is an altogether humourless venture, though. The entire venture is permeated with a great amount of sincerity in that the film retains a sort of honesty, despite its spoof-like qualities. But, for me, that’s the problem when, though its heart is in the right place, it’s a bit too dour even in its attempts at hilarity. As obvious a character as it is, Ilsa Fischer’s loquacious lizard is a source of good laughs as is the faux Greek Chorus of mariachi owls. The first half of the film, wrought with a series of lucky mishaps on the part of our protagonist are well delivered. I’ve generally lost interest in Johnny Depp as an actor and Rango does sort of emanate that same sort of lazy shtick he’s become known for, post Sweeney. For the most part, though, the sincerity of the venture wins out and it works until somewhere around the two-third mark when the film seems to experience a sort of standstill which turns into a series of exposition-heavy turgid scenes. There is a brilliant action sequence in the desert where a carriage chase ensues and it succeeds as excellently as it does because Rango is beautiful to watch. It reminds me of how underrated animated films are when it comes to things like art direction and cinematography. But, after the craziness of that chase, the film seems to reach a halt. It doesn’t reach the point of being an unrewarding experience, there’s just that constant refrain on the tip of my tongue that this is a movie that could have been brilliant.

                

In the larger scheme of things, it’s hardly a dismal conclusion because Rango is a thoroughly enjoyable experience. The animation is excellent and it occasionally rises to levels of smartness oft-forgotten in the animated medium. Is it assured of an Oscar nod? I don’t know. Maybe. I’m hoping for something a little better from animators this year, though.

       

There are few things more annoying than watching a film being praised for all the wrong reasons. More than that, it’s more exasperating how an unremarkable performance from a film can be praised while others remain in the background both literally and figurative. I suppose the fact that it wasn’t a big role accounts for its forgotten states, but I’m still especially fond of

I think we can all agree that Helena Bonham Carter was the best-in-show in Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland (reviewed here) and true, even those who’ve mistakenly (in my book) given support to Depp’s work in the film agree on that. What I wish they’d take time out to note is the fact that Crispin Clover’s second-in-command to the diabolical Red Queen easily emerges as the film’s most notable male performance. Bonham Carter has a terrifying screen presence that’s put to full use here and in all her tyranny Glover must be the diplomatic bridge between the Queen’s constant freak-outs and those she freaks out upon. Naturally, he himself has pent-up hatred for the Queen. Woolverton’s resolution to their relationship which only reinforces the poorness of the screenplay but watching Glover’s very slick Knave opposite Bonham Carter’s very fiery Queen is a treat. Because the Red Queen is so officious he ends up having to spend a great deal of time playing reactionary shots that he absolutely sells. There’s something a little creepy about him (put to excellent use in Charlie’s Angels), but he tempers the creepiness – and where the screenplay is doing nothing to help him out he creates the Knave as a very interesting anti-hero who you want to know more of.

                           

There’s that moment where Um, Alice in disguise is at the Red Queen’s lair – fine her castle – and there’s that confusion as to what her name is. Helena is just a treasure there, but it’s interesting watching Stayne’s face as he thinks he’s one-upped our Ladyship. Well, he has actually – but they haven’t realised it. It’s that sort of reactionary consistency – notice he’s always excessively glib when the Queen has her freak-outs to the point of disinterest – that manages to make Woolverton’s script not good, but better than abysmal. I hate and love that about-face moment where he tries to kill the Red Queen at the film’s end. I hate it because you sort of wish that their dysfunctional relationship could thrive, but it makes sense in a way and Glover does a good job of pulling it off. As he tells her, “It is far better to be feared than loved.” He’s just after the best meal ticket – and getting banished means he has no need for her anymore. Either way he’s a nice bit of fun in an ensemble that has some hits (Bonham Carter, Hathaway) and just as many misses (Depp, Wasikowska) and even though his seduction of Alice makes me shake my head it does spawn my favourite line of his – “I like you, Um. I like largeness.” Priceless.

Were it not for a somewhat injudicious move from the Foreign Press Association a few weeks ago, The Tourist would have managed to pass us by with nary a peep from outraged film enthusiasts about its awfulness. I’m not sure awful is the right accreditation to give it – it’s the sort of gloriously ineffectual thriller/comedy/action film that does little to add anything significant to the year in film, but doesn’t too much to destroy it either – not for me, at least. The film focuses on Elise, the sort of woman you’d expect to turn up in some film noir as she has experiences that don’t seem to be particularly linked by plot. Suffice to say, the plot isn’t the strongpoint of the venture – truth is, you’d be hardpressed to find any strongpoint. It all meanders on in that very humdrum that’s neither terrible nor excellent. It’s as such, though, that Jolie’s natural charisma manages to be one of the things I latch on to easily. 

For someone so obviously beautiful it’s strange that she hasn’t played a role playing up to her looks as much, and it’s not that The Tourist depends on her looks – but from the long opening of Elise sashaying down the streets of Paris – you can’t deny that it’s a help. I’m not averse to actors playing themselves, since playing one’s self isn’t necessarily easy, and Jolie seems to just be existing with the palpable sense that the entire spectacle is fairly ridiculous. If the point of the venture was to see which superstar could out-act the other without really acting Depp fails miserably because there’s absolutely nothing interesting about his characterisation – not that there’s anything decidedly interesting about Elise either, but Angelina is nothing if not demanding of your attention. I will say, though, that the film is at its strongest (remember, this on a curve) when the two are together – even if it’s Jolie doing the heavy lifting. So, even when we’re tossed back into the rote machinations of secrets to be revealed and the usual “surprises” it’s still interesting watching her not being phased by it at all...which makes it ironic that she makes the Razzie’s shortlist and Depp doesn’t. Truth be told, I wouldn’t campaign for either of them on a Worst of List because even in his blandness Depp isn’t as offensive as he was in Alice in Wonderland (one of the things that prevented from loving Burton’s spectacle, though I did have more appreciation for it than most). In the grand scheme of things there’s not much to see here – and though its blandness is a fault, I don't think there's that much to criticise. Moreover, considering the madness the Globes have embraced over the past few years I’m a bit nonplussed as to why people are so averse to this particular one. Ah well.

The original tale of Sleepy Hollow is eons away, plot wise, from its cinematic counterpart. The most startling deviation is – of course – to be found in Johnny Depp’s Icabod. I find the original story to be only vaguely interesting and Burton’s variations work well. Though I don’t consider Sleepy Hollow his greatest I’d easily call it his most technically proficient – and that’s saying something in itself. The film is the sort of anomalous thing that attempts to blend comedy, drama, tragedy, mystery, horror and yes, even romance into something dark and broody and very Burtonesque. I’d also wager that it’s the strongest performance Depp has given under Burton, even though it’s ignored for being so obviously under the radar unlike other usual suspects (like Sweeney and Ed). As manic as he can go, there’s something that seems right in seeing Depp play the straight man before he turned into Jack Sparrow and whatnot and his performance is the thing that keeps us centred on the (dubious) reality of the strange world we’re experiencing.

True to Burton form, though, Sleepy Hollow is no one man show. Though I’m decidedly fond of his visual madness and I’d like to see Burton handle a straight dramatic ensemble, because he has a way with large casts. Miranda Richardson and Christopher Walken have a thing for showing up in long films to steal scenes (The Hours, Catch Me If You Can) and they work splendidly in the madness of Sleepy Hollow. Sleepy Hollow is a fable in the best of the sense and though I may not consider it as his greatest it’s up there with the good Burton films.

               

The countdown continues as we near the top, I feel slightly bad that so many films have repeat entries. Then again, I can't blame myself because they're that good.

“Forgive me, Mr. Claus. I'm afraid I've made a terrible mess of your holiday. ”

Though I wouldn’t swear that The Nightmare Before Christmas is unparalleled excellence, it is a thoroughly enjoyable film and Sarandon’s protagonist is a significant portion of that. He is funny and endearing, yet maintaining his oddball status.

         

“Don't leave me! Don't leave me! I'll die without you! ”

Teri Hatch…loved her in Lois & Clark, liked her on Desperate Housewives until she turned into the hot mess that is now Susan. She’s not given credit (we don’t really get to see her stretch her legs), but her incarnation of Coraline’s mother and the Other Mother (a.k.a The Beldam) was a brilliant take on a potentially stereotypical villain. Coraline was my favourite animated film last year, and though Fanning’s work as the eponymous heroine was on point it was Hatcher’s layered and terrifying work that stuck with me for weeks after.

“But you're treating them like equals. They're sheep, they're inferior. ”

I’m sorry I couldn’t get a spot for Babe, but consider this a tribute to all the actors there. Babe is just too sweet for words, and Margolyes no-nonsense Fly is an excellent surrogate mother to the orphan pig. She’s stern, but not unloving and she does so well weighing her dedication to her husband against her that of her husband.

        

“Please, there's been a mistake. I'm not dead. ”

At the moment people seem less than enthused about Depp and Burton, no point in dredging up that argument – but I do love Depp’s work as the reticent would-be groom of the eponymous corpse. It’s voicework that’s sometimes forgotten (very subtle) but I think it’s excellent, nonetheless.

       

“Well aren't you just the sweetest space toy I ever did meet! ”

Cusack always was the best thing about the Toy Story franchise, for me. Always a brilliant character actress, her take on the spirited cowgirl in the series was a thing of delight. She knew just how to get on our nerves without being overbearing.

     

“I thought I told you to come down to dinner!”

This is one that’s often forgotten. Beneath the animalistic growl Benson is doing excellent work portraying emotions in the Beast that are bubbling below the surface. His petulance, his nervousness, his ferocity – it’s all done as much through the animation as through the voicework making him just as interesting and as rounded a character as Belle.

     

“Why don't skeletons play music in church? Because they got no organs.”

James & the Giant Peach features one of the strongest animated ensembles, and Dreyfuss' corny centipede is a big part of that.

      

“Correction: I *know* your father..”

The Lion King is such an excellent film, when it’s time for laughs talk often turns to Timon and Pumba (admittedly good), but for me it’s always Guillaume’s hilarious Rafiki that does all the heavy lifting. He pops in and out (and in again) for a few short moments, but his voicework takes the film to another level. He is simultaneously annoying, perverse, wise and exasperating. Yes, we know these are animals, but we fee like we know this strange monkey.

    

As The Muses (Calliope, Terpsichore, Clio, Melpomene and Thalia

“…And that’s the Gospel Truth.”

I debated whether or not to single them out, but it didn’t make sense. The Muses are all part of the same entity. Voice by a quintet of Broadway voices they’re responsible for the narration of this underrated piece. From Ryan’s spunky soul sister to White's sophisticated headliner they all work in tandem to create some of the most entertaining Disney characters.

“You're speechless, I see. A fine quality in a wife.”

It’s probably difficult to craft a villain unlike anything we’ve seen, and all Disney villains do have that sombre voice in common. But Freeman does his own things with Jafar. He's slimy and he's almost offensive, but he sure is fun to watch.

      

Only two more rounds left? Do you have particular fondness for any of these?

Drunkards – we hate them in real life, but we love them on the screen. One of the many riddles that I cannot answer for you. It’s strange, whether the drunk is a bit of comedic relief, an affable protagonist or a dastardly villain it’s always nice seeing an actor ham it up for our entertainment on the big screen. Making this list was actually difficult, there were a number of notable drunks to sift through (I considered dividing it between males and females) – but in the end, I believe these five are the most notable.

        

This isn’t a biopic on overcoming drunkenness, but Joaquin does an excellent job of delving into that territory. I love that morning after where he and all the boys are drunk and Reese’s June turn up. He’s an incorrigible drunk, but he’s also an affable drunk – except when he’s fainting on stage and all. But, I suppose we must take the good with the bad.

     

If Blanche depended on the kindness of any stranger, his name was Jack Daniels. Like many drunks she often tried to hide it, but after her horrid birthday party all bets are off. It’s not so much funny as it is frighteningly unnerving.

      

Oh how I love Joan Allen, how I loathe Kevin Costner (but not here). Terry is an ultimate drunk, she drinks alone – which is a bit unnerving, until she gets Denny as a drinking buddy. But she can drink him under the table, anywhere. It could be at dinner, at her daughter’s graduation, just after her husband has “deserted” her – she’ll keep drinking with that same pensive look on her face. That’s what we call dedication.

    

Sometimes I forget he’s a drunk and just presume he’s crazy. Perhaps, it’s a bit of both. He’s exaggerated, he’s histrionic and he’s a lot of fun to watch. For shame, Disney, what kind of licentiousness are you promoting? I love it.

        

Who didn’t see this coming? It seems I may have to disqualify them; they’re topping too many lists (here, here). I can’t be the only one afraid to pick up a liquor glass after this watching these two having “fun and games”. Just look at the consequences of a nightcap. (Shudders)

  

Honourable Mention to Karen Walker, she’d suck the alcohol from a deodorant stick – if that’s not drunken dedication, I don’t know what is.

    

Yes, I'm back with this again. It's really a never ending feature, though I wrapped up with my favourite casts, actors, actresses, music and costumes the sky is the limit and there's more I could ruminate on...and with nothing to do, why not?

           

Dan’s own list has inspired me to revisit my Decade in Review feature. I did have some categories I didn’t touch on, and what better time to reassess? The question of memorable characters is a tough one…my guess is as flawed as yours, but here goes…what makes them memorable for me? It’s not really the performances, though I’d say each performer does a good job. It’s really about how ready I am to recall the character as a complete entity with just the slightest hint – like a key phrase…or an article of clothing, a wisp of hair or an important weapon.

                

Runners Up: Fifteen (Aragorn, Elizabeth Bennett, Erin Brockovich, Deirdre Burroughs, Benjamin Button, Frank Costello, Bob Dylan, Robert Ford, Katharine Hepburn, Bridget Jones, Velma Kelly, Clementine Kruzinski, Mrs. Lovett, Tessa Quayle, Briony Tallis)

Key Token: Proficiency in language (and other things) which is, naturally, “a bingo”

See how objective I am? Though I’m neither here nor there on Inglourious Basterds, I’m not so fickle to leave Waltz’s Landa off the list. It’s difficult with recent characters to decide whether or not they’ll endure, and I suppose there’s a possibility he won’t. I was tempted to put Helen Von Bismarck on the list instead of him, but I knew that was just nepotism for Kruger’s excellent performance and not really any objective longevity precipitated by her character’s brilliance.

          

Key Token: The gun (but, of course)

I find it so difficult to believe this man has been acting since the mid eighties. He just burst on to the scene with The Lord of the Rings and has just been improving consistently. Still, it’s this 2005 performance that stands above his other creations (and above a majority of actors). It’s two men, and yet it’s one man. They’re both deliberate, they’re both smart and they both have a way with guns.

           

Key Token: The costume

Yes, Tarantino again. Ironic, since I’m less than fond of him. I will admit that I consider Kill Bill to be his strongest venture and a considerable amount of that lies in Uma’s Bride. Of course it’s more than Uma’s performance; the Bride has just endured as one of those iconic characters – from the jumpsuit, to the moves to the van.

        

Key Token: The hair

Apparently the tuft of white hair was Depp’s decision, which doesn’t surprise me. From the guttural growl to the permanent scowl it’s all very individual (and judging from the videos I've seen unlike any characterisation of Sweeney Todd before). Depp is not as unoriginal performer as many have decided.

                    

Key Token: The voice

Perhaps it’s because I have not internalised There Will be Blood as much as Gangs of New York or perhaps it’s because Bill’s bloody ways scare me more than Plainview. Either way, I consider this to be Day Lewis’ most iconic role. The violence, the determination, the patriotism – no matter how misguided, and of course that voice. He played a lover, and then a butcher (both excellently) – I want a third Scorsese pairing.

           

Key Token: The hair

Nicole back when she was a redhead. I was tempted to note the pale skin, or her long legs or perhaps even her voice but it’s the long red tresses that remind me of Satine the most...and I just love that look on Nicole's face above.

         

Key Token: Drunkenness

A bit of an obvious choice, but that’s why it’s iconic.

          

Key Token: “That’s all”

Oh, Streep. Her ubiquity exasperates me, but she was served up a delicious role here and milked it for all it was worth. I do love my comedy subtle and though she’s not my favourite performance in the film, she is the character we return to time and time again. Whether we remember her well tended hair, her immaculate wardrobe or her imperious glance, she was a true woman of the ages. That’s all.

     

Key Token: Skin colour

Must I really justify this? A franchise that has worn thin? Surely. But Shrek is an iconic, not the best animated character of the last decade but easily the most memorable for me.

       

Key Token: The hair

This was too easy really. I did cite the performance as one of the decade’s best, and after a while it became difficult to say where the brilliance of McKellen’s performance ended and the iconicity of Gandalf began. From his quotable lines, to his enigmatic stares, his magical prowess and his commanding voice no character from the last decade leaves such a lasting impression on me as Gandalf, whether he be Grey or White.

              

…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.

It’s been a month since Alice in Wonderland opened in theatres, so the dust has settled somewhat on Burton’s latest venture. I’ve known of the obvious months before; it is not really an adaptation of Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland – but a reinterpretation of it. The entire concept has been somewhat blurred because of the keeping of the tale’s first name, but judging Burton’s creation by the non sequitur format of Carroll’s classic seems a bit too harsh. I’m a bit of an indolent Burton fan though. I don’t rush to see his movies, but I’m always willing to support that the man is talented – I’d even credit him with a few favourite films of mine. The question of course is if Alice in Wonderland ranks there.

The story follows a grownup Alice, a number of years after he initial visit to Wonderland. Alice seems to be experiencing a form of ennui as she finds herself out of touch in her surroundings. A proposal from an officious boor precipitates her journey down the hole, to Wonderland. There, she experiences the same creatures from Carroll’s tale. They are the same, and yet they are different – just as Alice was. In fact, the running gag of ascertaining whether Mia Wasikowska’s Alice is the right Alice is well executed. Alice in Wonderland is designed to near perfection. The visuals are all impeccable and the set decoration is most impressive. I did not venture to see it in 3D (but I didn’t see that other big blockbuster in 3D either): I don’t feel as if I’ve lost anything, though. The visuals of wonderland are as realistically superficial as you would expect them to be, and Burton never gets lost in it – which had seemed like a possibility.

I’ll always recall my initial cinematic introduction to the story with much fervour, and like its predecessor(s) the thespians involved present significant help. Alan Rickman is quite comfortable as the know-it-all caterpillar as is Michael Sheen as the rabbit in the waistcoat, but it’s the darker images presented by the live action actors that stay with me. Johnny Depp is understated but not slight. It’s a strange performance, and there’s the feeling of craziness caused by overexcitement. I like to think as Crispin Glober’s Red Knight as his polar opposite and it’s a small performance that sneaks up on you, the thing is he is never given the chance to do it all and that final scene of his only suggests his underlying feeling about his state. In a way Mia Wasikowska is the reason for the good and bad in the film. She seems naïve enough for me to believe that a girl of her age would be as absent-minded, but I am rarely moved to be interested in her as a heroine. Alice has always been a reactionary role but I could imagine any number of young ladies in the role who would have attacked the role with a little more enthusiasm and a little less lethargy.

Of course, the pillars of Wonderland are the Red and White Queen played beautifully by Helena Bonham Carter and Anne Hathaway. Anne Hathaway has failed to impress me time and time (and time) again, but as the White Queen she lends an air of subtle sophistication that is most disconcerting and oddly chilling. Of course she is trumped by Bonham Carter’s excellent Red Queen, but so is everyone. The Red Queen falls just short of Helena’s other fearsome creation, but it’s never her fault. This is where my issues with the film lie. The entire story seems intent on reaching a profound climax of sorts, but the rudimentary conclusion where the “bad guys” are carted off by the decree of the “good guys” fails to impress me. It’s as if after an hour and a half of learning that even the worst of us have things that make them sympathetic Woolverton decides on a conclusion where percieved good is good and evil is evil – no middle ground. After Helena and Anne have done valiant work turning their sketches into people, she pulls the rug out from under them. This turns the film into a plebeian affair and makes the ending all too rushed and unsatisfactory.

When it ended it all finished I was reminded of Shutter Island. Scorsese crafted an excellent film held back by a stunting screenplay; Alice in Wonderland was the same. Burton does excellently on all technical counts, but a tawdry story makes it lose any substantial bit of poignancy. I can’t give Alice in Wonderland the B from Shutter Island either. Whereas I could see Scorsese working hard to combat his screenplay I have a feeling that Burton was all too willing to succumb to his. In retrospect I suppose it’s weird that I had this in my top ten most anticipated films of 2010. It wasn’t a disappointment in any way, but just as I expected it to be. But I guess my tastes have changed in those few months. It’s perfectly adequate, but I’m not zealous about it, and that's just howWasikowska seems tooo...

                   

             

One of the best thing about those fickle things called Oscars is when you bitch about them with like-minded people. Many have devoted time to critiquing the women, the pictures &etc, but what about the men? Best Actor is often an interesting thing to talk about, so last weekend Luke (of Journalistic Skepticism), Jose (of Movies Kick Ass) and I sat down and discussed the 2004 Best Actor Race. Here’s part

        

Andrew: Okay, so let's get down to it. 2004. Cheadle, Depp, DiCaprio, Eastwood and Foxx. On a purely superficial level is this one of the most diverse Best Actor lineups of the decade?

      

Luke: For this category, yes, it appears it's stepped away from its typical "old white guy" tendencies.

        

Jose: Not really, we've got four real people and Clint Eastwood. Ins't that what they always go for?

         

Luke: Yeah, except for Eastwood. Being a part of the "Best Actor" lineup seems a little off for him...

        

Jose: But they always stick him somewhere, whether it be director, producer or actor, I'm honestly surprised he's never won best score or song yet.

         

Andrew: Well in reality it's not that diverse. As you said Jose, four real people. Tis real heavy; but actor wise – we have the legend (Eastwood), the black comedian (Foxx), the black serious actor (Cheadle), the former teen heart throb (DiCaprio) and the international star (Depp)...

       

Jose: and four out of five were in Best Pic nominees, so it's rather uninspiring, especially in the face of the ones who were snubbed.

        

Luke: Very true - and what an utterly confusing lineup for Best Picture... but I guess that's another story, hm?

      

Andrew: That being said. I guess we'd all agree that Eastwood would be the first one we'd boot off of the nominee list?

         

Jose : actually not me. He’s my second fave from the nominees

          

Luke: Oh definitely - I mean, I just saw Don Cheadle's performance for the first time today actually, but I'd already say he was superior to Eastwood - or at least what I remember of Million Dollar Baby.

    

Andrew: Now you've got me interested, Jose. Who would you say is the worst of the five?

     

Jose: Worst? Foxx by all means

      

Andrew: Well to be honest, Eastwood and Foxx are battling it out, but even though I don't agree with the pick I can understand why they fall for Foxx...Eastwood does nothing for me.

      

Jose: It is such an unnatural performance, not that I've a problem with over the top acting, but he struck me as disrespectful in some aspects

       

Andrew: What do you think of Foxx in Ray, Luke?

         

Luke: I'm not a big fan of rewarding impressive impersonations, so Foxx isn't high on my list. I think with Ray I had to keep from letting myself get wrapped up in loving the music and remember that he's not truly giving a great performance. I thought the movie itself was better than he was - especially Regina King. Loved her.

         

Andrew: I'll agree on that. The thing is sometimes actors can pull off the imitative thing, but the thing with Foxx his comedic talents lay in his impersonations and he was obviously pretending to be Charles and never being him.

            

Jose: I agree, I rest my case by saying I love the fact that Cate won for playing Kate Hepburn that year looking nothing like the woman, while the praise for the whole clone thing Foxx had going on with Ray is still a mystery to me

             

Andrew: Foxx just isn't that talented to pull it off and make it work, I think.

          

Jose: Definitely! He was riding on a goodwill thing, I think he won the Oscar the day Ray Charles passed away.

          

Luke: Right - it really did just feel like an extended In Living Color sketch or something... it didn't seem like he was taking the "acting" part of the job entirely seriously.

Luke: So I take it we can all agree that Jamie Foxx left a little something to be desired?

                        

Jose: I mean the man won the Album of the year Grammy as well

                

Andrew: Duly noted, Jose. Eastwood and Foxx would be easily knocked off the list...but what are your thoughts on Depp, gentlemen? He's in the middle for me

.                      

Luke: I'm on the fence about it. I thought Finding Neverland was only okay, and this nomination was very clearly a part of the Academy's new love of him (which seems to have faded since Sweeney Todd). It definitely wasn't a good showcase of his talents.

            

Jose: He was OK, I think it's part of the sudden crush AMPAS and the world developed on him after Pirates. They’d have nominated him for anything to make up for the snubs throughout the 90's.

         

Andrew: I'm a little fool-hardy about Finding Neverland. I know it's faulty, but I'm still sucked in (like Chocolat, but that's another story).

               

Jose: Haha me too but it's more about Winslet and Christie than about Depp

                 

Luke: Yeah, that one was totally Winslet's show (and a little bit Freddie Highmore too).

                  

Jose: Right, too bad they screwed it all with that awful Charlie and the Chocolate Factory adaptation

            

Andrew: A reason I'm so willing to praise Depp is that he doesn't go over board with Barrie like he could. He seems almost willing to be a little on the sidelines.

   

Jose: You know what my problem with that was? That you could see Depp underacting. The man is all about extremes I think and weird and cooky works better for him than understated

                         

Andrew: On that note of being understated, what do you think of Cheadle in Hotel Rwanda. I have a feeling that AMPAS was trying to throw off their reputation for being anti black with Foxx and I think Don would have been a more deserving (black) winner.

         

Jose: He's great! But he rides a bit too much on the Sydney Poitier wave of political correctness for him to make too much of an impact

                    

Luke: Totally agree! I was definitely think about Sidney as I was watching it.

                   

Andrew: That didn't occur to me, but now that you mention it...

           

Jose: I felt like they were consciously trying to make him into a black Oskar Schindler

           

Luke: It was quite different than what I expected - it had sort of an early '90s filming vibe to it that I rather enjoyed. I think he would've made a far better choice than Foxx.

                       

Andrew: I was telling my sister recently that the thing with Cheadle is that unlike Foxx, Cheadle is not BLACK. He's African American (or whatever), and AMPAS has a way of liking to reward the extremes.

                     

Jose: But yeah I agree, if they were trying to make it about race, Cheadle was worthier than Foxx

              

Luke: I think that Cheadle's advantage was that he seemed to have the best in show act all wrapped up. I mean, Nick Nolte and Joaquin Phoenix just bugged me

           

Andrew: But I was impressed with Okenodo. Why doesn’t the woman get more roles?

                      

Jose: But there was Sophie too! I think the film suffered because it was so small

                            

Luke: Can I just voice my confusion about Hotel Rwanda's nomination for Best Cast at the SAGs? Why is it that Phoenix and Nolte were listed out of only four people when there were dozens of other worthy speaking parts in the film? Is it a requirement to be a famous thesp to get a nomination in that category?

                

Jose: Not if you're in Slumdog Millionaire...

              

Andrew: Well look at the situation with Precious, all those girls from class were left off and in An Education for some random reason Cara Seymour wasn't mentioned even though she had more lines than Thompson and Williams.

           

Luke: AND Seymour happened to be one of the best performances in the film!

                

Jose: But doesn't that depend on the studio submissions? Or is it SAG who chooses who's worthy or not?

                   

Andrew: Does it, Jose? I have no idea.

         

Jose: If it's the studios it makes much more sense they'd want Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie to be SAG winners over people like extra # 1 or guy who's famous in the Middle East

               

Andrew: How did Brangelina get into this coversation?

              

Jose: Well I remembered he won this year and she just came into the equation haha

          

Andrew: Back to 04. You probably know this already, but DiCaprio tops my list easily. I'm a HUGE Aviator fan. Am I over praising him?

                       

Jose: Not at all, he was robbed! And they did it again by snubbing him for Revolutionary Road!

                  

Luke: No, he tops my list too. I think The Aviator has lost some of its steam for me on future viewings, but of this group, he's easily my top choice. Sidenote - I'm watching Catch Me If You Can currently, another performance I thought he was wrongly overlooked for.

Andrew: I think the thing about Oscar, it seems they're willing to reward someone who comes out of nowhere and gives a good (or baity) performance eg, Brodey, Foxx but they won't reward people who've grown up in the business and steadily improved eg. DiCaprio, or even Pitt and Depp

       

Jose: AMPAS is such a bully that way. They love one hit wonders because they are less threatening to the establishment

         

Luke: Maybe these steady steam-gatherers are the ones who'll have to wait until they're in their 50s…

                

Jose: …or get an honorary one in that awful non-televised gala

                    

Andrew: I love how you make AMPAS some like some sinister big brother type, Jose.

          

Jose: isn't it though?

                

Luke: For some reason, I just don't see DiCaprio winning anytime soon. It seems like Aviator was that moment in time where it seemed possible. But now, people just don't get as excited about him anymore.

              

Jose: it's like they're setting him up to fail, like they did with Winslet til last year. when he makes The Departed they nominate him for the hideous Blood Diamond.

             

Andrew: If I had my way I'd immediately knock out Eastwood and Foxx for Jude, Jim or Javier.

          

Luke: I would definitely place Jim Carrey in my second spot for the year...

                   

Jose: Jim Carrey won that Oscar in my mind

                 

Luke: I'd throw in Jude and Gael as well

                

Jose: What about Paul, Andrew?

        

Andrew: I don't know what it is about Sideways, but I always feel as if it's a joke that I'm not in on. I just don't get it? Am I the only one?

             

Luke: Oh gosh no, I don't understand the appeal of Sideways, whatsoever.

                 

Jose: Perhaps not but I still think Paul was sublime. The movie I don't love as much anymore.

                 

Luke: I just remember being very meh over Virginia Madsen, who at the time I saw it was the frontrunner for the Oscar.

              

Andrew: People always talk about being moved by Paul and Virginia (of course Paul is more worthy than Eastwood and Foxx) but I find Haden Church and Sandra Oh to be much more convincing.

              

Jose: I think that had a lot to do with how all the old white guys wanted to screw her and thought "if Paul can..."

            

Luke: And Paul Giamatti is so uncomfortable to watch... maybe it's because of those trailers for Big Fat Liar where he's the big angry blue dude with equally angry blue goatee. And Sanrda Oh was my favorite in the movie, Andrew.

                              

Andrew: Paul really has gone to the dogs, but I still love him. I'd have chosen him for my 05 Supporting list (over Gylenhaal too)...but that's a whole other post...

              

Luke: So where are we at guys? It seems we’re not so enthused about, well, anyone in this category. Where do they rank #1-#5 for you?

       

Andrew: DiCaprio , Cheadle (A-), Depp (B, B+ when I'm happy), Eastwood (C), Foxx (C)... I'm a lenient grader when it comes to acting though, it's more difficult to grade performances than films

        

Luke: (1) DiCaprio ... (2) Cheadle ... (3) Depp ... (4) Foxx ... (5) Eastwood [fairly similar, there]

                

Jose: DiCaprio A, Eastwood B, Cheadle B-, Depp B-, Foxx C

                 

Luke: So does this make us bitter people that the nearly unanimous least favorite was the eventual winner?

                

Andrew: Damn, right. I'm bitter.

            

Jose: Nah, if you like the Oscars this is actually fairly common, I'm quite used to it by now

            

Luke: Especially in this past decade. Sheesh.

                

Andrew: I was so invested in 04 - it was the first Oscar ceremony I was actually predicting, and Cate's win was one of the FEW highlights.

                

Jose: They tend to reward mediocrity and feel good about it

                 

Andrew: Bening's loss, MDB winning. Aaargh.

          

Jose: I almost shed a tear when Marty lost

                          

Luke: Oh god - yeah it was a pretty bad waste of a ceremony in terms of winners.

                     

Jose: ...And damn Julia Roberts should never present anything! She's always so happy when the so-so people win

                 

Andrew: She's just a happy person who loves her life.

                

Jose: Then she should hand out the Globe for Musical or Comedy not Best director at the Oscars... but I forgive her because she was robbed of a nomination that year as well...

               

Luke: Yeah, is it time to be imaginary yet? To right the wrongs?

                   

Jose: I'm sensing it'll be more interesting than tearing apart the nominees

                     

Andrew: Oh, crap. I though we did that. Okay, throwing it out: my list: DiCaprio and Law, then Carey and Cheadle and the final spot goes to either Javier Bardem or Johnny Depp or Liam Neeson.

           

Luke: My picks: Leonardo DiCaprio (The Aviator), Jim Carrey (Eternal Sunshine), Jude Law (Closer), Gael Garcia Bernal (Bad Education), and Matt Damon (The Bourne Supremacy) ... I like a hodgepodge.

                 

Andrew: I need to see Bad Education, but Luke's list looks way more respectable than Oscar...

                  

Jose: I'm biased when it comes to Pedro but yes you should. What was Liam in, Andrew?

               

Andrew: Kinsey...are you serious?

            

Jose: oh true hahaha, I always forget him and Laura.

                   

Luke: Ah, yes. Bad Education is top-notch.

                   

Jose: Mine would be 1.Jim Carrey 2.Leonardo DiCaprio 3.Gael 4.Ethan Hawke 5.Clint Eastwood

               

Andrew: Jose...Clint over Jude. CLINT over JUDE (f***ing) LAW - I'm the definition of an obsessed Jude fan, by the way. Be warned.

            

Jose: I just don't feel like Jude was as good, I loved him in Cold Mountain but he wasn't a stand out in Closer... coming from someone who'd nominated Julia, Clive and Natalie

                    

Andrew: Bastard...I forgive you though.

                      

Jose: Thank you.

              

Andrew: I'd call this the second/third Actor lineup of the year - along with 02, 05, 06...and maybe even 09 when I think about it?

          

Jose: I agree, but I prefer 03 over 05

                        

Andrew: Ooops, I mean I’d call this the second/third WORST actor lineup. 2005 was just a baaaaaaaad year, all around.

                  

Jose: I know, 05 and 08 mostly made me want to tear my eyes out in terms of Oscars because they were stupendous movie years

         

Luke: Talking best lineups of the decade in this category? I'm definitely going to have to go with '03 and '08. Although '07 was also mostly good.

                     

Andrew: My favourite best actor lineup last decade is easily 00. I'd choose anyone from there; but 03 and 07 are close behind.

                   

Jose: I disagree. Depp and Lee Jones over McAvoy can not be good in any way

                 

Andrew: I pretend Tommy Lee Jones isn't there...I really do.

Luke: That's what I meant by "mostly good." I just couldn't get into Michael Clayton like everyone else. You might hate this, but I actually really liked Depp in Sweeney Todd. Sue me.

          

Andrew: Oh crap, Michael Clayton was 07...? Okay, 07 is out. Hated that year.
               
Okay dear reader. Do you like this new feature? Any tips? What are your thoughts on the discussion? What did you think of 2004's Actor's Race? Sound off below!