Good News: I'm very close to being published on cracked.com.
Since discovering TVTropes.org, I've been very interested in various stock characters in fiction, and when someone on a message board I frequent recently asked me which of several examples was the best "Elegant, Cultured, and Well-Educated Villain," I thought I'd take on the trope in general:
When someone recently asked me for a good example of an elegant and sophisticated villain, he was missing a key point: Perhaps making a villain elegant and sophisticated is more stereotypical and cheap rather than something to be admired and emulated.
If you make a villain elegant, cultured, and well-educated and nothing more, it ends up boring and familiar. Very weak movies such as Johnny English and The Avengers have introduced us to characters like these with little to no variation.
Portraying someone as overtly intellectual is just a screenwriter's prop to show us that they're smart or that they mirror qualities of the protagonist (presumably the protagonist is smart too) which makes them a more ruthless enemy.
Ironically, I think of these traits with regard to Hannibal Lechter's character as a weakness of the way the screenwriter(s) of Silence of the Lambs constructed him. Lechter is undoubtedly a great character but his penchant for listening to classical music before eating someone or entertaining people at a formal dinner party come off as over the top. Similarly, Henri Ducard (Liam Neeson) of Batman Begins Henri Ducard was never a very strong, memorable character and his somewhat philosophical soliloquies on why he should poison the city to expose humanity's underbelly was a case of telling more than showing.
Four of my favorites are Gordon Gekko (Michael Douglas, Wall Street), Magneto (Ian McKellan, X-Men and Hans Landa (Christophe Waltz, Inglorious Basterds) and Cal (Billy Zane) from Titanic. The first three don't jump out at me as being elegant, well-educated and sophisticated for the sake of being well-elegant, educated and sophisticated and they show rather than tell. Landa speaks many languages and is occasionally poetic and from there we see that there's more to the villain. Other than that, the writers don't go out of their way to show he's sophisticated. Similarly, Magneto might have some sense of refinement and knowledge but it's just organic to the story. If Gekko is enjoying the high-life it's because that's what people in his profession do, and if he appears educated, it's because intelligence oozes out of everything he's saying.
As for Cal, that's just a classical example which is executed very, very well. There's usually only room for one or two iconic performances in the mold before everything else seems stale. It also helps that his villainous character is organic to the era of history and he represents an old-money/new-money dichotomy which is a legitimate fear.
As for an example that I find very odd, Chirstopher Lee as Count Dooku in Star Wars: Attack of the Clones. Even if Christopher Lee nailed the part, it would be hard for him to fit in at a place with some of the sillier and base characters with which George Lucas populated the Star Wars universe. If Hannibal Lecter was acting alongside the Muppets, it would be tonally awful. Same thing here. Another more nitpicky concern is that the cultural, elegant and well-educated are traits that are specific to an Earth-bound setting. Does it hold up in a fantasy world or galaxy far, far, far away? Cultural and elegant applies to perceptions of someone who has, for example, read Shakespeare and Charles Dickens. I don't doubt that people in the Star Wars universe are well-educated and cultured, but for all we know, someone who's cultured and well-educated on Tattoine might be someone who sounds by our standards as if he's speaking in a cockney accent
Another interesting example is Henry Blackwood from the 2019 Sherlock Holmes film but this could apply to any villain from Victorian times and it reminds me of how we tend to assume people speaking with British accents are automatically more refined. I read Blackwood as disturbed. He might have sounded refined, but that's because he comes from Victorian times where everyone is refined. In order to fit this category, you have to be more refined than the protagonist or anyone else.
Showing posts with label Batman Begins. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Batman Begins. Show all posts
Friday, February 25, 2011
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Artistic integrity can't interfere when tentpoles are at stake
Three is no longer the fitting number for movie sequels when it comes to maintaining artistic credibility. It's now a matter of how long the studios can keep making money from these sequels because Hollywood is just too addicted to tent poles and the instant stream of revenues they create to be able to maintain any artistic integrity anymore. What comes to mind when I say this is the fact that Shrek, Spiderman, and Pirates of the Carribean are all going to be releasing a fourth installment of their series in movie theaters, despite the fact that despite great starts and sophomore outings, most critics and viewers agree the franchises all sputtered out of gas by the time they hit the back-ends of their trilogies.
What most viewers don't know is that except for the two Star Wars trilogies (the prequels and the originals), Shrek, Pirates of the Carribean and Spiderman have been the three biggest trilogies ever to hit the box office, boasting a combined four films in the top 10 highest-grossing films of all time and 8 in the top 30, so far. Even when the quality of their films declined heavily in poorly reviewed third installments, they were still able to gross monstrous amounts based on name recognition alone, when viewers set massive opening weekend records in May of 2007 when all three film trilogies came out. Before anyone qeven had time to tell their coworkers when they got back to work on Monday, just how bad the films were, these films made their money back in three days, and that's likely what will happen when the franchises come back again in part IV, until people wisen up and break their moviegoing habits.
Even worse in this trend is that studios can't afford to give their star properties much breathing room anymore. Look at The Incredible Hulk, Star Trek, James Bond, Batman and the previously mentioned Pirates of the Carribean in comparison to Star Wars and Indiana Jones.
Indiana Jones and Star Wars were films that essentially stopped after their stories were done being told. Due to fan demand and an appropriately long enough hiatus, these two franchises came back 16 years later in the case of Star Wars and 19 years later in the case of Indiana Jones. Part of the justification was that the stories could be introduced to a new generation. Although neither one of these franchises were particularly good when they were rebooted, one can't deny that the hype, anticipation, and ultimately, their opening weekend grosses, were far greater than that of any of the films in the first category.
In the first category of films, there was virtually no time to wait until a generation had passed. Hollywood tides move much faster than they used to and no one can afford to wait 15 or more years to not capitalize on a hot property of theirs. Thus we have:
-James Bond rebooted after a measly four years (Die Another Day 2002-Casino Royale 2006)
-Star Trek reappearing in theaters after only a 7 year break (Nemesis, 2002) and a 4-year break since the Star Trek franchise dissapeared on TV (Enterprise in 2005)
-Batman taking only a seven year break between Batman and Robin (1999) one of the decade's biggest failures and Batman Begins
-Hulk rebooting after only a five-year break without even pretending to be any sort of sequel or prequel. It was simply marketed as a "do over."
-Pirates of the Carribean set to appear only three or four years after Pirates of the Carribean III was lampooned by most critics
What most viewers don't know is that except for the two Star Wars trilogies (the prequels and the originals), Shrek, Pirates of the Carribean and Spiderman have been the three biggest trilogies ever to hit the box office, boasting a combined four films in the top 10 highest-grossing films of all time and 8 in the top 30, so far. Even when the quality of their films declined heavily in poorly reviewed third installments, they were still able to gross monstrous amounts based on name recognition alone, when viewers set massive opening weekend records in May of 2007 when all three film trilogies came out. Before anyone qeven had time to tell their coworkers when they got back to work on Monday, just how bad the films were, these films made their money back in three days, and that's likely what will happen when the franchises come back again in part IV, until people wisen up and break their moviegoing habits.
Even worse in this trend is that studios can't afford to give their star properties much breathing room anymore. Look at The Incredible Hulk, Star Trek, James Bond, Batman and the previously mentioned Pirates of the Carribean in comparison to Star Wars and Indiana Jones.
Indiana Jones and Star Wars were films that essentially stopped after their stories were done being told. Due to fan demand and an appropriately long enough hiatus, these two franchises came back 16 years later in the case of Star Wars and 19 years later in the case of Indiana Jones. Part of the justification was that the stories could be introduced to a new generation. Although neither one of these franchises were particularly good when they were rebooted, one can't deny that the hype, anticipation, and ultimately, their opening weekend grosses, were far greater than that of any of the films in the first category.
In the first category of films, there was virtually no time to wait until a generation had passed. Hollywood tides move much faster than they used to and no one can afford to wait 15 or more years to not capitalize on a hot property of theirs. Thus we have:
-James Bond rebooted after a measly four years (Die Another Day 2002-Casino Royale 2006)
-Star Trek reappearing in theaters after only a 7 year break (Nemesis, 2002) and a 4-year break since the Star Trek franchise dissapeared on TV (Enterprise in 2005)
-Batman taking only a seven year break between Batman and Robin (1999) one of the decade's biggest failures and Batman Begins
-Hulk rebooting after only a five-year break without even pretending to be any sort of sequel or prequel. It was simply marketed as a "do over."
-Pirates of the Carribean set to appear only three or four years after Pirates of the Carribean III was lampooned by most critics
Friday, May 25, 2007
Star Wars Prequels and the DVD Revolution
I walked out of the theater from Star Wars III with my dad with whom I had a memorably different reaction than I did. "The movie wasn't fun like the old ones," my dad said. I couldn't argue that the dialogue was wooden and that is the general consensus. The lines have more gravity behind them than the innocent serial adventure that was the original Star Wars.
But then again, the Star Wars prequels weren't exactly serial adventures and this might have also been the source of their undoing in terms of connecting to the large base of viewers that the original trilogy did*. The Star Wars prequels were enjoyable, more than anything else, for those moments where we go, "Oooohhhh, so that's how it happened." To the extent that Star Wars is a pseudo-real universe**, this is like going back into the history books and reliving those historic events in a way that we can never actually do with real history. I might even consider it to be a more authentic experience, considering you can never truly recreate the Wild West or the Civil War except for a documentary but you can create the story before Star Wars IV with absolute authenticity, considering it exists only within the mind of the filmmaker who creates it. As mentioned before, this appeal has to do with one having to have extreme familiarity and interest in wanting to explore the Star Wars experience to further depths. Now, I don't know the exact numbers but we all know there is a significant following of Star Wars devotees who are very, very into the Star Wars phenomenon and the fan base extends beyond those who dress up in costumes and go to conventions.
When thinking about it more, it struck me that these elements that are what drives the prequels, catering to a fan base who wants to know the story behind the story, are also becoming an ever-increasing part of the present-day film experience with the advent of DVDs. With the extra features that come with DVD's, people who weren't necessarily film buffs before might be converted into them simply because learning things about what went behind the making of the movie they are watching becomes so much more readily available to them and is presented as entertainment. Movies are no longer texts that are limited to their final cut that appears on the screen. They become more plastic and your knowledge of that text changes as you chose immerse yourself into it more. That choice also makes the relationship between the viewer and the text interactive and as film watchers and it adds to the other outlets with which we, as film watchers, can immerse ourselves in these stories. The previous outlets were books that were relegated to the sci-fi section of the bookstore and only appeal to the hard core Star Wars (or Star Trek, for that matter) fans, but we can immerse ourselves in a more accessible way.
So to conclude, DVDs have helped to create the appeal of prequels ranging from Star Wars I-III to Batman Begins, or even stories that might fill-in-the-gap between previous stories like Superman Returns.
*One might argue that because Star Wars III became the 7th highest grossing film of all time (now 8th, displaced by Pirates II) and Star Wars I became the 4th highest grossing film of all time (now 5th, displaced by Shrek 2), that these films were seen be everyone. By "connecting," I'm speaking of number of satisfied film goers, which I don't believe Star Wars was able to do on the whole.
** I place myself in the casual fan category
But then again, the Star Wars prequels weren't exactly serial adventures and this might have also been the source of their undoing in terms of connecting to the large base of viewers that the original trilogy did*. The Star Wars prequels were enjoyable, more than anything else, for those moments where we go, "Oooohhhh, so that's how it happened." To the extent that Star Wars is a pseudo-real universe**, this is like going back into the history books and reliving those historic events in a way that we can never actually do with real history. I might even consider it to be a more authentic experience, considering you can never truly recreate the Wild West or the Civil War except for a documentary but you can create the story before Star Wars IV with absolute authenticity, considering it exists only within the mind of the filmmaker who creates it. As mentioned before, this appeal has to do with one having to have extreme familiarity and interest in wanting to explore the Star Wars experience to further depths. Now, I don't know the exact numbers but we all know there is a significant following of Star Wars devotees who are very, very into the Star Wars phenomenon and the fan base extends beyond those who dress up in costumes and go to conventions.
When thinking about it more, it struck me that these elements that are what drives the prequels, catering to a fan base who wants to know the story behind the story, are also becoming an ever-increasing part of the present-day film experience with the advent of DVDs. With the extra features that come with DVD's, people who weren't necessarily film buffs before might be converted into them simply because learning things about what went behind the making of the movie they are watching becomes so much more readily available to them and is presented as entertainment. Movies are no longer texts that are limited to their final cut that appears on the screen. They become more plastic and your knowledge of that text changes as you chose immerse yourself into it more. That choice also makes the relationship between the viewer and the text interactive and as film watchers and it adds to the other outlets with which we, as film watchers, can immerse ourselves in these stories. The previous outlets were books that were relegated to the sci-fi section of the bookstore and only appeal to the hard core Star Wars (or Star Trek, for that matter) fans, but we can immerse ourselves in a more accessible way.
So to conclude, DVDs have helped to create the appeal of prequels ranging from Star Wars I-III to Batman Begins, or even stories that might fill-in-the-gap between previous stories like Superman Returns.
*One might argue that because Star Wars III became the 7th highest grossing film of all time (now 8th, displaced by Pirates II) and Star Wars I became the 4th highest grossing film of all time (now 5th, displaced by Shrek 2), that these films were seen be everyone. By "connecting," I'm speaking of number of satisfied film goers, which I don't believe Star Wars was able to do on the whole.
** I place myself in the casual fan category
Sunday, May 06, 2007
Review of Batman Begins
Whatever you think of Batman Begins, you kind of have to give more credit to X-Men and Spiderman for getting it right the first time. The execs at Warner Brothers have changed their minds over what they want to do with this superhero franchise of theirs that they go and retool it every two movies.
So it’s kind of disorienting watching this one, in ways good and bad. For one, I feel a little disappointed in the batmobile: it’s more like a bat tank. Mainly, though, the story’s a lot more complicated with its humongous cast of characters. If I didn’t know any better, I’d guess there’s a rule that anyone who’s ever been nominated for an Oscar gets a coupon for a free role in a Batman movie that everyone’s cashing in on (if you want to know the exact stats, which I hope you do because I spent 10 minutes researching this, 5 actors in this movie have earned 12 oscar nominations between them), and they had to try extra hard to find parts for everyone., which led to some characters who just didn’t need to be there.
Like Morgan Freeman, for example, is a scientist who designs Batman’s gadgets. I love Morgan Freeman but what exactly is he doing there? Doesn’t Q belong with James Bond? Also, who’s the real villain? Aside from making the story confusing, I think part of the fun of Batman is that you have this whacked hero dressed up as a bat and then you have even wackier villains with themes of their own, like a guy who dresses like a Penguin or the Riddler. With the exception of the Scarecrow, this movie doesn’t really have that here. Unfortunately, I didn’t really see the scarecrow that much, anyway. I think the reason for adding someone like crime boss Carmone Falcone was to show us how bad of a place Gotham is. Now Tim Burton didn’t ever need to resort to that. He created such a dark tone that he could show us what Gotham just by showing us a frame of it. I will add, though, that most people who see this movie will probably agree that Commisioner Gordon and Alfred are both two really strong characters in this movie and they add a lot, unlike the other movies where they kind of stand around and look like idiots next to Batman.
So, as I say, the story’s different but as it stands on its own, it really works well. It had the same piecing-together-of-the-puzzle element that the Star Wars III prequels had, which is real cool. If you’ve watched any Batman TV episode or watched any Batman movie, then you can’t help but be intrigued by a movie that answers the questions, where did Batman get the idea for Batman, how did he get the batmobile or the batcave, where did he learn to fight?, etc.
So it’s kind of disorienting watching this one, in ways good and bad. For one, I feel a little disappointed in the batmobile: it’s more like a bat tank. Mainly, though, the story’s a lot more complicated with its humongous cast of characters. If I didn’t know any better, I’d guess there’s a rule that anyone who’s ever been nominated for an Oscar gets a coupon for a free role in a Batman movie that everyone’s cashing in on (if you want to know the exact stats, which I hope you do because I spent 10 minutes researching this, 5 actors in this movie have earned 12 oscar nominations between them), and they had to try extra hard to find parts for everyone., which led to some characters who just didn’t need to be there.
Like Morgan Freeman, for example, is a scientist who designs Batman’s gadgets. I love Morgan Freeman but what exactly is he doing there? Doesn’t Q belong with James Bond? Also, who’s the real villain? Aside from making the story confusing, I think part of the fun of Batman is that you have this whacked hero dressed up as a bat and then you have even wackier villains with themes of their own, like a guy who dresses like a Penguin or the Riddler. With the exception of the Scarecrow, this movie doesn’t really have that here. Unfortunately, I didn’t really see the scarecrow that much, anyway. I think the reason for adding someone like crime boss Carmone Falcone was to show us how bad of a place Gotham is. Now Tim Burton didn’t ever need to resort to that. He created such a dark tone that he could show us what Gotham just by showing us a frame of it. I will add, though, that most people who see this movie will probably agree that Commisioner Gordon and Alfred are both two really strong characters in this movie and they add a lot, unlike the other movies where they kind of stand around and look like idiots next to Batman.
So, as I say, the story’s different but as it stands on its own, it really works well. It had the same piecing-together-of-the-puzzle element that the Star Wars III prequels had, which is real cool. If you’ve watched any Batman TV episode or watched any Batman movie, then you can’t help but be intrigued by a movie that answers the questions, where did Batman get the idea for Batman, how did he get the batmobile or the batcave, where did he learn to fight?, etc.
Monday, February 19, 2007
The falliable link between the SAG Awards and the Oscars
Oscar pundits are always trying to fit square pegs into round holes. One annoying habit they have is trying to take every award ceremony that comes along and use it for some kind of barometer for their predictions of the oscars from which they continually change those predictions with each new incoming set of results. The Oscars are treated like one of these trivia games were clues are slowly being given so that in time you will be able to make deductions and figure out the answers. Entertainment Weekly devotes three full issues exclusively to the Oscars each year (up from two five years ago), message boards swarm with people posting predictions and countless blogs and websites have surfaced that follow the phenemonen. Even the Toronto Star and the LA Times have put up exclusive websites to monitor awards buzz. In all this excitement, it might be lost that not every awards ceremony is a precursor to the Oscars and might not necessarily alter the results of the Oscars.
Take the SAG Awards. One publication noted that Little Miss Sunshine might win an Oscar because it won the SAG ensemble award, which is the "closest thing the SAGs have to a best picture award." Language like "the closest thing there is to _____" is indicative of how much people are trying to stretch things to fit in with the oscar buzz phenomenon. President Bush's line about how sunny skies lie ahead this year can be said to be the closest thing in his State of the Union address to an endorsement for Little Miss Sunshine for best picture, but so what?
The fact of the matter is that by their very definition, the SAG Awards have no award that serves as a vote for best picture and I wish people would stop treating it as such. A best ensemble award and a best movie award are too entirely different things. I personally was severely disappointed by the film Capote and consider it my least favorite Best Picture Oscar Nominee in years. At the same time, I liked the performances of Catherine Keener, Chris Cooper, and Clifton Collins Jr. enough to feel like it would be a very deserving best ensemble nominee. I would similarly feel that Batman Begins had the best ensemble of the year last year, but by no means, the best picture of the year or anywhere in the top five. Even great individual acting performances don't necessarily translate to a best ensemble award in my opinion. Morgan Freeman and Hillary Swank might have been great in Million Dollar Baby, but can they top the chemistry shared between the quartet of character actors in Sideways?
Any connection between SAG ensemble wins and best picture wins surely must be coincidence and statistically insignificant (scientifically speaking, all Oscar buzz precursors are statistically insignificant since the sample size is 78 at best). Last year, I noticed that in a crowded and somewhat deadlocked field, momentum shifted significantly toward Crash and Capote once they got nominated for SAG awards and once Crash won the SAG, momentum shifted toward Crash for the win. There might even be more dangerous consequences of this if one affects the other. If there's the question of life imitating art vs art imitating life than there could very well be the question of oscar buzz imitating results vs results imitating Oscar buzz. Whether that's the case or not, it would be helpful if pundits would stop making connections that aren't there, like with the SAG awards.
Take the SAG Awards. One publication noted that Little Miss Sunshine might win an Oscar because it won the SAG ensemble award, which is the "closest thing the SAGs have to a best picture award." Language like "the closest thing there is to _____" is indicative of how much people are trying to stretch things to fit in with the oscar buzz phenomenon. President Bush's line about how sunny skies lie ahead this year can be said to be the closest thing in his State of the Union address to an endorsement for Little Miss Sunshine for best picture, but so what?
The fact of the matter is that by their very definition, the SAG Awards have no award that serves as a vote for best picture and I wish people would stop treating it as such. A best ensemble award and a best movie award are too entirely different things. I personally was severely disappointed by the film Capote and consider it my least favorite Best Picture Oscar Nominee in years. At the same time, I liked the performances of Catherine Keener, Chris Cooper, and Clifton Collins Jr. enough to feel like it would be a very deserving best ensemble nominee. I would similarly feel that Batman Begins had the best ensemble of the year last year, but by no means, the best picture of the year or anywhere in the top five. Even great individual acting performances don't necessarily translate to a best ensemble award in my opinion. Morgan Freeman and Hillary Swank might have been great in Million Dollar Baby, but can they top the chemistry shared between the quartet of character actors in Sideways?
Any connection between SAG ensemble wins and best picture wins surely must be coincidence and statistically insignificant (scientifically speaking, all Oscar buzz precursors are statistically insignificant since the sample size is 78 at best). Last year, I noticed that in a crowded and somewhat deadlocked field, momentum shifted significantly toward Crash and Capote once they got nominated for SAG awards and once Crash won the SAG, momentum shifted toward Crash for the win. There might even be more dangerous consequences of this if one affects the other. If there's the question of life imitating art vs art imitating life than there could very well be the question of oscar buzz imitating results vs results imitating Oscar buzz. Whether that's the case or not, it would be helpful if pundits would stop making connections that aren't there, like with the SAG awards.
Monday, November 27, 2006
Best Ensemble Award from the past few years
Here's what my picks would've been for the last 5 years if the oscars had a best ensemble category. I think they should have an ensemble award because
1. It's a great award to debate
2. Obviously the acting awards are popular
3. It promotes teamwork
4. The actors don't have to get the oscars, they can go to the casting director
Nonetheless, here's what i would've picked, actually not what i personally would have picked but a relatively objective take i'd have been happy with. For instance, i hated PS Hoffman's performance in Capote and that would disqualify it out of the top 5 for me, but i acknowledge that a lot of people did like Phillip Seymour's performance, and so therefore i have to credit him for moving a lot of people with his performance.
2005: Brokeback Mountain OR Crash (wasn't a fan of either movie but as a concession to the fact that everyone loved them and they vied for top awards in most categories, i'll let my naysayers take their pick of one, i'd pick Brokeback, i think)
Syrianna (and i do strongly feel it should have been included)
Good Night and Good Luck
Batman Begins (wouldn't be considered for an oscar in any other non-technical category, but as casts for summer blockbusters go, i'd give it to this)
Capote
2004:
Sideways
Closer-Small but effective ensemble
Million Dollar Baby (hmmm, actually didn't see it yet, but who am i to argue with a best picture oscar winner)
Aviator-Jude Law and Wilhem DeFoe were filling out bit parts in this? That's how deep the talent level was
Ray-Did anyone even notice that guys like Terrence Howard were in this?
Runner-Up: Troy-With Orlando Bloom, Eric Bana, Peter O'Toole, Sean Bean, Brandon Gleason, and Brian Cox in supporting roles, this had the potential to win
2003:
*Note, i don't believe in awarding sequels unless they're better than the original or change it in some way, so i'll just award LOTR for 2001
1. House of Sand and Fog
2. 21 Grams-3 Good Leads
3. Cold Mountain-Everyone was great, especially Law at the helm, and Brandon Gleason, Ethan Suplee and Jack White as the gang of musical vagabonds were actually pretty good. Don't forget Giovanni Ribisi and PS Hoffman in bit roles
4. Mystic River-Although I think when you think about it, Tim Robbins and Sean Penn were both a little overdramatic, but there was a definite professional caliber of actors in that film
5. Seabiscuit
2002:
1. Road to Perdition-Daniel Craig and Jude Law could have been awarded best supporting actors right there, if they had stronger oscar campaigns and I think it was one of Tom Hanks' better roles
2. Adaptation-Cage, Strep, Cooper plus a lot of other goodies: Judy Greer, Tilda Swenson, Ron Livingston
3. The Hours
4. Chicago
5. 25th Hour-Ed Norton, Brian Cox, Rosario Dawson, Barry Pepper, Anna Paquin, and Phillip Seymour Hoffman in case anyone forgot
2001:
1. A Beautiful Mind-Once again, i didn't even realize that Anthony Rapp from Rent, Adam Goldberg from the Street and Josh Lucas who would later become a star were in this film
2. Royal Tannenbaums-Best Wes Anderson cast ever assembles, quietly strong performances by Paltrow, Glover and Huston were there best in years, and good use of Kumar Pullada. A great use of Gene Hackman as well and show of his comedic side.
3. Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Rings: Interestingly enough Christopher Lee has by now been in Lord of the Rings, James Bond, and Star Wars
4. In the Bedroom: Interesting that Marissa Thomei could get nominated for an oscar after people felt she absolutely didn't deserve her first to the point that they called foul on it (for My Cousin Vinny)
5. Godsford Park: Without a doubt
2000:
1. Traffic
2. The Contender-What insightful uses for guys like Christain Slater and Gary Oldman
3. You Can Count on Me-The executive producer had to fight for Mark Ruffallo since he was an unknown quantity back then
4. Almost Famous
5. Wonderboys
1. It's a great award to debate
2. Obviously the acting awards are popular
3. It promotes teamwork
4. The actors don't have to get the oscars, they can go to the casting director
Nonetheless, here's what i would've picked, actually not what i personally would have picked but a relatively objective take i'd have been happy with. For instance, i hated PS Hoffman's performance in Capote and that would disqualify it out of the top 5 for me, but i acknowledge that a lot of people did like Phillip Seymour's performance, and so therefore i have to credit him for moving a lot of people with his performance.
2005: Brokeback Mountain OR Crash (wasn't a fan of either movie but as a concession to the fact that everyone loved them and they vied for top awards in most categories, i'll let my naysayers take their pick of one, i'd pick Brokeback, i think)
Syrianna (and i do strongly feel it should have been included)
Good Night and Good Luck
Batman Begins (wouldn't be considered for an oscar in any other non-technical category, but as casts for summer blockbusters go, i'd give it to this)
Capote
2004:
Sideways
Closer-Small but effective ensemble
Million Dollar Baby (hmmm, actually didn't see it yet, but who am i to argue with a best picture oscar winner)
Aviator-Jude Law and Wilhem DeFoe were filling out bit parts in this? That's how deep the talent level was
Ray-Did anyone even notice that guys like Terrence Howard were in this?
Runner-Up: Troy-With Orlando Bloom, Eric Bana, Peter O'Toole, Sean Bean, Brandon Gleason, and Brian Cox in supporting roles, this had the potential to win
2003:
*Note, i don't believe in awarding sequels unless they're better than the original or change it in some way, so i'll just award LOTR for 2001
1. House of Sand and Fog
2. 21 Grams-3 Good Leads
3. Cold Mountain-Everyone was great, especially Law at the helm, and Brandon Gleason, Ethan Suplee and Jack White as the gang of musical vagabonds were actually pretty good. Don't forget Giovanni Ribisi and PS Hoffman in bit roles
4. Mystic River-Although I think when you think about it, Tim Robbins and Sean Penn were both a little overdramatic, but there was a definite professional caliber of actors in that film
5. Seabiscuit
2002:
1. Road to Perdition-Daniel Craig and Jude Law could have been awarded best supporting actors right there, if they had stronger oscar campaigns and I think it was one of Tom Hanks' better roles
2. Adaptation-Cage, Strep, Cooper plus a lot of other goodies: Judy Greer, Tilda Swenson, Ron Livingston
3. The Hours
4. Chicago
5. 25th Hour-Ed Norton, Brian Cox, Rosario Dawson, Barry Pepper, Anna Paquin, and Phillip Seymour Hoffman in case anyone forgot
2001:
1. A Beautiful Mind-Once again, i didn't even realize that Anthony Rapp from Rent, Adam Goldberg from the Street and Josh Lucas who would later become a star were in this film
2. Royal Tannenbaums-Best Wes Anderson cast ever assembles, quietly strong performances by Paltrow, Glover and Huston were there best in years, and good use of Kumar Pullada. A great use of Gene Hackman as well and show of his comedic side.
3. Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Rings: Interestingly enough Christopher Lee has by now been in Lord of the Rings, James Bond, and Star Wars
4. In the Bedroom: Interesting that Marissa Thomei could get nominated for an oscar after people felt she absolutely didn't deserve her first to the point that they called foul on it (for My Cousin Vinny)
5. Godsford Park: Without a doubt
2000:
1. Traffic
2. The Contender-What insightful uses for guys like Christain Slater and Gary Oldman
3. You Can Count on Me-The executive producer had to fight for Mark Ruffallo since he was an unknown quantity back then
4. Almost Famous
5. Wonderboys
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)