Pop Culture Round Up: Some date to some later time

I don't know, I just found this here.

Sound and fury | The Australian

Why Roger Ebert Loathes Top 10 Film Lists - WSJ.com

CBC News - Music - Lady Gaga course coming to U.S university

Brow Beat : Don Draper Says, “What?” I Say, “Is Jon Hamm a Good Actor?”

How Back to the Future made incest fun for the whole family. - By Juliet Lapidos - Slate Magazine

Zapping the Brain Improves Math Skills : Discovery News

Norway Tops Nations in Quality of Life : Discovery News

CBC News - Film - Depp, Burton team up for Dark Shadows film

Art believed destroyed by Nazis found in Berlin - Yahoo! News

Move to rescue obscure words | Books | The Guardian

Fly, Ryan Murphy! Be Free! | The House Next Door

Half the Time Everyone's Thinking About Something Else | Smart Journalism. Real Solutions. Miller-McCune.

Prolific humour writer nominated for lit award - The Globe and Mail

Why Beckham, Aniston, Winslet and A-Rod Earn So Much - WSJ.com

How Hollywood killed the movie stunt - Film Salon - Salon.com

Spillcam, vuvuzela are top words of 2010

2010's Word of the Year: 'Refudiate'

Why Flops Are Vital to Cinema

Why Hollywood Doesn't Do Working-Class

Study Tracks How Online Comments Spread News

Philip Glass Writing a Second Kafka Opera

Are Women Artists Finally Getting Their Due?

How Stunt-Casting Jumped the Shark -- New York Magazine

Producers Forbidden to Use Adrien Brody's Image to Promote Movie He Stars In

Party Lines: Vampires Paul Wesley and Denis O’Hare Swap Fan-Biting Stories at Elling Premiere -- Vulture

Pop Culture Round Up: March 6 - 19

An Omnipotent Enemy Comforts Us

Could This Deleted Scene, Set in Outer Space, Have Won Up in the Air an Oscar?

Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland, Johnny Depp's latest adventure in gender-bending.

TV Host Silvano Vinceti Probes History's Coldest Cases

Sony to start selling 3-D TVs in June

What Critics Talk About When They Talk About The Nose

Animals Commit Suicide, Too (And Not Just Lemmings)

Shakespearean Insulter

‘Mad Men’ Dolls in Barbie’s World, but Cocktails Stay Behind

Da Vinci gets action film treatment

Pass the Camera: Many Directors Shoot 1 Star-Studded Comedy

How a romantic breakup affects self-concept

Hoax Shakespeare play Double Falsehood turns out to be the real McCoy

Why do I find some of the melodic themes “playing” in my mind for several days after a concert?

More (whingy) songs about film critics and paying work, and a dirty little secret

Talking Back to Your TV Set, Endlessly

Objectification Hinders Some Women's Cognitive Ability

Babies 'born to dance' says York University research

The importance of being vague

Lifetime achievements: Saluting Betty White and other seasoned seniors

Remaking foreign-language films in English

Sigourney Weaver Enters The Fang Club

Pop Culture Round Up: January 9 - 15

“Oh, I’m chasing this guy? No, he’s chasing me.” 34 essential uses of voiceover in film
Knowing my opinion of voiceovers, this list contains a few of my favourites.

U.K. Unveils First-Ever Double Prince Portrait!
So cute!

Marilyn Manson has proposed to his actress girlfriend Evan Rachel Wood
WTF? What happened the last summer's rumour that she was banging the Viking?

Watching TV shortens life span, study finds
I'm effed.

Spider-Man 4 Unravels as Franchise Moves On Without Tobey Maguire, Sam Raimi
At first I was annoyed, but I've started to come up with some pretty cool reboot ideas.

UseMyAccent Helps Actors Talk Like an Egyptian

Mystery at the Philharmonic: Who Was That Clarinetist?

Jeff Bridges's 10 greatest performances
Everyone's going to pick The Dude, but what about Seabiscuit?

Depp gets life-sized statue in Serbia

Anxious or sexually competitive? Try God

James Cameron rejects claims Avatar epic borrows from Russians' sci-fi novels
But what about Pocahontas?

The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus (2009)

It's a rare movie that manages to have a completely understandable plot and still make next to no sense.

Here's what I get: a millennium ago, Mr. Nick (Tom Waits) showed up at Doctor Parnassus's (Christopher Plummer) monastery, where the monks continually tell the eternal story because the universe would cease to exist if they didn't. Nick stops them from telling the story, and the universe continues to exist, but it doesn't sway the good doctor's faith. Nick makes Parnassus a bet: first one to 12 disciples wins. Parnassus gets immortality as a reward, which turns out to be a curse. 1000 years later, Parnassus falls in love with a young woman but can't woo her as a homeless old man. Nick strikes a new deal: Parnassus is young and more powerful than ever, and all he has to do give up any offspring at the age of 16. The woman and Parnassus are happy together for years until she's pregnant at 60 and dies in childbirth. Parnassus raises the girl, Valentina (Lily Cole), alone, and we join the story a few days before her 16th birthday, where she is part of Parnassus' traveling magic act, The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus, along with Anton (Andrew Garfield) and Percy (Verne Troyer). Nick shows up to make new bet: first one to five souls wins Valentina.

Pretty straightforward, right? I mean, magical and all that, but nothing you can't follow. But you may have read that whole thing and thought, "Wait, isn't this Heath Ledger's last movie? Didn't they hire three other dudes to also play him?" Yes, and I'm glad to tell you that with only a minor bit of re-writing by Gilliam and Charles McKeown, having Johnny Depp, Jude Law, and Colin Farrell step in as Tony does make sense. Each time he enters the imaginarium (basically your imagination amplified so that you can walk into it), he does so with others, and thus must compete with their imaginations.

That part, surprisingly, is the part that makes sense. Everything else about Tony, particularly and mostly importantly to the story his motives, remains essentially unknowable. That's not a crack on Ledger's acting -- he plays Tony as unknowable and each of the other three actors tasked with taking up the part do manage to pick up elements of his performance and weave it into their own (though Law's, in particular, seems at first oddly hammy). But why Tony has to be such a mystery and why it must remain unsolved is as unclear as the character. Ledger's a slippery, charming con artist who seems equal parts self-serving and selfless with a rather unhealthy interest in a 16 year-old girl, and I had forgotten how fantastic his voice is. The whole thing -- light but rich -- makes his death feel unreal.

There are other details that don't entirely add up (why is Percy also an immortal?), but for everyone of those there are mitigating circumstances, like the delightful Garfield who absolutely shines as the put upon Anton or Cole, who's just the right amount of radiant to make everyone fall in love with her.

But I don't get it. The movie's in a class by itself: stunning to watch, utterly impossibly to comprehend. What's real? What's fake? What does it matter? Like the movie suggests, the story isn't critical. It's the telling.>B+

"They never have rat exhibits in the zoo. I could start a new trend!"

I normally find a quote that utilizes the month's theme, but it turns out that "liberation" quotes didn't go that well with my latest (Cult)ure article. It's a handy checklist to the trends behind the movies that defined the decade. It will also help explain why your favourite movies from 2000-2009 didn't make anyone's top of the decade list.

Also, I believe I forgot to tell you about the interview I did with writer-director David J. Garfield last month. Enjoy!

Public Enemies (2009)

This summer has offered a pretty bland movie going experience so far, and Public Enemies is no exception. Perhaps I set myself up to be disappointed after highly anticipating the movie for so long. Perhaps not.

The movie begins with two of the exact type of gangbuster sequences you would want it to: John Dillinger (Johnny Depp) organizes a jail break, and Melvin Purvis (Christian Bale) guns down Pretty Boy Floyd (Channing Tatum, and that's all you'll see of him). Two driven, organized, powerful men at cross purposes that are bound to crash into each other. Heat for the Great Depression. Those two sequences are . . . mildly tense.

Director and co-writer Michael Mann has lost his edge. His last effort, Miami Vice, suffered from the same inert, distanced quality that puts, if anything, a fifth wall between the audience and the story. There's no way to get involved because there's nothing to get involved in. Forcing Jaime Foxx to quote The Eagles didn't do the movie any favours either.

Possibly worse was when I realized that I had seen this movie before, only better. No, not Heat, although I am sure that's what everyone was thinking. It's The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford. Both are long, introspective looks at famous criminals and the men that killed them, peeling back the layers to reveal a criminal who has accepted said death as inevitable and a killer who cannot yet grasp the consequences of his actions. Assassination was exactly like the winter it depicted: cold, haunted, and delicate enough to contain the tender promise of spring.

Public Enemies is none of those things. It's dull when it should be exciting (unless it intended to make bank robbing look boring with occasional spatters of violence) and tepid when it should be hot (there's something weirdly chemistry free about the pairing of super hotties Depp and Marion Cotillard). Elliot Goldenthal's score is mismatched the few minutes it is used. Otis Taylor's "Ten Million Slaves" works far better when it comes up.

Mostly though, I would have killed for some exposition, which is a strange complaint for a movie that's 140 minutes long. But why is Purvis so innovative yet inept? What kind of man is he? Why is Dillinger so sad?* What's with Billie (Cotillard) and Dillinger's fatalistic take on relationships?

To say that Depp, Bale, and Cotillard offer great performances** is to say nothing at all. We already know that they are great performers. Mann drummed the personality and magnetism right out of them, and, in doing so, nearly drummed it right out of the movie. There's enough in the story (and the supporting cast) to make the movie worth watching, but it's almost in spite of Mann. Plus, Depp did me the great favour of singing, as it's next to impossible for me to see him in jail and not expect him to burst into song. C+

*Truly, if you could only use one word to describe Depp's take on Dillinger, it would be "sad." Ironic given that others will describe him as "jolly," and I think it may have been ironic on purpose. There's one for you, movie!

**Purvis' walk, in particular, killed me. It was a nice contrast to Dillinger's swagger and stomp.

Pop Culture Round Up: February 28 - March 6

I'm not sure how I feel about this, but I'm leaning toward negatively at the moment.

Aw, they want to forget their troubles!

Nothing this cool ever happens at my office.

Yes? Listen, I think I've made it pretty clear that I'm all for criticism, but why would lack thereof equal no book culture? It's not like the publishing industry, English majors, and book clubs have ceased to exist.

Is it me, or does Paul Rudd look hot in this photo?

Ha! I knew those Baby Einstein DVDs were a crock. Another good reason to steer clear.

Well, yeah. When else can you call your friends and yell "Holy shit!"?

Continued obsession: Tracking down Nazi art booty. Yeah, that's what I just said.

I'm not quite at this point yet with the show, but Sars is right about the way pretty every conversation goes lately.

Oh, how I want to see it.

There are about 500 million things you could read about Watchmen this week, but I'd recommend this one.

Reactions to this headline: Shock, disbelief, suspicion that the Fug Girls were lying to me. Reactions to photo: Mild anxiety, as Vampire Boy suddenly looks kind of like ex-co-worker that I occasionally run into in the streets.

I think I may be reaching the saturation point on my anti-obsession as I didn't immediately clamour for one of these. Mind you, if it were actually like she described, I would want one so bad.

I do kind of want this.

Truth: I've only read two of these. I don't recall lying about the rest, mind.

I know it's supposed to sound hard and discouraging, but I thought, "Cool job."

I'm down with this casting, but the job is preposterous. It's a stupid contrivance entirely to cause friction. They are old money, for pete's sake!

The casting of this movie is getting surreal, but I kind of think it could end up being awesome.

Trailer insanity:

Terminator: Salvation

500 Days of Summer

Wolverine

Public Enemies

The Limits of Control

Oscar Round Up (2008)

To review the rules, click the label and read the original Oscar Round Up post.

Forgotten who's nominated? Here's your hook up.

Last year I was once again stuck at a rate of 5/6, but I am learning to live with it. It's a good ratio if you think about it. This was, as it turns out, a spectacular year for movies, and it's even more exciting to see that a lot of deserving movies are up for Academy Awards this year. Let's move on to the predictions then, shall we?

Performance by an actor in a leading role

George Clooney in Michael Clayton
Daniel Day-Lewis in There Will Be Blood
Johnny Depp in Sweeney Todd The Demon Barber of Fleet Street
Tommy Lee Jones in In the Valley of Elah
Viggo Mortensen in Eastern Promises

This has got to be one of the saddest line ups I've seen in years. Not because the performances are poor. They're are each individually astonishing. It's sad that they all have to go up against each other at the same time knowing only one will win it, especially given that who will win is a virtual lock. It's a pity really. I'd like to see what, say, Mortensen or Depp would say given the opportunity.

Who will win: Day-Lewis.

Who should win: The far recesses of my brain just spat out Steven Buscemi for Interview, if you can imagine, although I'd add Glen Hansard for Once to that list. Choosing amidst the list, it would really have to go to Depp. He sings and slashes throats. What more does the Academy want from him?

Performance by an actor in a supporting role

Casey Affleck in The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford
Javier Bardem in No Country for Old Men
Philip Seymour Hoffman in Charlie Wilson’s War
Hal Holbrook in Into the Wild
Tom Wilkinson in Michael Clayton

My, how offensive this category is right off the bat. He's the fucking lead in that movie. His character's name is in the title for pete's sake! Again, this is a sad line up for the reasons stated above. If Holbrook picks up the statue, it will be one of those lifetime-achievement-in-disguise awards, to which I am historically not opposed. If any of them won, really, I don't think I could find a reason to argue. Even so, I'm going to go with . . .

Who will win: Bardem.

Who should win: Affleck, for lead actor. For reals.

Performance by an actress in a leading role

Cate Blanchett in Elizabeth: The Golden Age
Julie Christie in Away from Her
Marion Cotillard in La Vie en Rose
Laura Linney in The Savages
Ellen Page in Juno

Damn it, why did they have to go and make the men's categories so easy to call and the women's so tough? Let's drop Blanchett for her unappealing turn in an unappealing movie, and Linney for no other reason than the fact that is just seems so unlikely. That leaves us with Page (a relative newcomer, which Oscar has traditionally favoured in this category), Cotillard (a young French stunner), and Chirstie (stirring performance in a thoroughly depressing movie). Page is the odds on favourite, although I'd say that the real grudge match is between Cotillard and Christie. Tricky.

Who will win: Christie.
Who should win: Wei Tang for Lust, Caution, Emily Mortimer for Lars and the Real Girl, Markéta Irglová for Once.

Performance by an actress in a supporting role

Cate Blanchett in I’m Not There
Ruby Dee in American Gangster

Saoirse Ronan in Atonement

Amy Ryan in Gone Baby Gone
Tilda Swinton in Michael Clayton

Let's save ourselves some time and admit that it seems to be down to Blanchett and Dee. One of them didn't have a lot of screentime but has a lifetime of work worth rewarding (à la Holbrook) and the other was a knockout in the midst of several deserving performances. She's the very centre of a movie that would seem to have no centre without her. Plus the Academy has a crush on her in a big way. Even so . . .

Who will win: Dee (?). This one's gonna be close. I wish we could see the numbers on it after the envelope is opened.
Who should win: Blanchett. Who am I to deny it?

Achievement in directing / Best motion picture of the year

Directing:

The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, Julian Schnabel
Juno, Jason Reitman
Michael Clayton, Tony Gilroy
No Country for Old Men, Joel Coen and Ethan Coen
There Will Be Blood, Paul Thomas Anderson

Picture:
Atonement
Juno
Michael Clayton
No Country for Old Men

There Will Be Blood

There's no better way to handicap one than to invoke the other. A given movie won't necessarily bring home the pair, but it will almost never bring home the big one without at least a director nod.

That said, we can eliminate . . . Atonement. Aw, crap. I didn't think Atonement would win in the first place. Now I am going to have to think about this. Clayton was smart and twisty, and, while everyone likes it, no one seems to love it. If Juno goes home with the prize, it would be the result of No Country and Blood splitting the dark, decaying America vote. I hope it doesn't. Both of the last two films are masterworks bound to resonate for years to come. I may have given them different grades, but I'm not sure one truly is better than the other. They're both outstanding examples of why filmmaking can be vital. They are both nominated for picture, director, and adapted screenplay. It's simply a question of whether there will be a sweep or whether someone will be going home with a consolation prize.

Who will win: Schnabel / No Country for Old Men.
Who should win: I'd be more than pleased to see either of the last two take Oscar home in both cases. Otherwise, stay tuned next week for my Top 10 of 2007.

What a fantastic year for film. I could be wrong about many of these. They're all so hard to call, and I love the Academy for getting that much right. Let's see what fun Jon has in for us come Sunday night.

Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (2007)

Premise: Judge Turpin (Alan Rickman) wrongfully imprisons Benjamin Barker (Johnny Depp) in order to get to Barker's wife (Laura Michelle Kelly). 15 years later, Barker returns to London as Sweeney Todd with the assistance of the sailor, Anthony (Jamie Campbell Bower). Todd discovers that Turpin is raising his daughter, Johanna (Jayne Wisener), and vows revenge with help from his landlady, Mrs. Lovett (Helene Bonham Carter).

*Tim Burton should teach a master class in how to adapt stage for screen. I realize that John Logan, who wrote the screenplay, should get some credit here as well, but come on. I think we know Burton when we see it, don't we?

Listen, this isn't just a filmed version of Stephen Sondheim and Hugh Wheeler's musical. This is something else entirely. Logan and Burton don't just open it up. Under Burton's deft hand the movie has room to soar. He fills his Gothic masterpiece with whirling, twirling fantasy sequences and fantastic bloodletting. Raoul would be proud. A number of songs get dropped (most notably "The Ballad of Sweeney Todd"), but it's all in the service of making a better film. If you can show, why would you tell?

Burton is aided ably, as always, by long time collaborator Depp. Only Depp could play these deranged levels of blood lust and destruction and still let heartbreak bleed through his performance. He's not a singer, and he didn't train as one for the role, but he can sing nonetheless. He doesn't have pipes, per se (if this were Broadway, he'd never hit the cheap seats). He is good enough to let a snarl creep into his voice when necessary, and, with his powdered complexion, Rogue-streaked fright wig, and deep eye liner, his face does the rest.

Bonham Carter makes a lovely Mrs. Lovett, equally deranged but not as equally driven. When they hit upon their plan to bake his victims into her pies and begin waltzing around the shop with weapons behind their back, they make the perfect pair. She plays slightly obsessive, unrequited love so very well.

Rickman is wonderfully menacing, Sacha Baron Cohen a brief delight, Campbell Bower has the best voice in the house, and Kelly looks like Kate Hudson. My favourite, though, is probably little Ed Sanders as Toby, the nipper Mrs. Lovett takes on to help her around the shop. Kid's got a big career ahead of him. His Toby is grown-up, naive, sweet, mean, too big for his britches, innocent, and protective. He's the mixed up jumble that real kids tend to be, and that's tough to play. And he can sing. Love him.

With additional music by Sondheim himself, it feels like a stamp of approval on the whole production. And why shouldn't it? It moves along at a good clip, trust its audience not to be stupid, and showcases amazing performances. It's a morality tale with an antihero at its centre that features cannibalism. It's got something for everyone. A

Now, where can I get that bitchin' leather jacket?

*Do we still have to put director here? I feel like everyone should know that by now. You guys, Tim Burton is a director. I'm glad we had this talk.

Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (2007)

Story: Will (Orlando Bloom), Elizabeth (Keira Knightley), Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush), and crew team up with Tia Dalma (Naomie Harris) and Singapore pirate Captain Sao Feng (Chow-Yun Fat) to find the world's end and rescue Jack (Johnny Depp), so he can help put a stop to Lord Cutler Beckett (Tom Hollander) and Davy Jones' (Bill Nighy) reign of terror.

Even though the pre-credits sequence aimed at "political" and ended up hitting "reminiscent of Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves*" and even though The Hater has proclaimed the movie/franchise unbearable, I am here to tell you that it is the opposite of unbearable. This third installment is downright . . . tolerable! It's occasionally enjoyable! Sometimes good!

What? If you may recall, the second one was awful. Anything better than insufferable is an marked improvement.

*Which rocks, so they've got that going for them.

Mind you, the movie's far from perfect. The movie's really Elizabeth heavy. Listen, writers Ted Elliott and Ted Rossio, you cannot convince me that absolutely everyone is hot for Knightley. She's got no shape to her. Her hair was slightly better this time around (bad dye job, better styling), but her unflattering lipstick remained in place. Also, still not much going on in the acting department for this one. Her big rousing speech? Had me rolling my eyes. Her credulity straining interest in Jack (still, again, some more)? Impossible. It's the same problem every time: Knightley over-reaches. The best way to approach most of her scenes would be with subtlety and nuance, and she blows them nearly every time. It's odd because her scenes with Bloomers work really well (they have a sweet, understated chemistry), and her desire for adventure comes across clearly. Putting the focus on her only emphasizes how under-prepared Knightley is to carry the bulk of the movie.

Will and Elizabeth are apparently not talking when the movies opens, although the first scene with both confirms their love for and fidelity to one another. Elizabeth is in some danger or vaguely sexually threatened? Cut to Will clenching. Elizabeth does something smart/clever/inspirational? Cut to Will looking all kinds of turned on. Hee. Bloomers gives a great reaction shot. Yes, young Bloomers remains one of the greatest enigmas Elfin April has ever faced. When he's silent, when it's simple, Bloomers hits the mark. Anything more complex, and he tends to veer off course. It makes him the perfect candidate for these sort of movies, actually, as they run straight. Maybe typecasting wouldn't be such a shame for him after all.

As for Depp, what's left to be said? He's fey, and we all love it. His hair was still more dready and less braidy, but I can live with that so long as I can watch that scene with Keith Richards as Captain Teague over and over again. Elliott and Rossio, however, need to cool it a bit with their love of Jack. You'll see what I mean.

Also: Cutler is totally hot for Jack (admit it, you saw it, too). Rush appears to be having a ball. Norrington got boring again after putting back on the powdered wig. The one-eyed man and his scraggly haired companion finally get names. Stellan Skarsgård steals every scene he's in, breaking hearts along the way. This FAQ makes the post-final-credits sequence confusing.

In all my writing on the subject, I have failed to mention Hans Zimmer's delightful score. It's catchy in a way that you don't mind having in your head for days, allowing you to recall the best parts of the high seas adventure and dump the rest.

Despite the fact that it's too long and way too heavy on elements and sub-plots best left to the fishes, it's still a far more palatable entry than the second. If it were to end here, I think it's something we could all look back on and smile. Not a bad way to lose an afternoon. B+

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006)

I went to see PotC: At World's End yesterday, but I don't want to write about it until I get my thoughts about the middle child down. It's RE-view time.

The movie remains long and largely boring, but it works better if you break it up into chunks, like I did. A finger on the fast-forward button would also do the trick. Mostly, I'd skip a lot of the stuff on the island, a lot of stuff with Elizabeth, and some of the Cutler/Governor Swann stuff. I love Tom Hollander in the role, but so much of what he does is just set-up for the next movie. You'd do just as well to wait and catch up then.

As for the island stuff, it's kind of funny the first time around, but it loses it's charm on subsequent viewings, and it feels more like filler than genuine dramatic tension (will they save Jack? Gee, I don't know!)

Oh, Elizabeth. You know, when it came to the first movie, Bend it like Beckham, and Love Actually, I would I have said that I liked Knightley alright. She's not spectacular, but she's serviceable when she's not over-reaching. Plus, as I have long said, she's got a pretty face. But here? Why the focus on Elizabeth? She's childish a lot of the time, and her "attraction" to Jack is possibly the most unbelievable part of the entire movie (of the many I could choose). Her signature line, "Oh, Jack," with a little sigh at the end? Plays like he's her screw-up older brother. If it's supposed to be a more carnal interest, it doesn't show.

To be honest, I don't buy the attraction going either way. Depp can play anything at any time in any way and make me a believer, but the sub-plot groans under the weight of the tacked-on tension. It's upsetting but expected that Jack trade Will's life for his own. But try to steal his lady? Never. Jack knows he could never come back from that. Mind you, all of this speculating is possible because Depp plays the most fully fleshed character on the screen at any given point.

No matter which chunk I was watching, I was consistently impressed with Will's character development. No, seriously. Will is the central character, the tie that binds the mainland lives of Elizabeth, the Governor, and Norrington (Davenport is so foxy when he's a rogue) to the sea-faring world of the pirates, and the movies' moral centre. When he lights that sword on fire? I found myself thinking, "Will's ingenious." During that amazing, best set piece of the movie, water wheel fight? I hoped Will would come out on top. Bloomers bugs in a lot of ways a lot of the time, but here? He's quick on his feet, and I can get behind that.

It's still too long, too exposition-y, too reliant on call backs instead of new material, but it didn't turn me off of going to see the final (?) installment. That's saying something. Not a lot, but something. I'm sticking with my original grade. C+

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006)

Story: On their wedding day, Will (Orlando Bloom) and Elizabeth (Keira Knightley) are arrested for their parts in Capitan Jack Sparrow's (Johnny Depp) escape. Will makes a deal Lord Cutler Beckett (Tom Hollander) : a pardon for Jack's compass. Elizabeth and Will, however, end up part of Jack's scheme to cheat Davy Jones (Bill Nighy) out of the 100 years service Jack owes Jones.

I don't know how I am going to write this post without giving at least one thing away, so I think you are just going to have to accept that. Work with it. Frankly, I'm doing you a favour.

Way, way back in 2003, when Melanie, Kelsa, and I hit the theatre to check out Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl on a whim, it was great. Nothing but fun was had. As a result, I was pleased when I heard a trilogy was in the works.

Unlike what 2004 would like us to believe, sequels don't match what came first. They tend to blow, and this outing was no exception.

To be honest, I don't see the point of a sequel. Profit-wise, it makes sense. The first proved that pirates were no longer box office Kryptonite (heh), provided some youngsters with star turns, and earned Johnny Depp his first Oscar nomination. Why not do it again?

But story-wise, everything was wrapped up in the first outing: the curse was reversed, Jack got his boat back, Will got Elizabeth. There was nothing else to tell. So, the team behind the first movie would have to come up with an entirely new problem for our heroes and heroine. Additionally, they needed to stretch the new situation over two movies in order to complete the trilogy. It sounds hard, but it's not nearly as difficult as Ted Elliott and Terry Rossio (co-writers) would have you believe.

For one, make sense. Obviously an undead crew cursed by Aztec gold or a squid-man that rules the sea requires a certain suspension of disbelief. I get that. My favourite TV show, pretty much ever? Was about a petite blonde that hunted vampires. Trust me, I get suspension of disbelief. But when you go the fantasy route, you still have to stick with the rules that you invented for your world. I found the Bootstrap Bill (Stellan Skarsgard) stuff hard to follow the first time around (and I just watched it for the second time a week ago today as a refresher for yesterday), and this movie made it even worse. I mean, you know, nice for Will to get to finally meet his dad and all that, but what?

Also, am I really supposed to believe that everything we went through "six months ago" didn't occur to firmly convince me of Will and Elizabeth's love and loyalty to one another? Now I'm to buy the idea that Elizabeth might want Jack instead? My eye! For reasons beyond all human understanding, Knightley cannot manage to act attracted to Depp for even a split second. How hard could that possibly be? I thought she was more likely to jump Norrington (Jack Davenport, who is back and a fox) at any given moment than have a go with Jack. And you know what Knightley's performance did suggest? That Elizabeth loves Will. So why all the hoopla? Why the tacked-on drama? Why didn't anyone hit her in the face this time around?

Speaking of Knightley and her face, it's no secret that I am not her number one fan. Something I have acknowledged for years, however, is the fact that she has a beautiful face. No, really, I can't stand her, but those are some pretty cheekbones. I know they had the Domino hair to work with, but I think the hair and make-up people must absolutely hate her. She looked terrible - the colour and cut of the hair was unflattering, the lip colour was all kinds of wrong, the eye make up looked like a seven year old had smeared it on with a melted crayon. First movie? Pretty. Second movie? Dog.

Speaking of a face like Knightley's, Bloomers's looked leaner this time around. No matter what those people at Slate or The Tyee have to say, these movies are ones in which I genuinely like Bloomers -- he makes a good sidekick, a good devoted, idealistic young lover, and a good 17th (guessing) century pirate/blacksmith. Seriously, these styles suit him. And -- for those who want to see this sort of thing -- the shirt even comes off at one point. You're welcome.

I'm not going to go into how good Depp consistently is in this role. It's like he was born to play a perpetually drunk, morally ambiguous fortune hunter. Although, one thing, why was his hair more dread-y this time around? They couldn't find the wig or extensions or whatever from last time?

Why did PotC:TCotBP work? It was intelligent, funny, a dash scary, tightly paced, and, above all, it kept the action moving. Exposition is a necessary evil, but it doesn't have to feel like pulling teeth. This movie was a million years long, boring for spans of eons, only funny when it made callbacks to the original, and avoided sense like the plague. And skeletons are scarier than anthropomorphic fish with bizarre accents. All in all, it had a bad case of The Matrix Reloaded, a sequel so awful that I didn't bother with the third installment.

If you could cut out, oh, say, 60 of the 150 minutes, it might have been fun, greasing the wheels until the final movie in 2007. It's not that this movie is that all that bad - director Gore Verbinski has a great handle on action set pieces and slapstick set up. It's just that it so thoroughly undoes the good work of the first that it makes you hate it. C+

Oh, what the hell: Why is Barbossa back at the end? WHYYYYY?! I hate that ending. HATE. It basically complete re-writes the first movie, and, if he doesn't tell us what's up in the first 15 minutes of the third movie, I am going to kick some ass.

And, while we're here, why is the monkey immortal? See?! See what I mean with the no sense and the general unravelling of the first plot?

Finally Figured it Out: A rumination on a certain possibly transgendered harbinger of Armageddon

Emily sent me this article from Slate's Summer Movie Week (an idea which excites me to no end). I immediately fired back that I already read the same thing in The Tyee two years ago.

I can't say I disagree with either one, which basically state, as Chris Rock did at the 2005 Oscars, "If you can't get Russell Crowe, just don't make your stupid epic." Don't get Brad Pitt or Colin Ferrel or, for the love of peace, Orlando Bloom. I'll give Clive Owen a pass because I don't blame him for that mild disaster, and I stand by my belief that Bloomers was at least serviceable as Paris, Eric Bana rocked the hizzouse as Hector, and Gerard Butler is a jack of all trades. It has something to do with a certain fleshy masculinity that allows these actors to transcend time and space.

It was also bizarre that the common link in these articles was Bloomers, as I had been thinking of him recently.* I was having yet another conversation with myself along the lines of, "Have I been him or her an unfairly bum rap?" See, I have been listening to Elton John's "My Father's Gun" a lot lately, which put me in mind of that scene in Elizabethtown where all his relatives are standing around trying to tell Drew what a great man his father was and how much they are going to miss him, and all Drew is doing is standing over his father's coffin, changing the angle of his head, and puzzling out what the look on his father's face is supposed to be. When he finally hits upon it, "whimsical," he sort of lets out this sigh of bittersweet relief. It's well done, to be honest. There's a lot in that movie that isn't nearly as well done (I could begin and end my whole case by asking why Claire was interested in Drew to begin with), but that part is nice.

And that's my problem with Bloomers. Most of the time he's just plain bad, all miscast and adolescent and scant, but sometimes, just sometimes, he's pretty good. So I thought back to when I liked him, if at all, and the answer was Pirates of the Caribbean. In a movie where I detest 2/3 of the stars, it's a wonder that I like it so much. Perhaps Depp is just so good that he rubs wonderfulness off on everyone else, but I think it's a little more than that. I think the problem with Bloomers is that, right now, he's Heath Ledger circa 2001.

Ledger just kind of appeared in 10 Things I Hate About You and magically elevated the movie from flash-in-the-pan to something more lasting. The other stars of that minor hit? David Krumholtz has got his TV show, Joseph Gordon-Levitt is carving out a nice indie scene It-Boy career, and the rest of them stagnated or disappeared outright. But, boy, were people all over Ledger. Soon he was Mel Gibson's tragically heroic son, and then - poof! - a leading man in his own right. Not just leading, in fact, since the whole poster was his face. And that movie went? Nowhere. Because it blew.

In the very same year, he also had a very affecting turn as Billy Bob Thornton's suicidal son, but he was in the movie for maybe twenty minutes, and everyone else was busy focusing on other things.

So Ledger's career goes down the crapper pretty much the instant it starts, and, to be honest with you, I thought that was the end of him. But then Ang Lee decided gay cowboys and New Yorker short stories would translate well to film, and the rest of that story is bound to go down in film history.

And that's the problem with Bloomers, too, I think. Or, rather, that's Bloomers' problem. He's doing this leading man stuff because people think he should be, but he shouldn't. He's just not leading man material. And maybe he could be, but right now he's young and inexperienced and it shows. And maybe, just maybe, if he sort of steps back and gives it time, he could stumble into his very own Brokeback.

Or he could blow even worse than he already does. Too early to tell.

But, yes, Slate and The Tyee, no one is Russell Crowe. Perhaps you should give another guy a chance before you get too caught up in your self-congratulatory criticism, though.

*Yes, for the record, I sit around thinking about movie stars and their careers. Piss off. You do it, too.

In the beginning, things were Golden

HFPA has thrown down the gauntlet, which means that rusty cogs of the awards season have been oiled and put into motion.

Okay, sure, the LA critics awards are considered the true opening bell of American awards season, but there's no point in arguing the start date based on something that isn't televised (didn't those nice people in Venice already show Good Night, and Good Luck. and Brokeback Mountain the love, after all?).

The point is: the nominations are out. They've been out for two days, folks! Two! That's enough time for you, as I did, to say things like "Hoffman Capote?" "Really? Johnny Depp?" or even "I'm pulling for you, Mary Louise! Take those bitches down!"

So, time for you to throw down as well. Does Phoenix have a lock? Could this be the long promised comeback year for Woody Allen?

More importantly, which star is most likely to wear something extravagantly awful? Or behave in a completely ungracious Annette Benning kind of way? Let's be completely speculative and mean!

Yes, I will be posting about movies again sometime soon. Movies, plural. Keep yer pants on.

Tim Burton's Corpse Bride

Premise: After fumbling his vows at the wedding rehearsal, Victor (Johnny Depp) sets out in to the woods to practice. When he places the ring on what he assumes is a twig, he accidentally marries the Corpse Bride (Helena Bonham Carter) instead. Victor tries to get back to the land of the living, while his fiancée, Victoria (Emily Watson), appears increasingly insane when she tries to explain what has happened to Victor.

As you well know, I try to live spoiler free. In fact, unless it's to warn me off something so awful it approaches ancient Macedonian proportions, I don't want to hear it. All I want to hear from someone who sees something in the theatre before I get the chance is that they think I will like it.

So imagine my chagrin when two people who spread falsehoods about seeing the picture with Sarah and I, went to see it without us, and proceeded to bad-mouth the movie to our faces, despite my protests of "I don't want to hear this" and "Stop talking the movie." Personally, I think those a pretty clear statements. Unfortunately, it was not enough to shut one of them up.

Well, Emily and Andrea, you can just cram it with walnuts the next time you want to behave like insensitive clods. Or filberts. Those were also suggested.

Although I highly doubt it, gentle reader, in case you happen to be suffering a moron attack of Em/Andy proportions, this movie includes musical numbers much like every other animated feature you've ever seen. Five numbers do not a musical make. And since the numbers are so delightfully written and staged (I love you, Danny Elfman!), you really have no cause for concern. Instead, you have cause for delight.

Let me state for the record that the technical aspects of stop motion animation with puppets made out of stainless steel armatures covered with silicon skin are beyond me. Trust me when I say that the two foot puppets looked amazing, and that the opening town sequence alone puts the similar Beauty and the Beast one to shame.

Well, to gothic romance shame. I do love that Burton never seemed to grow out of that early adolescent obsession with all things dark, dusty, horrific, and sexual. He's a great guy, that Tim Burton. Just great.

He assembled a crack team of people he's collaborated with in the past: co-director Mark Johnson, and screenwriters John August, Pamela Pettler, and Caroline Thompson. They went to town in this gothic fairy tale of lost love and the underworld. How they managed to capture Depp's nervous nuances is truly phenomenal.

A delicious and hilarious take on marriage and love as a wedding gift for his lady muse, Burton has chosen once again to treat his audiences to something refreshing, clever, and adorably off the wall as well. Keep up the excellent work, Tim. A

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005)

I don't really need to give you a plot summery, do I? Oh, alright, for the handful of you who have a DSL line under your rock:

Reclusive candy maker Willy Wonka (Johnny Depp) inserts five golden tickets into his chocolate bars, which entitle the barer to a tour of his factory, accompanied by one adult. The winners are: Augustus Gloop (Philip Wiegratz), a German chocolate addict; Violet Beauregarde (Annasophia Robb), a gum chewing and karate champ; Veruca Salt (Julia Winter), a rich snob who gets everything she wants; Mike Teavee (Jordan Fry), a video game head; and Charlie (Freddie Highmore), who's just lucky to be there.

Happy now? That was really hard and took a long time. Meanies.

I like the symmetry of the kids getting themselves into trouble in the order in which they find the tickets, which I just realized. Sometimes I'm a little slow, okay?

I was reading something the other day about how remakes are unnecessary unless the original movie wasn't very good and needs retelling. Movies are remade, however, because the original was commercially successful, and the remake hopes for similar profits with little to no creativity going into the process.

Say what you will, but I think the masterwork of Tim Burton (director) and John August (writer) falls into the former category. I found the 1971 Mel Stuart version horrifying. Gene Wilder's Wonka was sociopathic - I kept waiting for him to snap and try to kill the kids with his bare hands.

Depp's Wonka, on the other hand, is an effeminate man-child, with deep seated insecurities and hilarious neuroses. I read that Depp was going for a cross between a Howard Hughes-style recluse and a 70s glam rocker. Success! From his bizarre and arrested speech patterns to his deliberate ignorance of the relationship between children and their guardians (he can barely get the word 'parent' out without looking like he's about to vomit), Depp is every bit as reclusive and glamorous as he set out to be. As I have suggested in the past, that has as much to do with the actor's immense and versatile talent as it does with the completely trusting relationship between Depp and the director that allowed him to be something other than a teen idol.

What I wouldn't give to have been privy to the collaborations between August and Burton. Who cares about all those critics who say that Burton can't tell a story? Burton tells the best stories! Part gothic allegory (the decision to give Wonka some back story was a stroke of genius), part comic book, part macabre portrayal of the grotesque realities of everyday (especially suburban) life, Burton is one of my filmmaking heroes. He contrasts dank, stark, nearly black and white memories with the technicolour wonderland Wonka creates for himself in response to his domineering dentist father (Christopher Lee). I can't imagine anyone more suited to tell the story.

Highmore politely did not try to rip my heart out of my chest this time around, and he makes a perfect pair with the spindly, amusing, and doting David Kelly as Grandpa Joe. I didn't really understand the karate thing for Violet since it didn't fit in with her punishment, but it did allow she and Mrs. Beauregarde (Missi Pyle) to sport matching crushed velvet sweatsuits, which I despise. That still didn't explain Pyle's vamp brows. Oh, well, I guess at that point the prosthetics people were just having a laugh.

As much as the prosthetics, sets, performances, and Deep Roy (the only Oompa Loompa) were eye-catching, Danny Elfman (composer) owned this movie from start to finish. His variations on Roald Dahl's own songs, from Bollywood to Backstreet, were works of magnificent proportions, as were his original Wonka's Welcome Song and his mood-altering score. It kind of freaks me out to know that each and every singing voice was merely his own, but I can deal with it. Mostly because I like bopping around singing, "Willy Wonka/Willy Wonka/The amazing chocolatier" over and over again.

You must see it. You must. A+

Although Veruca doesn't sing her "I want it now" song. Pity.

Also, the real cash cow would be whatever Wonka is using to completely arrest the aging process. I'm just sayin'.

8 MM (1999)

Outline: Mrs. Christian (Myra Carter) hires private detective Tom Welles (Nicholas Cage) to authenticate an 8 millimetre snuff film she finds among her deceased husband's belongings. Once he does, she asks him to find out everything he can about it: who the girl was, how involved her husband was, and who made it. Welles' investigation takes him to LA, where he hires a porn store clerk, Max (Joaquin Phoenix), to help him navigate through the industry.

My second example in as many weeks of Joel Schumacher (director, obviously) being only as good as the script he's working with.

There are two detective archetypes in movies: 1) The family man whose perfect American life (wife, daughter, nice house) is contrasted with the filth and immorality he pursues or 2) The hard boiled, hard drinking man cut off from the world because of his contempt for it (just look at the base creatures he investigates in his line of work!) who only needs the love of a good woman to straighten himself out.

Welles is the former. The sexy and talented Catherine Keener is his wife. Some baby is his daughter. In the likely way, Welles becomes obsessed with finding the girl in the film, obsessed with hurting those who hurt her, in shocking twists that shock no one. Cage does very little with the role except pull an impressive face at one point. In the same way that Liz has a Michael Douglas rule, I have a Nicholas Cage rule: nothing with Cage can ever be all that good. He does Welles' descent into violence pretty realistically, but, at least at first, he's utterly too squeamish to be a detective. It's like he's never seen anything violent and degrading before, which raises the question as to how he could even authenticate the film if the world of snuff filmmaking is so new.

If I start asking questions like that now, I'll never finish this review. Basically speaking, Cage's characterization was over-the-top, like many of his egomanical performances we are so frequently "treated" to.

Phoenix amused me as a blue-haired, tightly-clad clerk who wasn't as interested in his product as he was in rhyme and his own idiomatic speech patterns (no wonder the band didn't work out). He always manages to rise above the archetype, in this case he who no one believed in, who (likely) ran away, and who never managed to succeed (perhaps he never believed in himself?). Welles takes a shine to him (not like that), and he wants to protect him, so we all know how that's going to turn out.

Andrew Kevin Walker's screenplay didn't do it for me. I'm cracking up because I was thinking about how much better it would have been if Welles' squeamishness had been played up for comedic effect like Ichabod Crane's (Johnny Depp) in Sleepy Hollow, which Walker also wrote. So, there ya go, Walker! Just stick with stuff like that. He also wrote two of the "The Hire" screenplays, all of which I am dying to see. Special shout-out to anyone who knows where I can get them.

Oh, get this: The actual script by Andrew Kevin Walker was reworked by Joel Schumacher and Nicholas Kazan after Walker left the project in disagreement with the director. (Click here for the source).

Also, what was with Jenny Powell's line readings?

Oh, Schumacher. Blindingly brilliant visual style. At an absolute loss for what to do with a formulaic script. Not that it was all that bad. I've seen far, far worse. B

Oscar Wrap-Up (2005)

April takes requests!

I know you are probably already sick of the endless commentary about one night that always runs too long, but I have a few things to throw out there upon request. I think you can sit through a few more minutes.

Plus, I have more freedom to say whatever the hell I want, and I usually do. So you've got that.

Let it be known that April did not stay up to watch the end of the awards. I had to get up and go to work the next day, so I couldn't. I watched enough to be able to comment on the coups, the high points, and the disasters of the evening.

Truth be told, Gil Cates runs a tight ship. Things were moving along at a pretty good clip by the time I turned in. The supportings were already neatly tucked away, I had heard three crappy songs (during which Beyoncé sported two fugly outfits), and Sideways had received the only award it was bound to get.

But were the sacrifices he made to keep things so tight worth it? Handing out awards in seats or having everyone stand on stage like beauty pageant contestants for so-called "minor" awards?

In a word? No. Those changes, while offering something refreshing in a pretty cut-and-dry world of award shows, were an offence. That's like pretending that sound or editing aren’t important and essential components of a film. It also suggests that that documentary or short films are lesser forms of filmmaking.

Stupid Gil Cates.

Morgan Freeman was the only dark horse candidate that threw me off my game, and his speech was among the best. I wasn’t sure what was going on with his scarf, so I convinced myself that it was a nod to the upcoming Nelson Mandela biopic. I say upcoming like you will soon see it in a theatre near you, but that’s not really the case.

Since Blanchett took the award I knew she would, Madsen wins best dressed Supporting Actress Contender. Her blue and black Versace was sexy and lavish. I was in awe and glad to see her forgo the “Old Hollywood” rule.

Swank beat out poor Bening again, but her simple and silly looking Guy Laroche didn’t compare Bening’s sleek Armani jersey. I think she was hoping that the dress would detract from the scary monotone way she was speaking.

Of course, Kate Winslet gave them both a run for their money is a gorgeous Greek inspired blue Badgley Mischka.

I can’t find Catalina Sardino Moreno’s designer, but someone must tell me as she was the most gorgeous creature there. Her sleek white body skimming dress with thick jewelled straps, hair pulled back in a plain ponytail, and minimal make up to show off her beautiful skin – the combination was breath taking.

Can someone please explain to me what the hell Johnny Depp was thinking? Your lady is a Chanel model, my good man, and you are one of the most attractive people on the planet! Shape up, buddy!

I may get stoned for saying this, but, after the Golden Globes and then the Academy Awards, I confess that I think Leonardo DiCaprio has turned out to be a class act. He carries himself through all of this hoopla with composure and even a measure of grace. He’s aged a lot since Hollywood first started beating down his door.

Who else found Clint Eastwood’s green bowtie cute?

People that should be charged for crimes against humanity (or at least April’s eyes) for their ensembles: Scarlett Johansson, Kirsten Dunst, Melanie Griffith, Carlos Santana, Robin Williams, Laura Linney, Orlando Bloom (wrong collar for the no-tie look), and P. Diddy.

I wish Kidman had been there to pick up were so many starlets left off in the fashion department.

Those they will need to defend the above for their fashion crimes: See above, plus Clive Owen, Emmy Rossum, Sophie Okonedo, Chris Rock, Don Cheadle’s wife (she was wearin’ that dress), Cheadle himself, and Jamie Foxx. The latter two weren’t stellarly dressed, but there was nothing offensive about their outfits.

How is it that P. Diddy does both his suit and Rock’s, but Rock doesn’t look like an asshat?

As a host, though, kind of racist. Died during that “If you can get the star, then wait!” bit. Russell Crowe certainly could be three weeks ago.

Applause goes to Charlie Kaufman for seeing his day (yay!), as well as Alexander Payne and Jim Taylor. Screenplays were good this year.

I was all teary eyed when everyone kept thanking Marty because I knew he had a snowball’s chance of holding a gold statuette of his own. Makes a girl sad.

And so, I bring you something I have no doubt you’ve been patiently waiting for for two months now: April’s personal top 10 of 2004 list. I reviewed nearly 40 movies that came out last year, and I’m sure I will yet see many more. Until that day, though, here’s a sample based on personal enjoyment and final grade.

The 10:

Hotel Rwanda
Million Dollar Baby
Sideways
Finding Neverland
Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch’s War on Journalism
Mean Creek
Before Sunset
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
Garden State
The Aviator

Holy crap that was tough. I spent nearly two hours picking those out from the crowd. There are many, many others who were close contenders, but I think just mentioning them will make me want to change my mind.

Oscar Round-Up (2005)

April lays odds on the Academy Awards!

Okay, not really. I realize that there's something to laying odds, and I don't know what it is, so my odds would automatically be wrong. I am, however, going to lay out some predictions and preferences and the like in case you were wondering what someone obsessed with movies was thinking about what some septuagenarians had to say about last year's motion pictures.

First off, let me remind you that while I do like the Academy Awards, and, while I do think that are some measure of merit, they absolutely do not represent the best movies of any given year. Most years, I am disappointed in the nominees. None the less, David Edlestein and I both like that they get people talking about movies, so I'm going to throw down about them anyway.

Or at least some of them.

And yes, it's true that I haven't seen all the movies, so maybe I shouldn't be judging. I think you know as well as I do, though, that seeing the movie isn't necessary when it comes to awards shows.

Performance by an actor in a leading role:

Nominees: Don Cheadle, Hotel Rwanda; Johnny Depp, Finding Neverland; Leonardo DiCaprio, The Aviator; Clint Eastwood, Million Dollar Baby; Jamie Foxx, Ray.

I love Cheadle. I really do. I think that all these nominations for Hotel Rwanda, though, represent old white men saying "Genocide? Yeah, that shit's bad" rather than their feelings about the film. They don't care about Cheadle's brilliantly understated performance. They just want to remove some latent guilt for the way the world sat back and did nothing.

I also love Depp and DiCaprio, but Depp wasn't anything special. I've seen him do stuff that required much more than this performance, and he got nothing for that work. He doesn't deserve the win here.

For DiCaprio, I think the Golden Globe combined with the nod is enough. He's mature enough to take the loss.

Eastwood was spectacular, but you shouldn't get an award just for finally crying.

Who will win: Foxx. Who should win: Paul Giamatti for Sideways, Jeff Bridges for The Door in the Floor, Jim Carrey for Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.

I can't always get what I want, can't I?

Performance by an actor in a supporting role:

Noms: Alan Alda, The Aviator; Thomas Hayden Church, Sideways; Jamie Foxx, Collateral; Morgan Freeman, Million Dollar Baby; Clive Owen, Closer.

Foxx was a lead in Collateral, but you cannot be nominated in the same category twice in the same year. He can't win twice, so that pretty much makes this nod moot.

Giving Church a nod but not Giamatti is just a slap in the face. Church was good but not good enough for the award.

Freeman's Scrap was good, but it will likely continue as a thankless role. It's not quite enough to push him out ahead of the rest of the pack.

Complete toss up between Alda and Owen. Both were equally fantastic in their deliciously villainous roles.

Who will win: Either Alda or Owen. Too close to call. Who should win: Can't you give the award to both of them?

Performance by an actress in a leading role:

Noms: 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 doesn't matter who else was nominated or how good they were - this is a return of 2000's grudge match between Swank and Bening. Bening's a tremendously talented actress while Swank is merely a product of the overall production, but she'll win out again.

Who will win: Swank. Who should win: Moot point.

Performance by an actress in a supporting role:

Noms: Cate Blanchett, The Aviator; Laura Linney, Kinsey; Virginia Madsen, Sideways; Sophie Okonedo, Hotel Rwanda; Natalie Portman, Closer.

Portman was chilly and winsome, but the Golden Globe's enough. She's too young for anything more.

Poor Linney. Changing your appearance pretty much guarantees the Best Actress award (e.g. Nicole Kidman's fake nose in The Hours, Charlize Theron's transformation for Monster) but not supporting actress. You will remain egregiously under-rated.

What I said about Cheadle goes for Okonedo.

Blanchett's embodiment of Katherine Hepburn is nothing short of a miracle, and I think the Academy liked the real thing enough to hand over the trophy. Plus the really should have just given her one back in '99 instead of the vapid and useless Gwyneth Paltrow

But Madsen's the real prize here. I would die to have enough one iota of what she gave up there on the screen. She was luminous.

Who will win: Blanchett. Who should win: Madsen, without a shadow of a doubt.

Best motion picture of the year

Noms: The Aviator, Finding Neverland, Million Dollar Baby, Ray, Sideways.

I find that these nods are always tied up with the director nods. If your movie is nominated, but you aren't, it means that your movie was good, but the Academy thinks you suck. If you are nominated, but your movie isn't, you are a talented filmmaker, but the movie doesn't represent your best work. As such Finding Neverland will never win.

I've resigned to the fact that the Academy hates Martin Scorcese. They never let him win! Just give him a freaking award already. Eastwood's going to win director, and with good reason, so The Aviator's out.

Million Dollar Baby is the front runner in this close race, and it was truly one of the best movies from last year. All three performers are truly inhabit their characters, and Eastwood's turned back to the kind of brilliant filmmaking that Academy probably misses. With good reason, again.

I haven't been able to bring myself around to Ray since I found out he co-author of his autobiography hated it so much. Sure, Ray got off the horse, but he made it through most days after that with copious amounts of Mary Jane and alcohol. He also still got divorced. And, unfortunately, he wasn't very successful during his lifetime. The movie just shouldn't win, and it likely won't.

Almost every critic on the planet this year agrees that Sideways is the best movie they've seen all year. They're right.

What will win: Million Dollar Baby. What should win: Sideways.

All in all, a very good year for movies.

Finding Neverland (2004)

Premise: After his servant kindly cuts out an unfavourable review, James Barrie (Johnny Depp with a sexy Scottish brogue) spies the widow Sylvia Llewelyn Davies (Kate Winslet) and her four sons playing in the park. Barrie is soon adopted as Uncle James by Jack (Joe Prospero), George (Nick Roud), and Michael (Luke Spill), while he coaxes Peter (Freddie Highmore) out of his shell. Both his social climbing wife, Mary (Radha Mitchell), and Sylvia's over-protective mother, Mrs. Du Maurier (Julie Christie), object to James' relationship with the family Davies, and they do their best put an end to a summer that would inspire children for a century.

Spoil sports!

April definitely should have spent her opening week-end money on this film.

Marc Foster (director), who brought us the quiet, poignant, but slightly overrated Monster's Ball, is in his element here. The combination of his direction, David Magee's screenplay (based on Allan Knee's play), and Depp stole my heart in the first fifteen minutes or so, and they filled it to nearly bursting. There's a part right at the beginning where Michael flies a kite, and I started crying right then I was so happy. Foster and Magee make us privy to the wonderful adventures that must have occurred in Barrie's imagination, and it is impossible not to fall in love with him.

I didn't like Mary at first, but Mitchell managed to turn it around for me. The deep yearning that the ethereal Winslet and Depp brought to Sylvia's and James' friendship made it easy to demonize Mary. Magee and Mitchell, however, gave Mary just enough for the audience to understand the daily heartbreak Mary experienced.

And for those of you who were understandably endeared by Highmore's big blue eyes and chemistry with Depp, you'll be happy to know that they will be appearing together next in Tim Burton's remake of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, with Highmore in the title role.

There were so many good little bits that I want to comment on, and I don't want to give any of it away. I will tell you that the part with Christie when she claps was completely spontaneous, and it was also the part that got to me the most.

And Kelly Macdonald, who gives life to the first stage Peter Pan, is perfect as the little boy who never wanted to grow up. In case you didn't already know, Peter was usually played by a young lady, and Macdonald is endearing.

James tells Peter that he can always find Neverland by just believing. If I believe hard enough and long enough, will I always be able to find films that can be described in one word - magic - like this one? A+