The Cinematic Experience of Forizzer

I’ve finally had enough time to sit down and write a review for the film I saw on Christmas Day. While others were eating a festival bird, I was sitting in a fairly vacant crowd, viewing the satirical comedy of the year.

---

Well, Mr. Nichols is continuing his career on a good note, with this well devised flick. As everyone knows, Mike Nichols is a great comedic director; judging only from the film The Graduate. Unlike The Graduate, this film is not as raunchy and much more dramatic. If you go into this film expecting a laugh out loud film, you’ll be disappointed. While his direction is wonderful in the comedic areas, I felt his direction kind of wandered off in the more tense scenes. He handled the material very well, it just looked like he was trying to make the war into a gimmick rather than a serious matter. It worked as a gimmick, but the film would’ve benefited from it being more of a serious issue. Nonetheless, he knew where he wanted the film to go, so it wasn’t all over the place. Some fine work, but it could’ve been much better.

Aaron Sorkin, a man who hasn’t written a script for a film in over a decade, returns with one of the most well written scripts of the year. He take on the acclaimed novel, is in my eyes one of the most provocative scripts of the year. Daring, funny, shocking and depressing. No other script this year has sent me into such an emotional frenzy. With this very emotional script comes sharp dialog. Not a line seemed out of a place. All the stories worked out very well and came to amazing conclusions; whether they be bittersweet or unresolved, the film had it all. If the script had been handed to someone like Jason Reitman, who can handle the satirical comedy fantastically, as well as bring in deep emotion, it would’ve been one of – if not – the best film of the year.

---

---

Onto the fantastic ensemble. From the ‘comeback’ of Roberts, ‘rebound’ of Hanks and ‘hot streaks’ of Adams and Hoffman, the entire film was well acted.

Julia Roberts in my eyes was the weakest of the cast, believe it or not. She plays “Joanne Herring“, a femme fatale in some aspects. She’s a leading lady in many charitable organizations, but is really prissy. Roberts plays the role very well. Sadly, her character is in the film for not more than fifteen minutes; giving her limited space to work with. All Roberts could do was throw on an accent and speak with an impeccable vocabulary. You’ll feel mixed about this character, thanks to the charisma brought by Julia. Sadly, in the end it won’t matter much, because you’ll feel underwhelmed by the overall impression she leaves on you.

Amy Adams is coming off of a beloved performance in Enchanted. Thinking that she had a small, unimportant role in the film, I dismissed her from my mind in this film going into it. Surprisingly, despite the little meaning her character has to the film, she gives a great performance. She was funny, adorable and showed the human side of the war. If Adams had not been in the role, I highly doubt the film would’ve benefited from the character at all. For those who are curious, she plays “Bonnie Bach“, Charlie Wilson’s “executive assistant”. Her take on the role was pitch perfect. Hilarious at times, and she even has the one heartbreaking (in a tear jerking sense) scene of the film. What does she do with it? Knocks it right out of the ball park. This is certainly Adams’ year.

Philip Seymour Hoffman plays “Gust Avrakotos“, the man the C.I.A. sent to help Charlie Wilson get funding and weapons for the Afghani mujahideen. He is the best in the film, and he actually transformed into his character. The other actors were great, but they seemed a lot like themselves in real life/other films. Well, knowing Philip Seymour Hoffman you’ve got to expect the best. He really took this real life man (now deceased) and made himself into him. I haven’t been able to obtain a video of the real man, so I’m going based on what I thought Hoffman did in the role, if Avrakotos was just a character. Philip brings hilarity to the table. In fact, without Hoffman in the role, I could not see the film being very funny at all. His presence alone gave teh film another dimension to work with, making it all the more better. His chemistry with Hanks was great, and his chemistry with Roberts in the one scene they had together was phenomenal. From serious to light hearted, this man can play all roles. Certainly an amazing way to top off a sensational year, for Mr. Hoffman.

Onto the lead, Tom Hanks, who obvious plays “Charlie Wilson“. His take on the complex man wasn’t as it should’ve been. The man was complex, was he not? Supporting the fight, but not realizing the consequences. Doing everything to please everyone, but never really caring. Hanks’ performance wasn’t as great as it could’ve been, leaving me to think that he was miscast to some extent. Sure, surface wise he was grand. Creating a quarrel here and there, playing off of his costars well, but something was missing. He had the satire down, that’s for sure. Coming from a man who’s brought so much emotion to so many roles, it makes me wonder “What happened?”, surely this man isn’t the same man who was in Philadelphia. Not to say he was bad at all. Don’t get me wrong, he was good. Just when this performance is juxtaposed to most of his other work, he seems to have flailed around a lot here. All Hanks did was bring a languid quality to an eccentric character. He started off well, but slowly his performance got weaker and weaker. Is he deserving of the Golden Globe nomination? Not really, but it wasn’t a horrible choice. Hopefully that nomination will help boost him up to his mid 90’s status. Doubtful, but we can only hope.

---

---

The technical aspects weren’t exactly a vital ingredient to the film, but some were great.

The film editing was key to the film. It kept the pace brisk, but not too brisk. It didn’t really rush anything, adding to the full effectiveness of the overall completed film. Good cuts, beautiful transitions, and to boot some really intriguing war footage spliced into reels. Very good stuff, but it could’ve been better. By this I mean the film could’ve given you more of an expose on Charlie Wilson, as well as Gust Avrakotos. If the film had been two hours long, I’m pretty sure it could’ve been better.

The art decoration and costume design were very pretty. From luxurious suites to a plain office, the art director had the traditional settings down pat. As for the costumes, they had a much wider range. From tattered, torn and dirty clothing; basically reduced to rags on little children, to divine dresses, it had a lot of good work.

The cinematography was nice. Two time nominee Stephen Goldblatt helmed the photography and did a very nice job. There wasn’t a lot to work with, but he did what best he could. Some scenes were beautiful. Most of his great stuff came in Afghanistan, where there was a lot of decay, ruin and empty space for him to work with. Good stuff, but nothing special.

The score by the composer of the year (in my opinion) James Newton Howard was beautiful. It isn’t as well done as his other three films’ scores, but it is very nice. Howard’s score in the film ranges from upbeat to dreary, allowing the compositions to pluck at your heart’s strings throughout the entire film. This being said, the compositions aren’t very original, nor do they stand out all too much. A good effort from Howard, but he’s done better.

---

Nominations for Charlie Wilson’s War
Best Adapted Screenplay – Aaron Sorkin (#3)

Rating : 8/10

Not seeing the play or any other adapted versions of this film may have effected my experience. I did not know what to expect, nor was I an expert on the material adapted. If I do indeed seem ignorant to what I am comparing the performances or anything like that to, please forgive me.

---

Tim Burton, one of the most dark, twisted directors of any time hits gold with his rendition of Sweeney Todd : The Demon Barber of Fleet Street. With such demonic material for Burton to work with, you can only expect the best. The only thing that caught me off guard a bit was that the film was a musical. A tragic musical directed by Tim Burton? It would either be a hit or miss. Fortunately, it was definitely a hit. While his vision was constantly on track, he had a small issue in handling some of the musical numbers. Yes, they were all directed well and everyone singing had a stellar voice. It’s just Burton did not know when to quit. Some numbers went on for endless lengths and inevitably turned tedious. Yes, he was trying to keep true to the play (i think) but he should’ve had better sense with some of the songs. On another note, his idea for the atmosphere was ideal. He kept the scenery depressed and made the audience almost claustrophobic; giving them nowhere else to go and nowhere else to breathe. You were basically sucked into his imaginative world; somewhere no normal person would like to be. Some of his best work, and certainly deserving of the nomination.

Accomplished scribe John Logan adapted the material from the play of the same name. He is a two time nominee, and I’m sure Sondheim wouldn’t leave the adaptation to anyone he didn’t find fit to do the deed. While Logan doesn’t have much to work with – as it is an almost exact adaptation from the stage onto the screen (critics and other people have said this) – he still manages to keep the initial integrity of the acclaimed play. About ninety percent of the two hour running time is devoted to musical numbers. Some of them were great, a few of them were boring and annoying. Either way, it was a musical and since it is one of my least favourite genres, I couldn’t only expect so much. He threw in a bit of dark humor to add another flavor into the stew, and it worked very well. Carter, Depp and Cohen had most of the comedy – what little there was – and it worked very well. It didn’t seem out of place and it certainly helped the viewer enjoy the film much more. All in all, the film was completely dark; no brightness to be found. With a dark premise, dark execution and dark undertones, you’ll either be drawn in by such devastation or revolted by it. Hopefully it is the former. Oh and on a side note, I’ve seen the ending to the play and I much do prefer the ending in the film. They’re not too different, but the films ending has a much more morose and staggering effect on you.

---

---

Onto the amazing ensemble. Not one person was miscast, which allowed the viewer to believe the revenge ballad… at all. If actors can make the most unrealistic executions seem somewhat believable, you know they’ve done a good job.

Timothy Spall plays “Beadle Bamford“, Judge Turpin’s lackey. He comes off as an evil man. His expressions, the way he handles himself, his career position and all. But really, this man isn’t as bad as he seems. Spall fit the role perfectly, I thought. Though the role isn’t large in any way, shape or form, Spall does what he does best; transforms into character seamlessly. His chemistry with Depp and Rickman was great. He and Depp created fantastic tension. Probably the most horrific moments came between the two; in a subtle fashion. On a closing note, Spall is having an amazing year, don’t you think? The Last Hangman, Enchanted and this? What a year. Props to him, he deserves it.

Alan Rickman plays villains very well. We’ve seen this in the Harry Potter films, but never until now have we seen him be not only dark, but very, very vengeful. To some, he may come off a Snape parte deux, but he is so much more than that. He does play the antagonist, but he is not out for any sort of revenge. In fact, I’d say this film has no protagonists (other than the character Anthony). Rickman plays the character “Judge Turpin“, a cruel Judge who just doesn’t like anyone other than himself, really. Somehow Rickman manages to capture a human being throughout all of the animated personality. The only problem was the screenplay didn’t know what to do with the character. One moment, they make him a naive, caring man. The next, a vengeful, coarse demon. I guess it made the story more interesting, but Rickman’s performance reflected upon this perfectly. In a nutshell, his transformations back and forth were excellent, making his performance grand.

Sacha Baron Cohen, one of the funniest men to burst onto the scene in recent memory. One of the main reasons I saw this film was for him. He plays “Pirelli“, ‘the best shave in town’. He manages to make this film seem lighter and happier for his entire time on screen. Even when he is evil, his comedic presence is always there. He goes through a change, so to speak. One that devastates the audience. Cohen – as you know – is a chameleon. He can transform into character most magnificently. I only expected the best from him here. To my pleasure, he handled the dark material as well as anyone else in the film; completely stealing the show from Depp (for his small amount of time). Cohen also nailed his Italian accent. He was pitch perfect with his body language and in his vocal language as well. His voice was better than Depp’s, and considering Cohen had to do his numbers with a thick accent, he deserves the praises he’s getting.

Helena Bonham Carter plays “Mrs. Lovett“, a twisted, loveless pie maker. Her character comes off as two dimensional, but as the film progresses, her character becomes three dimensional. Add onto that Carter’s wonderful interpretation of the role, and you’ve got a great performance. Her voice was the most stunning of the film, in my opinion. She carried tunes perfectly and is certainly deserving of the love she is getting. Her character doesn’t go through many changes, but nearing the end of the film she has an amazing scene that really gives her that little push into greatness. She’s not nomination worthy, but I think many people will contradict that opinion soon enough. If you want a vague comparison of this performance, look no further than Carter’s performance in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. Basically that role, in a leading role… and a bit less sadistic.

Onto the honcho of the film, Johnny Depp. He plays “Sweeney Todd“, a man formerly known as “Benjamin Barker“. The transformation of his persona – inevitably ending in a name change – was because his wife was captured by the ruthless Judge Turpin. If you did not know this, why are you reading my review? That’s the whole premise. Anyways, his character is beyond psychotic, and he makes sure everything he does only brings him closer to his revenge. No gallivanting around for Mr. Todd, only revenge. That’s basically all the character is, so there isn’t much for Depp to work with, outside of the one dimension he is given. Well, Depp has had less to work with and has delivered a lot, so what do you expect Depp did with this role? He played the psycho as well as anyone else could’ve – if not better. He brought darkness and torment to the role unlike he ever has. He also had a great, dreary voice to coincide with the performance, which helped love him more. Unfortunately, he only had one characteristic to work with. All in all, a real ‘Depp’ performance. Definitely, deserving of a nomination.

---

---

This was one of the most technical films of the year. Everything – and I mean everything – was greatly executed, technically.

I’ll begin with the music. Although none is original, a lot of the music was amazing. Sondheim’s lyrics and compositions are some of the most well written and haunting you’ll hear this year. Though I felt some of the songs ran on too long and got tiresome, for the most part they were very enjoyable. As for the score… wow. It fit Burton’s vision perfectly, and had a ‘Burton’ film feel to it. It’s just odd how well Sondheim’s play and Tim Burton’s vision got along.

The sound editing and mixing were quite good as well. As a musical, you expect this aspect to be top notch, but at times it felt a little too much. The sound team didn’t do a good enough job editing out some backwash, because I got headaches during some of the songs. Other than this, it worked very well, especially the mixing. A great deal of suspense was brought mainly due to the sound team knowing when to throw in tense music. Some great work, some average work. All in all, fine stuff.

The film editing was good, but could’ve been better. As I stated in my first paragraph, some of the scenes seemed too long for their own good. Other than that the transitions and quick, short, effective scene compilations. Very good stuff, but the editing could’ve been so much better.

The makeup was wonderful. Quite a bit of the ‘evil’ vibe was brought on due to the very effective makeup; especially with Depp. The characters of Sweeney Todd and Mrs. Lovett would not have been the same without the pale, lifeless skin tone complexion. Also, the hair was very well done. Bright hair for the innocent, dark hair for the guilty. If you didn’t catch this, watch the final scene again, and you’ll get what I’m getting at.

The costume design and art direction are basically one in the same here. Alike above, the film would not have been the same without these dark techs. The costumes ranged from stunning, bright silk dress suits, to tattered, torn, dirty t-shirts. Same goes for the art decoration. The interiors were mainly decrepit and tarnished; bringing a more horrid vibe to the film. Basically, all the technical aspects helped benefit the overall creepiness of the film.

Onto the best tech of the film. This was by far the cinematography. Dariusz Wolski’s work on this film is his best ever. Having already hit gold with Pirates of the Caribbean : At World’s End, he continues his fantastic work with this film that needed top notch atmosphere. Without the right photography the film would’ve been horrible. Wolski’s work was amazing. From amazing tracking shots to fabulous atmosphere, there was nothing this man couldn’t do. Even when the film required a bright scene, he nailed the warmth of it. Some really amazing stuff here, and if not for the competition, he’d be my win, easily.

---

Nominations for Sweeney Todd : The Demon Barber of Fleet Street
Best Director – Tim Burton (#2)
Best Ensemble Cast – (#1!)
Best Cinematography – (#3)
Best Art Direction – (#4)
Best Makeup – (#2)

Rating : 8.5/10

A warning to all. It has come to my attention that a lot of people are disappointed with how the ending of the film turned out. Don’t worry, this does not contain any spoilers of any sort. This is to those who found the ending to be poorly written, disappointing, etc… Well, take these things into consideration. The film is PG-13 and was released before Christmas. What do you think the odds are of a film that’s supposed to be a box office smash having a morbid ending? Especially come Christmas time. It’s ludicris to expect something other than a nice ending to close an entertaining, ‘mind you’ PG flick. Comparing it to an indie, R rated Sunshine is not fair. Just consider that. Along with the fact that it was adapted from a novel with the same ending.

---

This years winter blockbuster arrives in the form of I Am Legend. A post apocalyptic story about a virus taking over the world before scientists could contain it. I was surprised at how much I enjoyed the film. Not a single moment of boredom, and a lot of thrilling moments. Francis Lawrence’s direction of the film was very balanced. He knew when to throw in comedic moments. He knew when to make the audience jump. He even knew when to make the audience shed a tear. A very well devised sci-fi flick, in my eyes. Lawrence’s take on the well written material was interesting. He chose to follow the thought process of Danny Boyle and make most of the film fairly plain; showing isolated life, how to survive, daily routine, etc… Very beautiful direction, keeping the ‘terror’ at a standby, and not relying on it to keep the audience interested. Very good direction for a sci-fi flick.The screenplay – adapted from the novel of the same name – was very interesting. Not a lot of dialog, for the film was set in a post-apocalyptic state and revolves around one man trying to cure the infection. The screenplay was written by Mark Protosevich and Akiva Goldsman (the team who brought Poseidon to the big screen). Surprisingly, it was fine. They didn’t have a lot to work with, so that was a relief. It’s best the film was very ‘quiet’ because I assume if it were any bigger, they would’ve destroyed the concept. With the dialog they provided, they brought dramatic moments, as well as hilarious moments. Not to say that the film was a comedy by any means, but Smith always finds a way to make the audience laugh. I can’t complain about the ending, or the final third of the film. It was all great stuff, and the final third didn’t take away too much from the film. Sure, predictable stuff, but as I mentioned above – what could won expect? A very fun ride, just wish it was a bit longer.

---

---

To talk about the acting, I will make it simple. I will only discuss the performance by one Will Smith. All other performances in the film were alright, nothing special at all.Will Smith. The most successful actor of all time, I’d say. Nothing but huge openings and occasional wonderful performances. This man can act. He’s shown us time and time again he can. He just prefers to do fun roles, and who can blame him? He makes millions, has a blast and gets nominated for Oscars. This may be the first time all three combine. Yes, last year he was nominated for a comedy/drama starring him and his son. It also made over 100 million. I just cannot imagine it being as much fun to make, as this film was. The excitement that Smith creates in audiences everywhere is profound. Never before has an actor been able to be powerful emotionally, after shooting a bunch of bad guys. He is the superstar of our time.

Onto the performance in I Am Legend. For about 90 minutes of the 101 minute running time, Will Smith is on his own, doing what he does best; making the audience enjoy themselves. This isn’t the first time he’s stepped into sci-fi territory. Previous experiences being Men in Black and Independence Day. Not until now has he mixed his heartbreaking prowess with his gun-toting slickness. A heavily well rounded performance that works on every level imaginable.

Knowing Will Smith from previous flicks, you know he has a knack for making the audience think back to his humorous moments. In the first third, Smith’s character comes off as peaceful, full of life and making the best of things. As the film progresses, we see that underneath the man, there lays an animal. No, not in the typical ‘rabid, illness infested’ animal. Rather a man dying inside, using his last amounts of hope to try to revive what he’s lost.

Told through flashbacks, we can see that “Robert Neville” wasn’t put in the best position. His trials have been piling up day by day, making life a living hell for the most part. His dreams are constant reminders; telling him to give up all hope. He struggles to cope without family, friends and the rest of everyday living. The sorrow in eyes fill the screen. Disappointments ensue, and Neville dies a little inside.

With this, Smith brings to the table an eccentric feel to his isolation. Frame by frame, Smith picks apart his character as he begins to lose hope. He does this in several ways. He shows the mental crumbling of the man that is Robert Neville. When the social inactivity beings to take it’s undying toll, you can see the man who once was as intelligent as they come, resorting to talking to fictitious people. Barely gathering enough courage to talk to ones that he ‘doesn’t know’. When he finally comes to and attempts some interactivity, there is no one there to respond… not even himself. The inevitable happens, and the casket in Robert’s mind blows, Smith is relentless with his psychotic warfare. Digging deeper than I’ve ever seen him, to pull something devastating and traumatizing from deep within him.

By the end of the film, we see that Neville has all but given up hope. He struggles to make it through the days; even with a new found purpose. He’s lost it all, including his mind. He’s lost all hope, including his faith. The man we once saw as a hero, as a savior, as the world’s only hope, is now a shriveled up, grief filled mess.

In closing, Will Smith’s ideals for this performance were spot on. Nailing every element he came across; especially the emotional ones. From laughing out loud to experiencing tear shed, Will Smith’s performance makes us see into what everybody on this earth is at their core – a frail train wreck waiting to happen.

---

I could go on and on, but don’t want to risk spoiling this gracious performance for you.

---

The technical aspects are being talked about very fruitlessly – as if they have no worth. When in actuality, they were as fine as I’ve seen this year.The visual effects are as good as they could be in this situation. They aren’t overused, because if they were the film would’ve lost a lot of it’s ‘calming’ stature. The work on the infected was great. They looked fairly real and were terrifying. Besides that, there weren’t many effects for the film to work with.

The film editing was great. Fast pacing, wonderful timing for flashbacks, perfect lengths for each scene; it was very pleasing. All scenes – even the scenes that seem pointless – have some sort of meaning, you just need to look for it. This makes the film ever the more entertaining. It also enhances the pleasure of ‘film buffs’, who always look for pointless scenes.

The sound editing was excellent, and definitely some of the best of the year. In the dream sequences, deafening sounds are deafening. In one segment, all sound goes off, except for a faded propeller. There’s also a lot of calming silences, other than a dog barking, a single gunshot, et cetera. This also helped heighten the score out in some situations, which helped the overall beauty of the film.

The cinematography was good. It was absolutely gorgeous in plenty of scenes, but overall pretty normal. A lot of plain shots flooded the film. Scattered all around the flood were moments of extravagance. A few wonderful scenes of sunrising and sunsetting. The best use of cinematography in the film was by far in the containment lab. Wonderful use of lighting, great movement; just the photographies ‘outstanding’ area. It really seemed like Oscar winning photographer Andrew Lesnie wasn’t exactly giving the film it’s all, or the cinematography could’ve been nomination worthy.

The score by James Newton Howard was fantastic in every definition of the word. His composition is his best of the year. This is including his grand work on both The Lookout and Michael Clayton. It enhances inner clarity when there is calming moments, but also has pulsating elements that enhance intense moments. Such a beautiful composition. One of the best of the year, easily.

---

Nominations for I Am Legend
Best Actor in a Leading Role – Will Smith (#2)
Best Sound Editing – (#5)
Best Original Score – James Newton Howard (#5)

Overall : 8/10

I’ve finally gotten around to writing a review for this lovely, critically ‘under praised’ film. Yes, I do mean the remake, and not the loved 1972 version.

---

First, I’d like to say that Kenneth Branagh is a very compelling director. By comparing the Mankiewicz version of Sleuth to this one, you see many differences in ideas. For one, I’d say Branagh’s vision was more ’surreal’ as opposed to Mankiewicz’s vision, which was perhaps very real. Both version I love, mind you. In fact, I prefer the original to the remake. Another key thing about Branagh’s vision – his wit. Some may say that there’s no wit to be found in the film, but I disagree completely. He paced the film so fluidly that it was overwhelming. This could be a pro or a con to some, but to me it was definitely a pro. The eighty-six minute running time flew by fast. Faster than any film I’ve ever seen. Though I haven’t seen much of his work, I’d call this some of his more courageous to date. He took a shot at creating a different version of the beloved Sleuth. To some did it successfully. To others, as you can tell by the critics’ reactions, he did it very poorly.

The adaptation of the play by Harold Pinter was wonderful. Unlike the ‘72 version, there is a lot of comedy to be found throughout the film. Some unexpected humor, some over-the-top humor, and some really crude humor. Overall, the hilarty works on so many levels. From the intellectual ‘heh’ to the gut busting ‘hahaha’, Pinter’s script is very enjoyable. With Harold’s great writing comes wonderful dialog. Pinter’s snappy dialog creates fantastic animosity between Milo and Andrew (also thanks to the wonderful acting). With quick and effective scenes, comes no time for boredom. Thankfully, the film never borders tediousness and keeps the enjoyment of the film at a constant high. In my eyes, Mr. Pinter adapted from the play perfectly, containing both large amounts of pulsating tension and fair amounts of calming, intriguing dialog. The characters are about as complex as a table. This is what makes the film so eerie. We know the reason why Andrew wants to play these games with Milo, and why Milo agrees to play them. The twists and turns that ensue are absolutely staggering. Who knew such obvious characters could be so devious and devilish? Pinter captures the characters very well in this way. But it is the actors that capture the screenplay perfectly. I had absolutely no problem with the other version’s length (138 Minutes), but this film seemed too short. To me, it felt as if it were the length of a television show. My only wish for the film was that it lasted much longer than it did.

---

Don’t let the critics fool you with faux hatred. If you loved the original, you may be bias in finding this film to be worthy of having the same greatness of the original. Please, do not go into this film with that mindset. Branagh’s version of the play is not a remake, and the only reason I compared the two in the previous thoughts on the writing and directing is because many people want to know comparisons.

---

The acting from the two men was excellent. Caine and Law show different sides of themselves. Caine, taking on the opposing role in Sleuth that he did in 1972’s version. Law, taking on Caine’s role. The chemistry between the two was exhilarating. Definitely worthy of being proclaimed ‘the best duo on screen this year’. Or at the very least, top three. I do not know who to start off with because they were both so equally good. I’ll just do it in alphabetical order.

Michael Caine plays “Andrew Wyke“, an acclaimed novelist with a wife that Milo loves and vise versa. As we all know, Caine is one of the masters of acting. This job shouldn’t of taken much effort from him to do well. As it seems, Caine did try very hard to create the monster that is Andrew Wyke. Caine makes Wyke’s subtle suffering, his arrogant conversing and his wit, his own. Caine is relentless with his outpour of humiliating chores; really containing the essence that beholds his character. For the entirety of the film, Caine’s range is impeccable. From being a depressed, overwhelmed man in angst, to a man who enjoys condescension, he does it all. He captures the sadist beauty in the tormented scribe to a tee. Some of Caine’s most accomplished work to date… and that’s saying a lot.

Onto Jude Law, who’s playing his second Caine role in three years as “Milo Tindle“. Tindle is a hairdresser – I mean actor, who’s works are mainly composed of murderers. Alike Caine, he goes through emotions like a teenage girl. Whipping through being distrot, overjoyed, depressed and yes, even ‘frisky’, he shows range unlike he ever has before. He contorts the role into such a character that you cannot recognize it’s an actual person, any longer. Whether this is a benefit or not, you decide. Either way, it certainly adds an extra few layers to one of the most intriguing characters of all time. Unlike Caine’s take on Tindle in ‘72, which was subtle and calming, Law goes well over the top with his portrayal of the character. This coincides with Branagh’s vision perfectly. By doing this, Law helps create a surreal feel to an already surreal film with hints of realism. Believe it or not, though some of what Law does may seem inaccurate to many, I find his reactions to many scenarios to be amusingly realistic, in some way. Though many may not react to these situations in anyway Law does at all. I find that under the amount of stress that Tindle endures, Law’s variety of actions are somewhat realistic. By the end, Law sculpts his depiction of Milo Tindle into a human being. With everything that preceded the ending, that is quite the feat. This shows that once again, Law is one of the most admirable actors of this generation.

---

---

The technical aspects are something that a lot of technical people will go crazy over.

The film editing was marvelous. Not a slow beat to throw the film off rhythm. In making a short version of the accomplished play, I find that it didn’t skip anything important. In my eyes, that is quite the achievement. A lot of the quick, edgy scenes are just long enough to receive the full benefit of them. Some short scenes are cut off just before they got too imperative towards the judgment of the entirety. Overall, the editing was miraculous, and some of the finest of the year.

The art direction was quite interesting. In the 1972 version of Sleuth, we saw some of the most intriguing eye candy of all time. With fanatical toy rooms to luxurious, palace-esque lounging rooms, it had it all. This film, unfortunately does not, which is okay. Who could expect this version to compete with that of the ’72’s? Well, Branagh found a way without having to mimic it. He followed through on his creative vision here; by creating an almost futuristic mansion. Many rooms were simply beautiful, without having to put too much effort. Some rooms were empty, but seemed almost wonderful, in that they were so unique. All in all, the housing complex was great. With not a lot to work with, the decoration team really pulled through here.

The cinematography was fabulous. Haris Zambarloukos is having quite an amazing year. With Death Defying Acts and this under his belt, I believe he will receive a nomination someday. He creates such a malignant atmosphere that not only foreshadows the impending events, but adds intensity to the plot. Some of his shots transcend the book of cinematography, in that his vision was flat out avant-garde. Although his work wasn’t ‘revolutionary’, it does help add another chapter to that book – allowing the new age photographer to create a one-dimensional atmosphere with immense depth. Yes, a contradiction, but definitely accurate in this situation.

Onto the score by Patrick Doyle. If you’ve seen the 1972 film, this score is fairly similar to it. Just imagine it with an updated melody, and you’ve got it in a nutshell. In my eyes, while the previous score was better, this score is still excellent. His composition uses violins in a pulsating way that not only thickens the plot, but also doesn’t get tiresome; like most other scores. Along with this, the violins are also used in a very soothing way; summing up the plot in an extremely condensed, but accurate way. One of the most well rounded scores of the year, and definitely one of the best.

---

Nominations for Sleuth
Best Adapted Screenplay – Harold Pinter (#4)
Best Film Editing – (#3)
Best Original Score – Patrick Doyle (#4)

Top Tens
Best Picture
Best Actor in a Leading Role – Michael Caine
Best Actor in a Leading Role – Jude Law
Best Director – Kenneth Branagh

Overall : 8.5/10. On a rewatch, the film may make my Best Picture lineup. It’s been growing on me for a few months now, and I have a large urge to watch the film again.

Well, I was kind of turned off by the running time, so I was expecting a film as well made as any other this year, but as boring as Silk. Well, I was surprised by how much I liked this film.

Nominations for The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford
Best Picture – (#2)
Best Actor in a Supporting Role – Casey Affleck (#4)
Best Director – Andrew Dominik (#5)
Best Adapted Screenplay – Andrew Dominik (#2)
Best Cinematography – (#2)

“Better than the Chronicles of Narnia” – December 3rd 2007

Going into this, my friend’s doubts gave me doubts. What if the film is all hype and no substance? What if it’s nothing but under developed plot, and not entertaining in the least? Well, my questions were answered emphatically and undoubtedly. This is certainly the ‘mystical-fantasy’ film of the year. With great performances, decent writing, cool action and beautiful techs, this film almost had it all.

---

The director Chris Weitz hadn’t done fantasy until now. Even before, my opinion of him was iffy to begin with. With the only other film I’d seen of his being Down to Earth. I didn’t think he’d have the vision to interpret this fantastical-epic properly. Sadly, I’d partially agree with my premonition. He did a good job for a fair part with the material he adapted, but it felt uneven at times. The action was built up to very well. So there weren’t many random acts of violence diverting your attention from the plot. Overall a relatively well directed film. If Weitz happens to direct the rest of the trilogy (it is a trilogy, isn’t it?), hopefully he will fix the mistakes he made in this one.Onto the screenplay, adapted by Chris Weitz. Overall, the script wasn’t solid to begin with. Some cheesy dialog led to my friend and I finding ’sexual innuendo’ to the point of extreme laughter. He and I were not the only people in the audience laughing. There were parents – both male and female – laughing as loud as we were. Along with this were lame lines; both cliche and laughable. However, with this comes some very interesting character development. Twists, turns, cool characters and well written monologues. Again, if a sequel is made, hopefully the same will apply to the producers of the film. Meaning they will fix this ‘mistake’ by casting a better writer. If the film was written better, it could’ve been more memorable than Harry Potter. Sadly, it was not.

---

---

The acting of this film was great. From fair child performances to great, lively performances from smaller characters. Acting wise, it had it all.On a very small note; I really liked the voice over performances. Ian McKellen stole the show as “Iorek Byrnison; the main ‘armored’ bear. He was simply astonishing. His voice fit the role perfectly, and gave one of the most fierce performances I’ve ever heard. Ian McShane was “Ragnar Sturlusson“; the king of the armored bears. Though a short lived role, he was very good as well. His chemistry with McKellen was great, even though they never saw each other, emoted with each other, or anything like that. Finally Freddie Highmore was a great choice for “Pantalaimon” was a great choice for Lyra’s daemon. His voice fit Lyra’s personality so well. The quirkiness and childishness of it all was great. Really added another layer to Lyra.

Daniel Craig plays “Lord Asriel. Sadly, had a small role. Way smaller than expected. He did well with his time on screen, but deserved more. He stole all the scenes he had. Whether it be with Dakota, Christopher Lee or anybody else. He simply made them look bland in comparison. I’d of rather seen more of his journey, opposed to a lot of dribble with the ‘detention center’.

Eva Green plays “Serafina Pekkala” (try to say that name… once). For some reason going into the movie I thought she’d be a badguy. Not only is she a good person in the movie, but also the most explosive. She captured the role perfectly, and in doing so, captured the audience. This isn’t entirely related to the film, but her talent is matched only by her powers. Wonderful actress, and I’m glad she’s coming into the spotlight more. With this, her second feature starring both her and Daniel Craig. Coincidence? I think not.

Sam Elliot was great as “Lee Scoresby“. I didn’t even know what his character was in the film, until I saw it. I had a brief idea of the ‘main’ characters, so his presence really caught me off guard. Loved his character. He plays the role very well and is reminiscent of his character in Thank You for Smoking. Just add being more mystical, and you’ve got him in a nutshell.

Nicole Kidman did a great job as usual. She portrays “Marisa Coulter“; the woman that takes Lyra with her to see the north. I don’t exactly get her buzz for this performance. She did a better job with the material than the material allowed; I’ll give her that. But considering the competition (in my eyes), she shouldn’t be highly considered for a nomination at all. Though she’d probably squeeze into my top ten for the category. It was basically a rehash of her performance in The Invasion, put in a different context. Not taking anything way from that performance at all either. Both are great.

Onto the star of the film, Dakota Blue Richards. She did a fairly good job in her role as “Lyra Belacqua“. I didn’t expect much considering she’s a new ‘child’ star. Expecting another Ferland would’ve been naive indeed. At times her deliveries of dialog were laughable, but not often enough to call the performance bad. Throughout the film she shows many strengths and many weaknesses. Both are very noticeable; sadly more so with the latter. With two more films to come, hopefully she can hone in on her strengths and create a rounder performance next time.

---

---

This is a film that was very dependent on it’s technical aspects. Fortunately, the ‘effects’ team really pulled through on this one. Making it not only a joy to look at, but also stare at the screen in awe; thanks to the wonderful craftsmanship.The film editing was very good. The transitions were wonderful. As were the ‘truth-scopes’. A lot of fancy ideas were thrown around for this section. Sadly, the pacing was off, and really hurt the film as a whole. I would’ve loved to give the movie nominations for the creative ideas, but cannot because of the big flaw in pacing.

The score by Alexandre Desplat was good. Nothing too special, in my opinion. This was mainly due to it sounding a lot like his score for Mr. Magorium’s Wonder Emporium – just more epic. I do not know which one he composed first, but that is irrelevant, because a true composer shouldn’t rehash their material and hope for the best. His work on this film was good enough for me to not be annoyed by the repetitiveness, so I cannot really complain too much about it. Hopefully he’ll be more inspired for his future compositions.

The sound was great. The sparkling sound of dust falling. The gunshots. The roars of bears. Everything was just well executed; both realistically and fanatically. The sound crew really knew what they were doing on this picture.

The art direction was wonderful. A beauty to look at. From elegant board rooms, to the plain interior of detention centers; the film had it all. A lot of wonderful choices for some scenes really made the setting one to remember. It was also well used in the fact it set moods perfectly as well.

The costume design, alike the art decoration, was excellent. From prestgious dresses to tattered clothing; the film had it all. It was nice to see modern stuff mixed in with witch wardrobe and fancy tuxedos. It just gave the movie a nice feel to it.

The best aspect of the film was easily the cinematography. It was simply put : astonishing. At first, I thought the film would only have a few beautiful scenes, and I wouldn’t have to bother with replacing anything from my top ten in the category with it. Unfortunately, it was wonderful. A true eye opener. The light and dark was used very well symbolically. As well as just looked gorgeous. Fantastic work by Henry Braham. Hope they keep him on slate to photograph the rest of the films.

---

Nominations for The Golden Compass
Best Cinematography – (#4)
Best Art Direction – (#3)
Best Costume Design – (#3)

3 Nominations and 0 Wins

Rating : 8/10