Johnny Simmons

I’m still not sure why I appreciated Eastwood’s Changeling so much. I’m not too fond of the man as it were, and the film was rather poorly received. Still, I was impressed with it (it was my second review on the blog). I felt Jolie was deserving of the accolades she received, but if there was one part of the film I could have singled out alone it would have been Jason Butler Harner’s work as serial murderer Gordon Stewart Northcott. Everyone went wild in 2008 for dual villains in Milk and The Dark Knight and Harner’s Northcott would make it all a good threesome. It’s a slight performance, but one that haunts; and none more than his final scene – the hanging.

It begins with the shot from above as he descends.

I’ll admit, it looks generic enough as Northcott is led into the execution chamber by rhe officers.

But it’s the awareness on Harner’s face that always gets me.

The man has a way with expressions that’s most chilling. He’s a murderer, and yet he looks like a naughty schoolboy read to receive his punishment - one that you could feel sorry for.

Warden reads the charges, and really can we get any more clichéd than a hideous warden? The Grim Reaper I presume – but, alas, Eastwood never was one for subtlety.

             

But, back to Harner. I’m always moved to wonder just what the motive was behind his characterisation. It’s almost sad when he turns to the chaplain:

I think even the chaplain is a bit disconcerted, even if he nods resolutely. I wonder how Sarandon’s Helen Prejean would have dealt with this murderer.

Harner delivers the line so randomly I always feel as if he’s adlibbing, which is a good thing. We don’t get a studied portrayal of a dying man, but an almost organic degradation.

It’s here that I really have to champion Eastwood. His penchant for overemphasis works brilliantly as we get that sense of foreboding. The walk up the steps (if you can call it a walk) is just so tense….and that shot of the rope…

Just seeing it gives me chills.

I always like to think that Northcott is getting delusional and is thinking of the steps as the murdered boys, but I’m always looking for subtext even when it’s not there. Still I start feeling a little bit sorry for him, I can’t explain what Nortchott’s motives were, but with Harner he manages to seem more than just a murderer.

He does look rather deranged, though.

…but still, ridiculous and pathetic.

This shot is just chilling.

The executioner approaches the handle of the trapdoor as Northcott continues in what has to be the eeriest rendition of a Christmas tune.

Just what is Christine thinking?

Though I love her throughout, Jolie is at her lowest when dealing directly with Northcott. She’s unsure what to make of Christine’s reactions towards him (the script doesn’t help her any). I like the look there, though, what is she thinking? It's the sort of unreadable look that seems real.

We pause, and then the Grim Reaper decides to look at his watch.

What exactly is up with timing executions to the second? Will they be sued for digressions? And just then the trap door opens and the deed is done.

Few execution scenes manage to be so grisly and it depends mainly on the excellence of Harner. I cannot overemphasise how much this performance impresses me. I’d have given a nomination based on this scene only. What skill.

Due to a post to boost my memory compliments of Marshall my mind turned to this film recently. There’s so much about this film that’s forgotten, some of them understandable, like this performance. It wasn’t a poor one, by any means, but in an already long film it didn’t take up much time…hence its forgotten status.

We meet Carol a good way in Changeling. Jolie’s Christine has been cast into a mental institution via the Police Force. Amy grabs my attention from the inception, without being too obvious. Her first words are sage, “You should eat. Eating is normal. You got to do everything you can to look normal.” Both Christine and the audience are startled by the composure coming from someone in a place like this. As she gives Christine the “inside scoop” on their situation it’s a good moment for the film, and Clint knows that. I liked Changeling quite much, but even I’ll admit it could get oppressive at times with all the information, but Clint holds back here and Ryan (along with Jolie) work well. Even in the nondescript moments like Ryan’s line reading of, “I work nights.” Jolie’s Christine is nonplussed, and then she enunciates “I work nights.” It’s some slight irony that coming from the stage (and being known for her loud – but excellent – performance in Gone Baby Gone) Amy has such a knack for subtlety. Eastwood knows she’s a gem and she gets those poignant lines, “If we’re insane, nobody has to listen to us. I mean, who are you going to believe, some crazy woman trying to destroy the force of the, or a police officer? ”

We don’t have any time to see the relationship grown between the two; perhaps it’s just their commonality that fosters that tenuous bond. Like her brave – but misguided – punch to the doctor to “save” Christine. It’s an iffy moment, story wise, but it works precisely because Amy Ryan is able to convey that this woman is at the end of the rope. There’s nowhere left to go. Her confession in the hospital room is slight but effective, “I lost…two babies…to back alley doctors…no choice…Never had the chance…to fight for them. You do. Don’t stop.” It’s moment like these that define a character that could have turned into little more than vignette. Her final moment is wordless, a newly rejuvenated Christine returns to get all the Code Twelve patients out. The silent exchange between Jolie and Ryan is a quiet tender moment and just with her eyes Amy says so much. As the saying goes, there are no small roles only small actors and Amy Ryan is definitely not a small actor – her work in Changeling is special.

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!

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

         

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

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

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

            

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

           

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

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

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

                 

Someone I read, I can't recall whom, recently remarked of a film It didn't need to be made. And that got me thinking. What films don't need to be adapted to bet put on screen. I think I may have found the answer with Invictus. It's a story about Nelson Mandela [Morgan Freeman]. He's the new president of South Africa, a nation divided. Through his ingenuity he hopes to reconcile the country with sports and the help of the rugby team captain played by Matt Damon.

           

Now would be the ideal time to reveal by hatred apathy towards Clint Eastwood. I'm just not a fan. That being said, I can't say that Invictus is like anything he's done before. But still, I'm essentially unmoved. It's not that biographical films shouldn't be made. But when we make a biography, something like The Aviator, or Schindler's List or Raging Bull or The Hours [and it's inexhaustive] something fresh is added. Sometimes, history is rewritten like in The Aviator, but there is that ecelctic feeling that this story must be told. As heartwarming as Invictus may try to be, I don't get that feeling from it.

The rugby that is so important to the film is never explained to the audience. What of those who don't play rugby? There isn't even a smidgen of explanation as to what's going on, and the cuts away from the actual game don't help.The first third of the film seems unsure of where it's heading, the second third seems unsure of why it's there and the last third is so predictable that you just aren't that invested anymore. I like Morgan Freeman a whole lot actually, but he does nothing for me here. It's the perfect example of an actor phoning it in, and the accent which comes and goes does not help. Actually, Matt Damon is the one who emerges as impressive here, in a stock role albeit. Where everyone is obviously acting I truly believe his performance.

              

Invictus main problem is its writing, but the direction and the action don't particularly help it's cause. I'm no fan of Clint, but this is a particularly underwhelming piece.

             

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

          

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

        

Alejandro Gonzalev Inarritu, 21 Grams

Andrew Stanton, Finding Nemo

Tim Burton, Big Fish

Clint Eastwood, Mystic River

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

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

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