Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (9)

The new Chocolate Factory film is awesome. This is Tim Burton's most enjoyable film in years.

Tim Burton applies his visual magic yet again. He's an uneven director, having made some great films (Edward the Scissorhand, Big Fish, Batman, Nightmare Before Christmas) and some terrible ones (Mars Attacks!, Planet of the Apes). But his films are consistently stunning. When you attend a Burton film, you accept that you might not like it, but you expect to be blown away by its unique, quirky and nontheless stunning visuals.

In that, the film hardly disappoints. The movie opens in London and follows Charlie around in a somewhat Gothic re-imagining of the well-known city. The interiors of the factory are no less striking, filled to the brims with details complete with bold, primary colors. The camera jumps around with delightful agility, and the scenes confirm that Burton seems to construct his films through set pieces. Simply, the film is pure eye candy.

Yet it's not completely shallow. Clearly it has no deeper meaning than the obvious morals, and Charlie pretty much completely disappears in the middle of the film as each kid gets his or her just desserts. But the beginning and the end of the film, where Charlie gets to look cute and precocious by uttering heart-warming aphorisms about the importance of family are surprisingly effective. Sure, his family (and indeed, he himself) are not well developed characters, but we don't care. We are ready to love them anyway.


This is a film that could've gone terribly wrong. It brings in Willy Wonka's back story as a child of a dentist. But instead of being overly sentimental, the flashbacks in history are mercifully brief, to the point, and, indeed, bring about some of the funniest scenes in the film.

And Johnny Depp's Willy Wonka is creepy and weird. But instead of being off-putting and irritating, he is quirky, lovable and very very funny.

In fact, this is probably the funniest movie I've seen all year. Tim Burton and Johnny Depp's quirky sense of humor is in full swing here, and if you're in the mood, like I was, this film is funny. Very funny. And clever, on top of that. There is a great reference to Edward Scissorhand toward the beginning (the first Burton-Depp collaboration) that no one seems to get. There is a clever parody of 2001: A Space Odyssey when you least expect it. And there is the film constantly making fun of itself, its cinematic devices and the story's illogical technologies. This film is a joy.

Burton had been in kind of a lull recently, but with Big Fish and now this, he has earned back my confidence. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is an inconsequential film, mere confectionary of no importance. But boy does it taste great.

Crash (7/10)

I am torn. Here is a truly spectacular film that fails miserably in what it tries to do. Roger Ebert is fond of saying that movie reviews are "not about what the film is about, but about how the film is about what it is about". I don't completely subscribe to that notion (certainly what a film is trying to say will have to factor into how much I like it). And Crash fails the former and succeeds in the latter.

It is beautiful filmmaking, without doubt. The scenes are tense, wonderfully edited and accompanied by the most heart-breaking music. It is an impressive debut from directors Haggis and Moresco, and they do everything right here. There is especially a scene involving a little girl and a gun that you start to expect from the beginning of the film, but turn out to not be what you expected at all. It's breathtaking.

But the film mainly serves to tackle the problem of racism in the LA area, and as such, it is a miserable failure. Whenever dialogue touches upon racism, the film oozes with an inappropriate sense of self-pride. Every turn, when a character speaks a (rather forced and unconvincing) racist slang, the film turns to us and gleefully says, "see? see? Can you believe these people are saying the darnedest things?" As such, these scenes turn into a parade of "racist just to be racist", and "shocking just to be shocking" scenes.

Not to say the film doesn't have any valuable insights into the racial dynamics of the LA area. It does an adequate job of portraying the power struggle between the whites and the blacks. But the other ethnicities get short-changed. The hispanics have no depth of culture except they are stereotypically against stereotype. And the middle-eastern man (forgot the nationality) hardly dredges up any sense of sympathy. And wouldn't you know it, the Asians are completely screwed over once again, with fewer than then lines of dialogue, some of which are used to portray Asians women as stereotypically argumentative, unreasonable jerks, and others are used to portray Asians as stereotypically greedy and unethical. If Asians can't even get their fair share in a movie about racism in LA (where Asians make up a large portion of the population), then we truly have no hope in the near future.

And so I'm very impressed by the filmmaking, but dismissive of what the film is trying to do. What the film is about is unfair, childish and (ironically) simply stereotypical, but the film is beautiful going about it.

I (heart) Life Aquatic

Saw Life Aquatic again last night, and it was even more amazing than the first time. Am I the only one who thinks that every single frame contains a joke, every single frame is funny? This movie is ridiculously rich with gags and is the funniest film of 2004 for me. Many are bound to disagree though. During the viewing -- as aspected -- only some vocal few, like me, were laughing constantly. The others were probably lost, wondering exactly what we were laughing at.

It's the awkwardness! That Bill Murray, comedic genius, looks awkward here in every frame without trying. Every line is delivered with perfect irony, even those that aren't exactly jokes. The result is a film that's at least chuckle-worthy around every turn.

Plus, the last chapter, the hunt for the jaguar shark, brings out a sense of wonder and amazement that I have not seen replicated any where else for a long time! This is especially telling, since the claymation here creates more awe than three expensive episodes of Lord of the Ring ever managed. Ah, the brilliance.

It also reminded me of Garden State. Both are very quirky films, but Garden State succumbs to sentimentality at the end, while Life Aquatic sternly keeps its critical distance. Even the scenes of tragedy are done with NO sentimentality at all; the camera sits far back from the scene and views the characters silently, aloofly. But boy, is this effective! Garden State's last 30 minutes are nearly mind-numbing in its insistence on resolving everything in an emotionally-satisfying manner, but it is Life Aquatic's indifferent stance that creates a much stronger emotional response.

I've always been a fan of the "critical distance". Ozu, the Japanese auteur, always tells his actors to underact, to express no emotions, and his films are all the more human because of it.

Because, as we all know, the hiding of emotions is the saddest act of all.

Oscars Predictions

The Big Night is upon us! 2004 was a GREAT year for movies; my best-10 list will be posted in a few days. Of course, the Academy has once again skillfully avoided nominating most of the best films, and indeed included some of the worst. In any case, we don't watch the Oscars because the Academy is right -- we watch it hoping (foolishly) that, eventually, one day, it might surprise us and pick the deserving winner.

This is the year of the big studio film versus the small film that barely got made. The Aviator, an ambitious, sprawling biopic, is going head-to-head against Million Dollar Baby, an intimate three-character boxing drama. But really, even more than that, it's a battle between two very well-respected and loved directors, Martin Scorsese and Clint Eastwood. It was once thought to be a three-way race with Sideways very much in the game, but it's looking like Sideways will be standing on the sidelines (*cough*) for the two big prizes.

In any case, here are my predictions for categories that I care about:


Cinematography
The Aviator*
House of Flying Daggers
The Passion of the Christ
The Phantom of the Opera
A Very Long Engagement

House of Flying Daggers and A Very Long Engagement are both two of the most stunning films of 2004. But their absence in the Foreign Language field means that they'll probably be overlooked here as well. The Aviator is gorgeous, and should have no trouble walking away with this one.



Film Editing
The Aviator*
Collateral
Finding Neverland
Million Dollar Baby
Ray

This is another instance of The Aviator vs. Million Dollar Baby. The Aviator has flashier, bolder editing, and the Academy usually goes for that. In fact, I predict that The Aviator will be taking most of the technical awards.


Animated Feature Film
The Incredibles*
Shark Tale
Shrek 2

The Animated Feature category has always been easy to predict, except for some nail-biting when Spirited Away went up against Lilo & Stitch. The Academy made the right choice there, and it will make the right choice again. Shrek 2 may threaten, but, though it is the top-grossing film of 2004, it's simpler a weaker film than the original. Meanwhile, The Incredibles is the best film to come out of Pixar, and will definitely be honored as such.


Foriegn Language Film
As It In Heaven
The Chorus
Downfall
The Sea Inside*
Yesterday

Isn't it a little odd that two of the most visible foreign films -- House of Flying Daggers and A Very Long Engagement -- are both absent here? I've never seen any of these films, but word on the street is that The Sea Inside will take it. Sure, why not!


Writing (Adadpted Screenplay)
Before Sunset
Finding Neverland
Million Dollar Baby
The Motorcycle Diaries
Sideways*

While The Aviator and Million Dollar Baby slug it out for the top spot, many Academy members will feel bad for Sideways, the critical darling and once front-runner. And this is where they will show their love for Sideways. There's no doubt that the screenplay category has often been consolation prizes for films that should've gotten Best Picture, but are too offbeat to get one. Sideways fits this perfectly.



Writing (Original Screenplay)
The Aviator
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind *
Hotel Rwanda
The Incredibles
Vera Drake

Eternal Sunshine has the most original and breathtaking screenplay of the year, and Charlie Kaufman is long overdue for an Oscar. He has been nominated twice before -- for Being John Malkovich and Adaptation. He has never won. But with Eternal Sunshine, he has written a film that many people fall in love with instantly, even those in mainstream Hollywood. Now, it's too quirky to be on the shortlist for Best Picture, but this is where Academy members might reward the film (and, belatedly, Being John Malkovich and Adaptation). Unfortunately, the cards are, once again, stacked against Kaufman. Some people really love Hotel Rwanda, and this is about the only place to honor that film. And there are those who champion Vera Drake, and this is again the only time the Academy members can vote for it. Kaufman will likely be overlooked again. But no worries; Kaufman winning an Oscar is only a matter of time.


Actress in a Supporting Role
Cate Blanchett- The Aviator
Laura Linney- Kinsey
Virginia Madsen- Sideways*
Sophie Okonedo- Hotel Rwanda
Natalie Portman- Closer

The battle here is between Madsen and Blanchett. Cate Blanchett gave a wonderful, quirky turn as Katherine Hepurn in The Aviator, but Virginia Madsen looked gorgeous and soulful washed in a tender, dim light. Plus, she had a beautiful speech in a movie people are trying to honor outside of the top two categories. My guess is Madsen will make it, barely. For the others, and sadly for Portman, the nomination will be the award.



Actor in a Supporting Role
Alan Alda- The Aviator
Thomas Haden Church- Sideways
Jamie Foxx- Collateral
Morgan Freeman- Million Dollar Baby*
Clive Owen- Closer

Morgan Freeman is one of those beloved actors who have mysteriously won no Oscars. This is a really, really good excuse to give him one. Thomas Haden Church is not far behind though, and may surprise all of us with his charming, boyish performance. Clive Owen is my favorite here -- his screen presence is impossible to dismiss in Closer -- but likely will not win; his character is just too dislikable. Alan Alda will have to be content with the nomiation, Jamie Foxx will have to be content with his Best Actor Oscar.


Actress in a Leading Role
Annette Bening- Being Julia
Catalina Sandino Moreno- Maria Full of Grace
Imelda Staunton- Vera Drake
Hilary Swank- Million Dollar Baby*
Kate Winslet- Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

It used to be Annette Bening vs. Hilary Swank, but now, Hilary Swank basically has a lock. And deservedly so -- she was amazing in Million Dollar Baby. No one will come close.


Actor in a Leading Role
Don Cheadle- Hotel Rwanda
Johnny Depp- Finding Neverland
Leonardo DiCaprio- The Aviator
Clint Eastwood- Million Dollar Baby
Jamie Foxx- Ray*

This is the safest prediction ever. You all know I strongly disliked Ray, but Jamie Foxx's performance in undeniable. He will get his Oscar, without any threat from any other nominees.



Best Directing
Clint Eastwood- Million Dollar Baby
Taylor Hackford- Ray
Mike Leigh- Vera Drake
Alexander Payne- Sideways
Martin Scorsese- The Aviator*

Wow, this and Best Picture this year are the toughest to predict. It's an epic battle between Clint Eastwood and Martin Scoresese, and it could easily tip either way. At one point, I thought the Academy would split it Aviator/Clint Eastwood, and then I thought it would be Million Dollar Baby/Martin Scorsese, but now I'm really really not sure. I think that Million Dollar Baby should and will win the Best Picture, but there are some complications. For one thing, The Aviator is a flashier picture, and more Best Picture material. In contrast, Million Dollar Baby is more intimate and more arthouse-ish, which fits into Best Director more. But then, The Aviator is really only in the running because the Academy seems finally ready to honor Martin Scorsese. That puts Martin in Best Director, and Million Dollar Baby in Best Picture. Which is it? Eastwood has already won an Oscar for Unforgiven, but the Academy might want to honor an old-timer who's hitting on a string of great films -- Mystic River before this -- late in his career. On the other hand, Scorsese has never won an Oscar, and is long overdue. He didn't win one last year for Gangs of New York (which I liked more than Aviator), partly because people didn't love the film, and partly because of the campaign controversy. But this year, people love Aviator, and are more desperate than ever to honor him.

This is truly a toss-up. But, because I think that Million Dollar Baby will win Best Picture, Scorsese will walk away with Best Director. Unless the Academy shocks us all again and does not split the top honors between the two; in that case, Million Dollar Baby will win big.



Best Picture
The Aviator
Finding Neverland
Million Dollar Baby*
Ray
Sideways

This follows from the previous analysis. Let's seriously hope that the votes won't be so split between Million Dollar Baby and The Aviator that Ray slips in!

Well, there you have it. We'll see how well I do.

Super Short Movie Reviews

I'm so behind on my movie reviews, so here are short ones of the films I saw recently:

Closer (9/10) -- Everything about this film is nearly perfect. The performances were superb -- stunning, even, in the cases of Clive Owen and Natalie Portman, who exceeded herself in Garden State. The film shows four ruthless and selfish people in absurb love triangles. Interestingly, we never get to see them being happy. All we see are the beginning -- when one woos another away from someone else -- and the end -- when one leaves another. Both are the most painful parts of relationships in general, and we never see the supposedly happy things in the middle. Might as well -- this is a film not so much about relationships as it is about how we break them down, tear them up and abuse them to fulfill our absurd and desperate fear of loneliness. To that end, it serves up an amazing brew. The film was adapted from a play, and it shows. Characters spew hyper-intelligent lines at superhuman speed, and the way they talk is dazzling and frightening. Of course, this kind of stagey dialogue suits me just fine -- I'm not all that interested in reality anyway, as you may have gathered. The film basically moves from one fight/courtship scene to another, and boy are they spectacular! A fight between Clive Owen and Julia Roberts and a courtship between Clive Owen and Natalie Portman are two of the most breath-taking scenes all year long. Some take issues with there being no likeable characters. I would argue the point (I thought Natalie Portman's character was quite adorable), but it's true -- if you can't stand movies that don't have any character that you can like or relate to, Closer is not for you. Me? I'm just having too much fun watching them slash each other down in the most dazzling ways possible. There's love for ya.

A Very Long Engagement (9/10) -- Jean-Pierre Jeunet and Audrey Tautou -- director and actress of the adorable Amelie -- reunite in this beautiful film on one girl's search for his fiance, who was lost (and presumed dead) during his service in France for World War I. Yes, it's a war movie -- it's much heavier and less lyrical than Amelie, and Jeunet tones down his cinematic tricks to bring gravity to the subject matter. But the film is still one of the best-looking movies of the year, and the cinematography is just outstanding. Critics argue that it's too whimsical for the subject matter, and it may be, but we are not at all spared of some horrible and graphic war images. The plot is extremely complicated -- that it was adapted from an even more complex book guarantees this -- and sometimes difficult to follow. But even if you don't understand absolutely every detail in the first viewing, you'll still enjoy it at a more intuitive level. And, though it does have its light-hearted moments, it's the saddest movie of the year.

The Life Acquatic with Steve Zissou (8/10) -- This is, for me, the funniest movie of 2004. Coming from the quirky Wes Anderson, whose previous films -- Rushmore, The Royal Tennanbaums -- earned nothing but smiles from me, I expected little more than a few chuckles. But from the first scene, I was laughing like a mad man. It may be just me -- there were several moments when I was the only one laughing in the theater -- but Bill Murray gives such a funny and awkward performance that I feel like laughing every time he's on screen. Anderson also shows off a bit in a spectacular, emotionally-heated scene toward the end that is at once shocking and breath-taking. Great stuff.

Bad Education (8/10) -- Pedro Almodovar -- America's favorite Spanish director, last year nominated for Talk to Her -- has made a sumptuous film here. The plot is complicated and interesting, and the way he juggles multiple timelines and varying degrees of reality is brilliant. No plot details are necessary -- you should just watch it. I've never seen a Almodovar film, and I am very impressed. Once interesting note, though -- it is rated NC-17. WHY? For the record, as far as I can remember, this film has absolutely NO NUDITY. There are plenty of sex scenes -- the film is notorious for it -- but none of them show any private body parts. The only thing that this film differs from other, more explicit, R-rated films, is that the sex scenes are between two men. Is this reason enough to push it to NC-17? If there are other reasons, I'd love to know. Otherwise, this is completely ludicrous.

The House of Flying Daggers (7/10) -- For those who thought Hero was visually spectacular but emotionally hollow, this film is director Zhang Yimou's response. It has (thankfully!) fewer fight scenes, and none as dazzling as the leaves fight in Hero, but it actually has a real plot now, and one filled with real characters. Yes, it still feels pretty hollow, and I still don't really care much about the characters, but at least I'm not bored. And the beautiful fight scenes -- especially the one in a bamboo forest -- certainly elevate it above your typical martial arts film. Now that Zhang Yimou has gotten all these cool-fight ideas out of his system in Hero, he was finally able to craft a better film that's more than a rack on which to hang his fight scenes. It's unfortunate that he's not making another wuxia film -- at least not yet -- because next time, he might actually focus on the characters.

Finding Neverland (6/10) -- It's fine Hollywood yarn. Johnny Depp was fine, and Kate Winslet was fine. The plot was fine (if not a little trite) and the direction was fine. But it's sugary and a tad manipulative towards the end, and in general just not all that spectacular. There is very little magic as James Mathew Berrie writes his masterpiece, Peter Pan, compared moments from other literary films like Shakespeare in Love or The Hours. And Berrie's "boundless imagination" could've been presented with a little more imagination. But still, there's nothing terribly wrong with it. It's fine.

Oscar nominations are in!!!

Yes it's been a month, who cares?

The Oscar nominations are in!

Inclusions that made me ecstatic:

• Clive Owen, Closer, Best Supporting Actor -- He was deliciously chauvinistic and deserves to win.
  
• Kate Winslet, Eternal Sunshine, Best Actress -- Eternal Sunshine was locked for screenplay, but its wonderful to see Kate Winslet getting a nod.
  
• Virginia Madsen, Sideways, Best Supporting Actress -- She looked stunning in the film and brought it such tender humanity. Her speech about why she loves wine is gold.
  
• Natalie Portman, Closer, Best Supporting Actress -- Her first role as an adult is the performance of her lifetime. Yes, better than Garden State. She really completely disappears into this weak/strong and (arguably) the only lovable character from the film. Her and Owen's nominations bring a smile to my face.
  

Inclusions that made me mad:

• Ray and Finding Neverland for Best Picture. You know my hatred for Ray, and Finding Neverland is the Chocolot of 2004 -- goes down easy, syrupy sweet and not at all nutritious. Both don't deserve to be here. I was hoping the Academy would surprise me with Eternal Sunshine, but I was dreaming indeed.
  
• Johnny Depp, Finding Neverland, Best Actor -- Come on. Yes, he was fine, as Depp always is. But his presence here and Paul Giamatti's absence here indicates that, even though the critics are going crazy for Sideways, Hollywood really doesn't share the love.
  

Omissions that made me sad:

• Paul Giamatti, Sideways, Best Actor -- I was really rooting for him here for his great funny-sad performance. But this was a really great year for male performances.
  
• Eternal Sunshine or Closer for Best Picture -- two of the greatest films of the year, snubbed. Not that they were favored to be included at all, of course; both were too offbeat to be considered at all. But sad nonetheless.
  
• Jim Carrey, Eternal Sunshine, Best Actor -- Wow, the Academy must *really* hate Jim Carrey; first Truman Show, and now this. At least Kate Winslet got a nod.
  
• Wes Anderson, Life Acquatic, Original Screenplay -- Okay, that's the stuff dreams are made of.
  

This sucks; I'm not too excited about any of the best picture nominees. It's looking like an Aviator sweep, and it may very well take the thing, unless Million Dollar Baby catches fire in the coming month (and it could). The Aviator was a fine movie, though a little to flashy and hollow for my taste; I really don't think it's best picture material. I have not seen MDB, though, and will soon. Sideways has no chance -- Paul Giamatti's exclusion from Best Actor basically kills its chances here. Ray and Finding Neverland can only sit at the sidelines here as the top two battle it out.

Jamie Foxx will (easily) take the Best Actor nod for Ray. The only threat here is Clint Eastwood, but I don't think so. Everyone else can go home.

God I would love to see a double win for Closer in the supporting categories for Clive Owen and Natalie Portman, but it seems unlikely. Morgan Freeman is looking great for supporting actor, though the supporting actress round seems pretty open. I'm torn though; Natalie Portman or Virginia Madsen? I loved both so much.

Hilary Swank has a near lock on Best Actress. Looks like she's going to snatch the Oscar away from Annette Bening again, like she did a few years ago for her performance in Boys Don't Cry versus Bening's in American Beauty.

The Incredibles will win best animated feature. Shrek 2 *may* threaten, but I don't see it as an even remote possibility, even with Shrek 2 doing tremendous business.

Clint Eastwood will probably get the best director nod, though the Academy may finally decide to honor Martin Scorsese. In fact, my bet is that MDB and Aviator will split the best picture and the best director Oscars; the more likely scenario in my head is the Aviator getting best picture, and Eastwood getting best director.

I'm really really rooting for Eternal Sunshine for best original screenplay. Charlie Kaufman's been nominated three times for writing, and it's time for him to win. The Aviator, though might unfairly interrupt.

Adapted Screenplay? MDB. Maybe it'll go to Sideways, but unlikely.

DISAPPOINTING. What a boring Oscar race!

Sideways (8/10)

This film is as fine as the wine that its characters obsess over -- smooth, effortless, and with a haunting after taste that keeps you up at night.

Of course, I don't know anything about wine, but what a movie! The fourth film from American directory Alexander Payne, who also made Election and About Schmidt, is more restrained, more subtle and more mature than his previous outings. It definitely borrows more in tone from About Schmidt (slow, dreamy countryside) than Election (bitter, vicious suburbanite) and doesn't quite reach the sheer joy of Election, still my favorite Payne film. But this is not a film that is eager to show off its cleverness as Election was. There are no crazy camera movements or fancy cinematic tricks screaming for attention. The characters just talk on and on, and the things that they say aren't even particularly clever or witty.

But boy, do you fall in love with the characters! In a kind of chamberplay-on-the-road, all four actors and actresses turn in wonderful performances, and there is a beautiful, dreamy conversation late at night between the main character and his love interest on the subject of wine and life that may knock you out cold and break your heart.

Of course, Payne hasn't completely gone soft. There is a scene here that is as surprising and vulgar as the famous bathtub scene in About Schmidt and most of Election. You'll know it when you see it, and you'll think twice about entering strangers' houses after watching this.

In any case, this is not a film that aggressively tries to impress you. But its characters stay with you, and scenes from the film age slowly. Plus, I vote the main character as the most me-character I've seen on film all year. This is a great movie, but its greatness won't come till you've let it sit and ripen for a few days.

Ray (5/10)

Very disappointing. I came out of Collateral eager to see what Jamie Foxx would do with a weightier role. And while Foxx was fine, the movie was not.

Ray makes the most fatal mistake of all biopics -- instead of telling stories about the man and the legend, it merely lays out a chronology. The film starts off promisingly with effective flashback scenes hinting at a haunting past. However, after the half-way point, everything that's on screen only serves to bring about another newspaper headline. The characters don't stay on screen for more than three minutes anymore; instead, we are presented with flash presentations of different events in Ray Charles' life. Very quickly, I lost all identification with any of the characters, and was begging for the history lessons to stop. The movie culminates with a final, imaginary scene that resolves Ray's ghosts from the past. This scene is unnecessarily uplifting, offensively cheesy and only emphasizes how phony the whole movie rings.

Jamie Foxx was fine and believable as Ray Charles. But he was never given many scenes of much emotional weight that holds for more than five minutes, and therefore, never evolves from mere caricature to character. I much prefer him in Collateral.

In any case, god I hope this film doesn't make it into the Oscars. Jamie Foxx can get his Best Actor nod, but do not waste a slot in Best Picture.

Garden State (7/10)

So I was a little disappointed. Just a little. Garden State is quirky. But like most freshmen films -- it is written and directed by first-timer Zaff Braff -- it is too impressed by its quirkiness.

It's odd, really. Many films seem to think that if they're hip and stylish, they can get away with being mushy, as if their quirkiness buy them credits toward sentimentality. Most of Spielberg films fall into this catagory, as did I Heart Huckabees. Garden State is not overly sentimental, but all the existential and relational angst that it has juggled for 90 minutes fall too neatly in place in the last ten minutes. And, throughout the ending scenes, the film is a relentless point-making machine, settling scores and offering axiomatic nuggets of life wisdom with scary and pretentious efficiency.

I forgive it -- up to this point, the film has been honest, sharp and observant. Zaff Braff, of the Scrubs fame, is endlessly watchable. His comatose demeanor and dry delivery are a pleasure to behold, and his script is filled with cool characters. Natalie Portman also turns in a sympathetic and charming performance that is hard not to adore, and provides a worthy spirit to the film's weighty center. And there were scenes of simple brilliance, such as the opening scene or the knight-in-kitchen scene. Most of the time, it is an incredible first feature, and shows a lot of promise.

But then, occasionally, it makes hard and difficult turns toward the conventional. The father-son relationship is handled with a wave of the hand -- how typical for a non-psychiatrist to show more insight into life than a psychiatrist! And several of the "poignant" scenes feel like Natalie Portman trying to squeeze tears from our eyes. Plus, we would all be better off with fewer scenes of people shouting into an abyss. Still, Garden State is an entertaining ride through teenage angst. And, in his next feature, if Zaff Braff can steer clear of the mind-numbing medication of canned sentimentality, then, well, we might all start to feel something.

I Heart Huckabees (7/10)

David O. Russel walks a dangerous line between the quirky and the ridiculous in his latest film, I Heart Huckabees. Oddly enough, this is not where the flaws of the film lie -- I Heart Huckabees is bizarre, surprising and challenging without losing all senses. I do have a high tolerance for absurdity -- being a fan of Mulholland Drive -- but I never found this film to be as disconnected and unpenetrable as critics have.

No, the problem actually lies in the struggle between the quirky and the banal. Quirkiness is usually used by directors to disguise true feelings and philosophical musings that would otherwise be sentimental. And though Huckabees has its share of brilliant quirkiness -- a dinner scene comes immediately to mind -- it also deeps into convenient banality, as in a career-killing meeting scene. It is frustrating to see a film with as awesome a concept as "existential detectives" to move into these easy, sentimental scenes, and I just had to shake my head and dock a few points.

Still, it is a fun and funny film. Highly recommended.

Best of 2004:
=============

1. The Incredibles -- 10
   
2. Eternal Sunshine -- 9
   
3. Dogville -- 9
   
4. Kill Bill: Volume 2 -- 8
   
5. Spiderman 2 -- 8
   
6. Harry Potter 3 -- 7
   
7. I Heart Huckabees -- 7
   
8. Collateral -- 7
   
9. Fahrenheit 9/11 -- 7
   
10. Shrek 2 -- 7
    

the incredibles (10/10)

I was lucky enough to attend a preview of Pixar's Next Big Thing, "The Incredibles". And boy, it's going to be hard going through this blog without using the word "incredible" and looking smug, but I'll try. In fact, I already failed.

In any case, WOW. This is, BY FAR, the MOST adult Pixar film to date. It is rated PG for cartoon violence, and sure, there's that, but that's not the adult part. Characters spew lines that I never thought would appear in a Pixar film. For example, Bob the father (ala Mr. Incredible), on a 4th grade graduation ceremony: "It's not a graduation! He's just passing from 4th grade to 5th grade! Why do we look for every possible chance to celebrate mediocrity?"

My jaw really dropped at this. This is so amazingly cynical, biting and incisive that you expect it from the mouth of, say, Woody Allen, but not a Pixar-animated father figure! Immediately, I knew this was going to be a very different film from the standard Pixar fare.

And it is. The Incredibles, as Monsters Inc., is bursting at the seams with imagination. There are breathtaking scenes that rival the sheer joy of creativity in the door-hanger scene in Monsters Inc. And the action scenes look absolutely stunning. But what really sets it apart is the amount of darkness in the material, from the truly dysfunctional family (instead of the standard I'm-an-orphan fare) to the issues of arrogance, neglect and death.

The director is Brad Bird, the mastermind behind "The Iron Giant", one of the finest animated films to come out of America. That movie, as The Incredibles, is funny, but in a different way from other Pixar films. The Incredibles has fewer zingers that almost entirely carried Finding Nemo, but it does have more situational comedy. Recall the robot-hand-in-the-house scene from The Iron Giant, and you get the idea.

Better still -- like The Iron Giant, The Incredibles is touching without being mushy. It is poignant, and it deals with the big issues, but without the usual preachiness. In fact, The Incredibles is probably the most morally-ambiguous Pixar film to date. Most of the characters have real flaws -- I don't mean just laziness or insecurity. There's a genuinely dark side to many of the characters, and good and evil is no longer so clear-cut. I really loved that as well.

Graphically, it looks amazing. The Incredibles features the best-looking computer-generated water effects to date. Sure, Finding Nemo has some of that, but it is mostly underwater, and as we know, the hard part is in modeling the water surface. The Incredibles has multiple scenes of characters in water -- and, even more amazing -- things splashing into water with stunning realism. The human characters are still not perfect -- Dash, in particular, looks very plastic for some reason -- but they're not expected to be.

I can go on and on about the complicated story, the sharp dialogue or the creative action sequences, but work is calling me. Suffice it to say that The Incredibles is the best Pixar film to date, and, as it stands right now, the best film of the year.

For fun, I'm listing my ranking of Pixar films:

Top Pixar Films:
================

1. The Incredibles -- 10; as I said
   
2. Toy Story 2 -- 10; everything you could want in a film
   
3. Monsters, Inc. -- 9; funny and intelligent except for the slightly lame ending
   
4. Finding Nemo -- 9; very well-done but exhausting; road trip movies (like Lord of the Ring) are not my thing
   
5. Toy Story -- 8; I liked it, but was never overly impressed
   
6. A Bug's Life -- 7; Antz was better
   

Movies of 2004 Update

In case I forget, here's the updated list so far:

Best of 2004:
1. Eternal Sunshine
2. Dogville
3. Kill Bill: Volume 2
4. Spiderman 2
5. Harry Potter 3
6. Collateral
7. Fahrenheit 9/11
8. Shrek 2

A few notes:

Collateral is just wonderful. Michael Mann crafts such a moody and mourful piece, depicting the hypnotic nightmare that is LA. Yes, the plot line is predictable, and the last chase scene is way too long, but in certain parts, the movie drags. Yet the characters are all lovable, and Jamie Foxx especially turns in a surprisingly sympathetic performance. His first exchange with the girl in the cab is absolutely priceless; it's one that makes me drop my jaw and just marvel at the beauty of a perfectly-written, perfectly-performed and perfectly-directed scene.

Moved Kill Bill 2 above Spiderman 2 because KB2 stood up to a second viewing better. I think I'm going to be switching these two around all year long.

For some reason I forgot to put in Harry Potter before.

Movies I'm dying to watch:

Hero -- this should easily make top ten

Donnie Darko: Director's Cut -- if this is just exactly as good as the original, it will make number 2 on this list.

Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow -- this looks stunning, and I'm a sucker for Indiana Jones-like adventures. Early word of mouth is amazing.

The Incredibles -- PIXAR!!!!!!! Directed by Brad Bird, Pixar newbie but the director behind The Iron Giant, one of the best 2D animated films EVER! I cannot stress how excited I am.

Shark Tales -- Dreamworks' next entry to the animation market. It doesn't look as great in the trailers as, say, Finding Nemo (certainly the animation is not as beautiful), but Dreamworks usually pulls through. I'm a little skeptical, though...

By the way, I'm predicting a boring Oscar season this year.

spiderman 2

Wow. I will pay it this compliment: Spiderman 2 has some of the most thrilling, innovative and satisfying action sequences since The Matrix, and it's easily the best superhero movie since Batman Returns.

I was not a big fan of the first one. It wasn't just the groan-inducing cheesy dialogue, either. The first half of the first Spiderman was quirky and enjoyable, but the second half quickly turned into a typical action movie on autopilot. Spiderman 2, however, is thoughtful and surprising all the way through, and director Sam Raimi now finally is no longer shy about letting his quirky side out. The film is littered with bizarre moments of humor, and Raimi shows off his horror roots in a fantastic hospital scene.

Yes, the film contains too much pop-psychology and trashy science for its own good. But it still serves to build an emotional foundation, and one that is not as self-important and pompous as that of The Hulk. And, damn it, it works, and I do sympathize with Peter Parker, both of us being burdened with the task of saving the world and looking good while doing it.

It's true. I'm Batman.

Best of 2004:
1. Eternal Sunshine
2. Dogville
3. Spiderman 2
4. Kill Bill: Volume 2
5. Fahrenheit 9/11
6. Shrek 2

Fahrenheit 9/11

Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 was, in fact, the number one movie in America this weekend with a $21.9 million pull (his previous film, Bowling for Columbine, took nine months to rake in $21.5 million!). It's extremely, extremely heartening to see that it actually outperformed White Chicks. Could it be that this country really is more interested in politics than black guys dressed up as blond girls?

The film itself is wonderful, every bit as biting, insightful and biased as you would expect a Michael Moore film to be. And, more than that -- and the reason why people love Moore documentaries -- it's also very entertaining. It's more focused than the sprawling Bowling for Columbine, though not as constantly intriguing and thought-provoking. He took a few shots too cheap at Bush, and sometimes overstated the obvious. And I agree with the critical consensus that there's not that much previously-unknown information. Nevertheless, the art of filmmaking is in the presentation, and Moore has put together a tasty treat.

Did it deserve its Palm D'Or? Eh, probably not. Though very well-made, it's not exactly a shining example of filmmaking. Fahrenheit 9/11 definitely benefitted from its political message there.

Is it better than Bowling for Columbine? Eh, probably not. Though it is more subtle, more restrained, and more mature, it's not as immediately brilliant nor as wildly creative.

Is it going to sway the election? Eh, probably not. The film may be a little too radical to do that. While there are things here that would definitely convert some votes, it's padded with polarizing viewpoints (the film, for example, still dwells on Bush stealing 2004's election. Moore really needs to move on from that point). However, I must commend Moore for daring to make a film filled with his opinion, rather than a two-hour long attack ad.

Nonetheless, it's one of the best films of the year so far, and will be a big presence at this year's Oscars. And, it did blow everyone's expectations and beat White Chicks and Dodgeball at the box office -- while being shown on only one third as many movie screens! Who knows, as Michael Moore constantly surprises us, perhaps the American people will surprise him too.

The Terminal

I went into this movie expecting the most saccharine and sappy of Spielberg films. The Terminal looks, in tone and feel, similar to Catch Me If You Can, the previous Spielberg outing that I didn't particularly enjoy.

The problem is a simple one. Spielberg, while extremely talented, is one of the most sentimental directors working in Hollywood. This is evident in even his greatest works, E.T., Saving Private Ryan, and Schindler's List, where he cannot resist tugging (or, more often, jerking) at our heartstrings. Lately, though, he's been trying to prove that he's grown up and can deal with darker, more cynical issues. Thus his recent films, AI and Minority Report, are far from the innocent sci-fi world of E.T.

Annoyingly, though, his sentimental side still intrudes all the time, especially at the end. AI, for example, was a masterpiece of set design, special effects, beautiful direction and foreboding darkness. Until, that is, the horribly contrived and sugary ending. Minority Report, too, was brilliant; the showdown with Leo Crow proves Spielberg to be unparalleled when he's not distracted by his sentimental tendencies. Yet the ending takes an odd, obligatory and unnecessary turn toward the optimistic, and he again ruined an otherwise wonderful movie.

Catch Me If You Can was an interesting case, a mix of darkness and innocence, and marks the first time (in recent years) Spielberg is trying directly to make a comedy. Unfortunately, he's not very good at it; I didn't find a single funny moment in the film (though there were various witty ones). And I was strongly repelled by the "poignant" scenes (like when his father asks him in a bar, in reference to an earlier scene, "Where are you going today? Somewhere fancy?"). All in all, it was not a very tasty brew.

Which brings us back to The Terminal, another "light-hearted comedy". And, much to my surprise, it worked. The dialogue is still (as it often is in Spielberg films) stilted and forced, full of purpose and clamoring to make a point. But the comedy this time worked. This is probably more due to Tom Hanks than Spielberg's direction; Hanks turns in a performance so sympathetic, lovable and subtle that it's hard not to be constantly impressed. His comic timing is dead-on, and his physical slapstick performance is perfect as well.

The film is, appropriately, not as pretty to look at as his previous films, though it's still gorgeous. Spielberg's favorite cinematographer, Janusz Kaminski, who also worked on AI, Minority Report, Saving Private Ryan, Schindler's List, etc., brings his usual palette of shining metallic surfaces and overpowering lights to the picture. Whereas they were distracting in Catch Me If You Can (made that movie seem bigger and less intimate that it should be), here it works to make the airport at once alien and beautiful to behold. Though his fondness for strong backlighting is starting to annoy me, there is one scene during a proposal that is so visually stunning that I let out a cry of joy (to the dismay of everyone else).

So there, I liked it. It has its flaws (especially the dialogue), but I give Spielberg another passing grade. And I can't wait when he finally, really grows up.

harry potter & co

The new Harry Potter movie, Prisoner of Azkaban, I should note, is the best so far. Yes, it fulfills the promise of being darker and more menacing. But even more, the director this time around, Alfonso Cuaron (of "Y Tu Mama Tambien" and "A Little Princess" fame) is just that much more skilled and subtle than the sledgehammer that is the helmer of the previous outings -- Chris Columbus (of "Home Alone" and, dear God, "Bicentennial Man" and "Stepmom" fame -- though, to be fair, he also made the great Mrs. Doubtfire).

Having created the lovely "A Little Princess" -- one of the best movies of its kind -- Cuaron obviously knows how to work with kids. And the poignant "Y Tu Mama Tambien" proves that he can capture the sensitivities of teenagers. Thus, the characters do more now than just spewing off exposition; they stare into space, look off to the side, turn their backs and go into subtle, quiet rage. It's a much more interesting performance from everyone.

The movie is such a gigantic production that it's hard to credit the incredibly beautiful set designs and perfect special effects to Cuaron. However, he is certainly responsible for the nimble camera work, constantly in motion without being schizophrenic. He also knows exactly when to pull the camera afar to show the characters in their lonely isolation. Many times, I felt a sudden and strong emotional connection completely due to a camera angle change.

And ah, there it is. Emotional connection. This is something that the first two movies lacked, where I never ceased being amazed by the story and the sets but couldn't feel anything beyond the perfunctory plot devices. Here, it works; even the sugary scenes, damn it!

It's not perfect, of course. It still feels too much like a book, and scenes still only extend far enough to expose plot points (rather than letting moods and emotions set in). I would love to see a three-hour version of the film, where Cuaron can work under less damning time constraints. Regardless, this is a wonder of a movie, and one that might make my year-end list.

By the way, my year-end list for 2004 so far:

1. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
2. Dogville
3. Kill Bill, Vol. 2
4. Harry Potter 3
5. Shrek 2

Not a very good list yet, though more are coming...

Oscar predicts

All right, sorry for the non-updates, but here's the obligatory Oscar predicts:

Best Picture
1. Lord of the Rings: Return of the King
2. Mystic River
3. Master and Commander
4. Seabiscuit
5. Lost in Translation

Has this race ever been so boring? Unfortunately, the sensationalist ROTK looks like it has a solid lock on the prize. And it's just impossible to convince the fans that the trilogy just isn't that great. It takes so much organization skills, don't you know. It's such a product of love, can't you see. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Actually, I'm pretty ambivalent of all the nominees this year; I found nothing impressive about Master and Commander or Seabiscuit, and I liked, but did not love, Mystic River and Lost in Translation. Had City of God been nominated here, that's what I'd be rooting for... But one can only dream.

Best Director:
1. Peter Jackson, Return of the King
2. Clint Eastwood, Mystic River
3. Sofia Coppola, Lost in Translation
4. Peter Weir, Master and Commander
5. Fernando Meirelles, City of God

Another one that ROTK has locked up. A shame, too -- if there's a technical, organizational award, I wouldn't hesitate giving it to Peter Jackson. But as directors go, Fernando Meirelles is my definite favorite. Too bad. Peter Jackson will go on and win the gold, and follow it up with the remake of King Kong. In that movie, it's rumored that the actor who played Legolas, Orlando Bloom will play King Kong, and will once again defy gravity by running up the side of an elephant. The elephant falls over and dies, killing hundreds. Meanwhile, King Kong will battle Godzilla, whose remake will follow the remake of King Kong, also helmed by Peter Jackson. He will then go on to adapt other great literary works such as Scooby Doo 3: The Return of Scooby. Scooby Doo will be played by Orlando Bloom's left hand. I hate ROTK.

Best Actor:
1. Bill Murray, Lost in Translation
2. Sean Penn, Mystic River
3. Johnny Depp, Pirates of the Caribbean
4. Ben Kingsley, House of Sand and Fog
5. Jude Law, Cold Mountain

This is the race to watch come Oscar night. Sean Penn was what everyone was predicting (especially given that wonderful TIME article on Penn). But Lost In Translation, the absolute critics darling this year, has been gathering an incredible amount of steam, and since it's not going to win best picture or best director, this seems like the best place to award the film. Plus, Bill Murray does turn in a wonderfully understated performance. The wild card, of course, is Johnny Depp, with his shocking SAG win. Could it be that Murray and Penn are splitting votes so much that a third person -- Depp or Kingsley -- will pull an upset? Remember, last year, Jack Nicholson and Daniel Day-Lewis were thought to be the winners, but because of the standstill, Adrien Brody snuck in and took the gold. Could happen again. Or, Depp may be taking votes mostly from Murray, leaving the door open for Penn...

Best Actress
1. Charlize Theron, Monster
2. Keisha Castle Hughes, Whale Rider
3. Diane Keaton, Something's Gotta Give
4. Naomi Watts, 21 Grams
5. Samantha Morton, In America

There's just no question here -- Charlize Theron turned in one of the most powerful and devastating performances of the history of cinema, and easily blew away everyone else. Yes, Diane Keaton was really wonderful in Something's Gotta Give, but she already has an Oscar. Keisha Castle Hughes has all the buzz for being the youngest best actress nominee ever, but not enough to overcome the front runner.

Best Supporting Actor:
1. Tim Robbins, Mystic River
2. Alec Baldwin, The Cooler**
3. Djimon Hounsou, In America
4. Benicio Del Toro, 21 Grams *
5. Ken Watanabe, The Last Samurai

You'd have to be stupid to bet on anything else. Tim Robbins, not Sean Penn, stole the show in Mystic River, and for good reasons.

Best Supporting Actress:
1. Renee Zellweger, Cold Mountain
2. Patricia Clarkson, Pieces of April
3. Shohreh Aghdashloo, House of Sand and Fog
4. Marcia Gay Harden, Mystic River
5. Holly Hunter, Thirteen

It's her third time in a row being nominated; it's time. Though I don't particularly like Renee Zellweger (nor did I watch Cold Mountain), I don't have trouble giving the gold to her. Look for an upset coming from Shohreh Aghdashloo, though -- she did an amazing job in House of Sand and Fog.

Screenplay - Adapted
1.Mystic River, Brian Helgeland
2. Lord of the Rings: Return of the King, Walsh, Boyens, Jackson
3. Seabiscuit, Gary Ross
4. City of God, Braulio Mantovani
5. American Splendor, Shari Springer Berman and Robert Pulcini

Another one that ROTK seems to dominate in. People do respect Mystic River a lot though, so here might be where they reward it. But people also love Seabiscuit (for God knows why), so I'll go out on a limb and predict that. Plus, the plot was probably the weakest part of Mystic River (and let's not get into the so-called plot of ROTK)

Original Screenplay
1. Lost in Translation, Sofia Coppola
2. In America, Jim Sheridan and daughters
3. Finding Nemo, Andrew Stanton
4. Barbarian Invasions, Denys Arcand
5. Dirty Pretty Things, Stephen Knight

This is Coppola's to lose. Having been robbed the director award by Peter Jackson, here she will find her consolation. Plus, screenplay awards are usually reserved for films that people like a lot, but not quite commercial enough to win best film (case in point: Pulp Fiction)

Animated Feature
1. Finding Nemo
2. The Triplets of Belleville
3. Brother Bear

Do we really have to guess? It'd be amusing to see Triplets of Belleville -- one of the quirkiest, most charming movies this year -- win, just as Spirited Away triumphantly did last year. But it has no chance -- it is French.

Too lazy to do the rest, but I'll conclude that City of God has an excellent chance of winning Best Editing and Best Cinematography -- over ROTK. Both editing and cinematography are amazing in that film, and are easily the best I've seen this year. Also, I think it's very, very interesting that the Matrix films did not get nominated even for the Visual F/X category. Instead, Master and Commander and Pirates of Caribbeans fill the spots.