SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE (2008)

SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE (DIR: DANNY BOYLE & LOVELEEN TANDEN) (SCR: SIMON BEAUFOY, BASED ON THE NOVEL Q &A BY VIKAS SWARUP)

The victory for the film SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE was a nice surprise; here was a low budget film, heavily influenced by a foreign film gene most Americans had never heard of (Bollywood)with no Hollywood stars and set in a foreign country that was recused from a direct to DVD release to become a sleeper hit, echoing in many ways the underdog success of the film's hero.  While I prefer certain parts of the film more than others, I still think it ranks as a good movie, with a never dull story and fine, naturalistic performances from the whole cast.

It's journey to the screen began when the novel Q AND A was published in 2005 by Indian diplomat Vikas Swarup.  A year later screenwriter Simon Beaufoy began to adapt the novel and travelled to India to spend time in the slums and interview the children who lived there.  British film companies Celador Films and Film4 Productions showed the script to English director Danny Boyle, who was excited to work with Beaufoy, having enjoyed his 1997 film THE FULL MONTY. Casting directors were sent to the slums of Indian city Mumbai to find authentic street children to perform in the film, while English born TV actor Dev Patel and model Freida Pinto were hired to play the lead adult roles.  One of the casting directors, Loveleen Tanden, suggested that she translate some of the dialogue in the film into Hindi to add to its authenticity; Boyle agreed, and eventually had Tanden co direct the film with him.  The film was shot entirely on location in Mumbai and other parts of India.  When the film was completed, it eventually came into the possession of  the Warner Brothers studio, who had little faith in the film; after almost releasing it to DVD, the studio made a theatrical distribution deal with FOX SEARCHLIGHT PICTURES.  Thanks to positive word of mouth and strong reviews the movie grew to be a sizable hit, making over $140,000,000 on a budget of only around $15,000,000.

Dev Patel & Freida Pinto

 Set in modern day Mumbai, the film's story is about young Jamal (Patel), a quiz show contestant who is accused of cheating and arrested and interrogated by a police Sergeant and inspector (Saurabh Shukla and Irrfan Khan),  to defend himself, he tells his life story; explaining that he and his brother grew orphan street urchins, and how, as if by fate, he knows the answers to all the questions he's being asked on the quiz show because they happen to be about actual experiences in his life.  Through the flashbacks, we hear how Jamal's brother Salim (Madhu Mattal) has become a gangster, while Latika (Pinto), the love of his life, has been forced into prostitution.  The sergeant believes Jamal and lets him go; he returns to the show, wins, and is reunited with Latika.
Danny Boyle's first became a well known director in 1996 with the highly entertaining cult hit TRAINSPOTTING, and he uses a similar cinematic style in SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE, one in which he contrasts stark, realistic shots with highly stylized ones that  highlight the emotional states of the characters. So there are many sudden unexpected  shifts in lighting, camera angles or film speed; giving both films an exciting feeling, and an often mesmerizing look.  Combine that with thumping, electronic soundtracks and you have a bracing, distinctly modern look for both films.
The film is well cast; with his broad features and constantly earnest expression Dev Patel is an actor that the audience automatically roots for as Jamal, and it's certainly believable that he would become a media sensation in India.  As for Pinto as his love interest Latika, her main job is look pretty and unattainable, both of which she does well.  I also really enjoy Anil Kapoor as the game show host  Prem Kumar, with his perfect on camera smarm hiding a much darker side.

Azharuddin Mohammed Ismail & Ayush Mahesh Khedakar

But the film's real scene stealing stars are it's charming, funny and engaging child actors. Hiring real slum dwelling kids to basically play versions of themselves works wonderfully, as they are natural performers who impress us with their resilience, intelligence and resourcefulness as they try to survive in a tough, adult world that usually either ignores or exploits them.   I love the way we see little Jamal (Ayush Mahesh Khedakar)  become an inadvertent guide at the Taj Mahal, making up stories as he goes, and I even like the silly gross out scene in which he literally wades through an out house to get a movie star's  autograph.  I like the kids in this movie so much, that I think the film really loses something in the latter parts when they grow up and the story moves away from being a homage to the survivor instincts of children and becomes more of a standard "lovers in danger" story.

There has been some criticism of this film's attitude towards the slum kids, with some Indians feeling that it exaggerated the worst aspects of Indian's impoverished, while others have taken exception with the film's upbeat ending; it is, perhaps, a bit odd that a film that can feature a moment as harrowing as a small child being blinded could end with a classic happy "love conquers all" kind of ending (complete with a great, feel good dance number in a train station).  Speaking as someone who's never been to India, I have to say that the tone of the film doesn't bother me, because, despite the modern locations, this story is essentially a fairy tale, a fact that its many stylized moments makes clear.  Is it, say,  believable that Jamal could possibly track down Latika in a city as big as Mumbai?  Not at all, but in the context of the film, it works.  The movie's theme, stated more than once, is "it is written", implying that Jamal's rise from poor orphan to wealthy celebrity is fated, and, not unlike a character out of a  Charles Dickens novel, his happy ending, after much trial and tribulation,  is inevitable.  It can also be related to the idea of karma, with Jamal, who has strived to be a good person, being rewarded while his brother Salim, who is a criminal, and who has often mistreated Jamal, getting his just deserts by dying in a hail of bullets at the exact moment that Jamal wins on the game show (although there clearly is some redemption for Salim as well, because he dies freeing Latika).  So, while I can understand why some people in India may be bothered by the film's portrayal of their homeland as slum ridden and violent, I imagine most audiences will not take the story as some kind of serious document of modern day India and just enjoy it for what it is.

I should also mention that there is a film that is also about poor children living in Mumbai, Mira Nair's 1988 film Salaam Bombay, that is far more realistic in its tone and is superior film in my opinion.  (It won an Oscar for Best Foreign Film).  Fans of this movie should really take a look at Nair's earlier film, to get a more honest view of India.

SO DID THE ACADEMY GET IT RIGHT?

While I'd be lying if I said that I didn't enjoy this film, I don't think that it was the best film of that year.  I prefer Gus Van Sant's MILk or Pixar's charming Wall-E.  

Enjoy my ramblings?  Check out my new blog right here.

NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN (2007)

Enjoy my ramblings?  Check out my new blog here

NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN (DIR: JOEL & ETHAN COEN) (SCR: BY THE COENS, BASED ON THE NOVEL OF THE SAME NAME BY CORMAN MC CARTHY)

The Academy's pick for best picture of 2007 was  quite an unusual choice; NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN was a violent thriller with eccentric touches, hardly the kind of uplifting material that tends to win Oscars.  What's more, it directors were cult figures known for their often oddball films; after debuting in 1984 with the highly entertaining Hitchcockian  BLOOD SIMPLE, Joel and Ethan Coen had fashioned idiosyncratic careers that often involved updating and playing with classic film genres (like their 1990 gangster film pastiche MILLER'S CROSSING).  Working in independent films that were generally highly regarded by critics, it was inevitable that the two brothers would break through into the mainstream enough to get the notice of the Academy, as they finally did in 1996, when their crime comedy FARGO was nominated for seven Oscars and won two.  While I personally think that FARGO is a better film than NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN, the latter film is certainly exciting and well crafted, along with it featuring one of the most memorable villains in movie history.

Before it was a movie, NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN was a book published by author Cormac Mc Carthy in 2005.  Shortly after its publication, producer Scott Rudin bought the rights to the book and suggested it as a project for the Coens. Although they had never adapted a novel before, the brothers admired the book (Joel later explained that he liked the fact that "Mc Carthy never followed through on formula expectations.") and agreed to write and direct it.  Their script kept very close to the source novel, with only a few minor points and some dialogue removed.  Gruff actor Tommy Lee Jones was cast perfectly as aging sheriff Ed Tom Bell, and Javier Bardem, who was at first afraid of playing a violent character, was brought on to play psychotic hit man Anton Chigurh.  Finally, Josh Brolin, after lobbying hard for the role, was given the part of Lleweyln Moss.  Shot on locations like Sante Fe and Albuquerque,  the film was quickly completed on a budget of $25,000,000.  After a slow opening(it's opening weekend saw it grossing only around $1,000,000), NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN would grown into a sizable hit, eventually making around $74,000,000.

Javier Bardem

Set in 1980, and located in West Texas, it tells the story of Llewelyn Moss(Brolin), a wielder who, while hunting deer, stumbles onto the aftermath of a drug deal gone terribly wrong.  He eventually steals a briefcase full of money.  This eventually leads to him being chased down by hit man Anton Chigurh (Bardem).  Meanwhile, local sheriff Ed Tom Bell (Jones) attempts to chase down both men.  Chigurh and Moss play cat and mouse for a while, until Llewelyn is killed by a Mexican gang.

Despite the modern setting, this film is in many ways a western, with its sweeping shots of the plains and valleys of Texas and its horse riding law men.  (The Coens freely admitted to being influenced by famed western director Sam Peckinpah, and this film's theme of the aging lawman who longs for retirement is reminiscent of Peckinpah's RIDE THE HIGH COUNTRY).  And like many westerns, it's story deals with serious, dark, brooding and desperate men who live outside the law, being pursued by a equally serious sheriff.  The film has long, heavy scenes without dialogue and the world of the film is one where sudden, brutal violence can break out at any moment (Anton sometimes kills people without a moment's hesitation).
For the first hour and half, the plot follows a standard (if well done) action format, with Llewelyn staying just one step ahead of the relentless Anton; there's an electrifying shoot out between the two of them have that leaves both of them bloodied and that features Llewelyn piloting a truck that Anton is quickly blowing apart piece by piece.  But then the film takes an odd left turn: after building up to the standard violent face off between the hunter and the hunted, the story is resolved when Llewelyn is killed by a Mexican gang.   Killing your film's main character off in such a surprising way (he doesn't even die on screen!) is a daring move for the film (and the source novel) to take, and while I'm generally in favor of stories that challenge their audience by throwing out the standard formula, I find the last half hour of the film a bit lifeless without the usual kind of resolution.  Killing off the Brolin character in such a cavalier manner after building our sympathy for him hurts the film, and I think it would have been more effective to at least show Brolin being killed by the gang instead of just the aftermath.  Equally surprising is that the sheriff also fails to catch up to Anton, whose character has a much more unexpected  resolution: after Llewelyn's death, Anton hunts down his wife Carla (Kelly MacDonald) and threatens to kill her, and then, in another unresolved moment, we see him leave her house without knowing whether or not has killed her.  Then he gets in a car accident and flees the scene, bloody but unbowed.  It's an unlikely way for a brutal killer to exit a film, wounded but free.  I suppose one can interpret this as showing his character as some kind of unkillable force of nature, one that can only be slowed down but never stopped, like death itself, but I personally would have preferred a more conventional finish for such a horrible person.  I should mention that I enjoyed the film more on repeat viewings when I knew about the unconventional ending and could just relax and enjoy the performances without worrying about the story.  I also realize that confounding audience expectations is the whole point of the last part of the film, and that it was that aspect of the novel that appealed to the Coens in the first place, since monkeying with standard genre conventions is often their forte', still I prefer the way that they played with those same kind of conventions in the film FARGO while still giving the audience a satisfying ending.  It's OK to tinker with formulas, but too much tinkering can leave an audience confused and unfulfilled.

Josh Brolin

Brolin and Jones both play their roles so naturally that they feel written for them; Brolin has an immediate likability and easily handles the many moments in which he has no dialogue.  Jones, meanwhile, uses his standard grumpy charm well, especially in the last few scenes of the film when he has to deliver some pretty long patches of dialogue.  But the most memorable character in the film is, of course, Javier Bardem's Anton Chigurh; I've already mentioned that his character seems like a force of nature, and that certainly seems to be the way Bardem chose to play with him.  With his dispassionate gaze, ugly hair cut and flat tone of voice, Anton often seems completely detached from the world around him (I love the way that he single-mindedly lurches through a pharmacy to steal medicine after blowing up a truck outside to distract the clerks).  But there are other moments when he seems to be enjoying himself; in the film's most memorable scene, he interrogates a store owner and then flips a coin and tells the man to call it, implying that his life hangs in the balance. ("What's the most you ever lost on a coin toss?").  Clearly this cruel man, whom we've already seen strangle a cop with hand cuffs, enjoys playing god with another man's life for no reason.  Bardem won a best supporting actor award for his work here, and it's easy to see why; he's one of the most chilling movie villains ever, right up with there with Hannibal Lecter and Norman  Bates.

SO DID THE ACADEMY GET IT RIGHT?

While I still have some reservations about this film's later moments, I still think it's a strong and well made thriller.  But I don't think it was the best film of that year, not when PT Anderson's wonderful THERE WILL BE BLOOD was released, along with two terrific animated films, Brad Bird's RATATOUILLE and Marjene Satrapi's PERSEPOLIS. Still, as a long time fan of the Coens, I can't argue with them getting some Oscar love...

THE DEPARTED (2006)

Enjoy my ramblings?  Check out my new blog right here.

THE DEPARTED (DIR: MARTIN SCORSASE) (SCR: WILLIAM  MONAHAN, BASED ON THE MOVIE INFERNAL AFFAIRS, WRITTEN BY ALAN MAK AND FELIX CHONG).

The best picture award for THE DEPARTED was unusual for two reasons: the first is that is was a remake of a foreign film, only the second best picture winner to ever be so (the first was 1958's GIGI, which was originally done in France in 1948).  The second, more important reason, is that it was the first best picture winner for director Martin Scorsese, who also received an award for best director.   Despite having made critically acclaimed films for years, and being nominated a whopping six times before, he had never won a directing Oscar before.  Personally, I don't think this is his best film (I prefer 1991's GOODFELLAS), but's it's still a wildly entertaining movie, well acted, tense and exciting.  If its victory was just a make up call,  the Oscar voters certainly could have done worse.

Before there was THE DEPARTED there was INFERNAL AFFAIRS, a 2002 Hong Kong action film directed by Andrew Lau and Alan  Mak.  It was very successful in its homeland and was given a limited theatrical release in  the US.  Three years later the Hollywood Warner Brothers studio thought it had potential as an American remake, and screen writer William Monahan was hired to write the script, changing the Hong Kong setting of the original to his home town of Boston, and basing Irish American gangster Frank Costello on real life South Boston mobster James "Whitey" Bulger.  When Martin Scorsese was brought on to direct the film, it seemed like a logical choice given his penchant for making violent films about organized crime (this would be his fifth film in that genre).  Interestingly, Scorsase did not even know that the film was a remake until after he signed on to it, and he wisely avoided watching the original until after he was done making it.  Scorsese quickly cast Leonardo DiCaprio who had previously worked with the director on 2002's GANGS OF NEW YORK and 2004's THE AVIATOR in the prominent role of undercover officer Billy Costigan.  For the part of that character's counterpart, undercover gangster Colin Sullivan, Matt Damon was cast.   Jack Nicholson reportedly turned down the role of mob boss Frank Costello at first , but he eventually was won over by Scorsese, Monohan and DiCaprio, mainly because he hadn't played a villain in a while.   Other talented veteran actors like Alec Baldwin, Mark Whalberg and Martin Sheen were added, and the film was set.  To save money, the film was shot mostly in New York City, but enough location work was done in Boston to make it seem authentic.  It's final budget was around $90,000,000, and it would go on to make around $130,000,000; it was (and still is) Scorsase's biggest money making film.

It's plot revolves around two young men,  Colin(Damon), who since childhood has forged a bond with mob boss Frank (Nicholson), and Billy(DiCaprio), a police academy graduate who's running from his family's crime connections.  Frank has Colin join the police force to give him information on their movements against his mob, while the police have Billy pretend to get thrown out of the police academy and work his way into Frank's organization to help build a case against him.  Both men prove to be good at their chosen roles, quickly rising in the ranks. For a while Colin gives Frank just enough information to keep him ahead of the police,  but when he is unable to stop a raid on a drug deal Frank is making, Colin shoots Frank himself and chooses to remain a cop.  Unfortunately for him, when he brings Billy in to relive him of his undercover operation, Billy figures out who he is, leading to an inevitable show down between the two fakers.

Jack Nicholson & Leonardo DiCaprio

In many ways, this is all classic Scorsese territory; not only is it another organized crime film, but it features his patented urban setting and  characters who are almost all intense, angry, foul mouthed men who are always one step away from acting out violently towards almost anyone around them (even the cops get in fist fights with each other).  It also has the classic Rolling Stones song "Gimmie Shelter"  on the soundtrack, which he had used twice before in other films.  But there are some differences: for one, the Boston setting is far from his usual mean streets of New York location, and, more importantly, the film's plot is much more tricky and complex than the plots his usual films are.  (Scorsese himself would joke that THE DEPARTED won because "This is the first film I've done with a plot.").  And for that we must give credit to Alan Mak and Felix Chong's excellent screen writing work on INFERNAL AFFAIRS, because it's there that the premise of parallel stories concerning an under cover cop and an under cover mobster, along with all the various complications that ensue, was first born, and Monahan's script often stays close to the original.  (Scorsese may not have seen the original, but a scene in which a police chief is thrown from a building looks very similar to the same moment from the earlier film). Still, while INFERNAL AFFAIRS is a good, well made film, THE DEPARTED, with it's bigger budget, better style and more memorable performances,  is a superior remake, with all the original ideas of the earlier film amped up to eleven as only a Hollywood film can.  The film maintains an excellent sense of tension throughout , as both Colin and Billy are constantly in jeopardy of being exposed, and I love the irony of both of them being so good at their secret identities that they are given the task of finding out who's leaking information when it's they themselves that are.  My favorite scene in the film comes when Colin directs a raid on a illegal deal Frank is making from the police station while also finding ways to tip off Frank about what's coming.  It's a marvelous game of cat and mouse with an amusing pay off (Frank flees the scene by boat) and we can't help admiring Colin's ingenuity, as he blows the bust  and diverts blame on to someone else, even if he is the bad guy in the story.

Given that Nicholson and Scorsese are two icons of 70's filmmaking, it's surprising that this was the first film they ever worked together on, and Nicholson responds by giving a classic, funny, over the top performance of a purely evil man as only he can.  The film opens with him rhapsodizing to the audience about  the history of Boston's organized crime and announcing "I don't want to be a product of my environment, I want my environment to be a product of me."  In the first scene we see him shaking down a coffee shop owner for protection money while leering at the owner's  teenage daughter, and then his acting  just gets bigger!  Scorsese allowed him to improvise, and he responds with crazy, wonderful moments like when he literally showers some prostitutes with handfuls of cocaine, or when he flashes Colin with a dildo in a porn theater.  When he appears in one scene wearing a shirt spattered in blood, it hardly seems surprising!  Even Frank's death scene is a manic bit of arm throwing and eye rolling;  Nicholson is so enthralling and amusing in the film that his somewhat premature death, although essential to the story, drains some of the life from the movie.  Fortunately, all of the other performers in the film are very good, if less dynamic.  I especially like Damon's performance, as he plays off his all American likability to hide his real identity.  Vera Farmiga is also a stand out as the only woman to wade into the testosterone pool of the movie, and she responds by strongly holding her own with Damon and DiCaprio, torn between the two men without knowing that the cop is really a criminal and the criminal is really a cop.  And I especially like the cold glare she gives to Damon when she finds out who he really is.

Lenardo DiCaprio & Vera Farmiga

If the film has a flaw, it's that its visuals are not as striking as some as some of Scorsese's other films.  Oh, it's certainly not a bad looking film, but it lacks the stately, poetic tracking shots that can be found in his earlier films like 1990's GOODFELLAS and 1993's AGE OF INNOCENCE.  This is a bit of a surprise given that THE DEPARTED is shot by Micheal Ballhaus, the same cinematographer who worked on those earlier films.  Perhaps Scorsese felt that a plot intensive film like this should spend less time on distracting visuals, and if that 's the case, I really can't argue with that reasoning.  And honestly, saying a film isn't good looking enough isn't much of a criticism anyway.

SO DID THE ACADEMY GET IT RIGHT?

While there were other fine films made in 2006, like LITTLE CHILDREN and PAN'S LABYRINTH, I certainly have no problem with Scorsase finally being awarded for this enthralling and thrilling film. 

CRASH (2005)

CRASH (DIR: PAUL HAGGIS) (SCR:HAGGIS & BOBBY MORESCO)

The televised Oscar broadcast on March 5th. 2006 presented one of the few truly dramatic and exciting Oscar races ever:when Paul Haggis's CRASH was announced, there was an audible gasp from the audience, and presenter Jack Nicholson looked positively stunned.  Haggis's film was a controversial choice not only for its subject matter (the always tricky issue of race in modern day America), but also because of  the film that  it beat, Ang Lee's BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN.  Even before its release, Lee's film had been both lionized by liberals and attacked by conservatives because it was an epic love story between two men (and not just any men, cowboys, who had always been seen as the ultimate in American masculinity). And the fact that BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN was a box office and critical success that  was nominated by the Academy for 8 Oscars seemed to be more than just a reflection of its quality; it also felt like an open defiance of the presidency of George W Bush, who had, just one year earlier, won reelection partly on the strength of his stated desire to add an anti-gay marriage amendment to the constitution.  So, for once there was genuine tension (and a decidedly political tone)  on Oscar night, as the question was raised; would the mostly older Oscar voters actually call a  gay love story the best film of the year?  The political tone of the awards was set almost right away, when SYRIANA star and best supporting actor winner George Clooney gave an acceptance speech in which he eloquently defended Hollywood's progressive views, a veiled reference to Lee's film.  At first it looked like it was BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN's night, as it won three awards, including one for its script and another for director Lee.  But then CRASH  snuck in and "stole" the award, which lead to a strong backlash against the film, and to this day it's often called the worst best picture choice ever (which is way over the top, did these people see 1956's THE GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH?!).  Also, another reason that CRASH won may simply be that the Los Angeles setting of the film struck a chord with the Academy voters who mostly reside there.
Forgetting all the controversy and just looking at CRASH by itself, I think the film is actually quite good.  It's use of interlocking stories is always interesting (if sometimes implausible), and Haggis is to be applauded for tackling such difficult subject matter.   While I don't think it was the best film of that year, it deserves far more credit than its poor reputation gets.

Haggis first had the idea for the movie after he was carjacked while returning some movies to a video store.  He later wondered what the carjackers would think of the videotapes  of European art films that they stole with the car.  This eventually led him to write a script with Bobby Moresco about the different ways that people of different ethnicities interact in Los Angeles.  Bringing in respected actors like Sandra Bullock and Don Cheadle (who also co-produced) help him raise the money for the film, which was made on a tiny budget (by Hollywood standards)  of around  $6,000,000, and shot in a brisk 36 days. Haggis even  sometimes shot scenes in his own home and car  to help reduce costs.  The film went on to make over $53,000,000, and while that was certainly an impressive return on its investment, it was also the lowest money making best picture winner since THE LAST EMPEROR IN 1987.

Terence Howard

CRASH's ambitious script attempts to tell multiple stories in a specific place and time to try to catch the tenor of that place as a whole; it's a style similar to excellent films like Spike Lee's DO THE RIGHT THING(1989), Robert Altman's SHORT CUTS (1991), and  P T Anderson's MAGNOLIA(1999).  When done well, as I think it is here, viewing this kind of film can be a thought provoking and innervating experience, one that does not fall into the usual predictable Hollywood formula. For a film like this to work, casting is essential; because no one in the film is a lead character, we have to accept them all right away and see them as well rounded people in just a few short scenes.  Thankfully, Haggis's cast are solid down the line; Mat Dillon, playing bigoted cop turned hero John,  was the only cast member to be nominated for best supporting actor, but really any of them could have been. Terence Howard is a real standout as Cameron, a successful TV director who suffers a series of racially motivated injustices and slights that slowly push him to the edge.  Sandra Bullock is also very good, as a high strung rich woman who can't control her prejudices.  And I really enjoy the interplay between rapper Ludacris and Laurenz Tate playing thieves and best friends Anthony and Peter; Anthony's long winded discussions about race are equal parts truth and paranoia,  giving him some of the film's most thoughtful and funny lines (and in a great in joke, he refers to rappers as "mumbling idiots"!).  Occasionally the dialogue feels too didactic, especially when, late in the film,  political figure Flanagan (William Fitchner) launches into a racial speech in front of a cop that only pertains slightly to what they're talking about.  But for the most part, the actors are all right on the mark, and Haggis even gets a good serious performance from Tony Danza as a TV producer who has an uncomfortable conversation with Cameron.

 The film opens with Cheadle, playing police detective Graham,  who has just gotten in a car accident, talking aloud about the unique nature of LA, and he ends with the words "we crash into each other, just so we can feel something", and while the poetic nature of his speech seems a heavy handed way to start a film, it does  hit on a harsh truth about a city where many residents only interact with people they don't know during car accidents,  and where, despite its enormous diversity, people live in mostly segregated communities.  As the film shows, this segregation makes nearly every interaction with people of other ethnicities difficult; it's often hard to begin without making assumptions about others, and sometimes those assumptions are true.  This is effectively shown early in the film when Bullock's character is clearly intimidated by Anthony and Peter,  two young black men walking towards her.  Moments later the two men car jack her.  Later, she assumes that a Latino locksmith (Micheal Pena) working at her house is a gang member, but he turns out to be a perfectly nice guy.  The world of the film is peopled with characters who are neither entirely good or bad, and even when bad things are done, there's always some reason behind the actions.  And while the film does have some uplifting moments, and shows that even the most prejudiced of people can overcome those prejudices, there are still no easy answers.  This is clearly shown by the juxtaposition of images at the film's end: first we see a young Asian man, who has never seen America before, awed at the number of choices available to him in a store, reminding us how, even with all its flaws, the US is still a desirable destination for people all around the world.  But this idyllic sight is quickly followed by yet another car accident, which results in people spewing racial stereotypes at each other as the film fades out.  The best and the worst of America fully displayed.

Larenz Tate & Ludacris

I mentioned earlier than no one in the film is entirely bad, but actually, that's not completely true; the only Asian people we see for any length of time is a married couple (Alexis Rhee and Greg Joung Paik)who turn out to be part of a human trafficking operation.  This caused some anger, given that  in a film that strives so hard to show even handed, complicated characters of different ethnicities (even including  mostly positive portrayals of Middle Eastern people), would allow Asians to only be represented by criminals.  I think this is a good point, and that Haggis should have found some way to work in another  Asian character or two to provide some balance.  This leads to a broader problem I have with the film; I think it's too short.  While just under two hours is plenty of time for most movies, here the film's broad canvas leads to some parts of it feeling under developed.  For example, Cheadle's character investigates a possible racially motivated shooting that becomes far more complicated than it would first appear to be; there's enough meat in this story for an entire film of its own, and here its resolution feels too quick and neat.  Still, criticizing a film for being too ambitious seems unfair, and I imagine its length has something to do with its low budget,  so I don't consider that much of a failing.

Many people have criticized the film's use of coincidence to link the characters together; this appears mostly in the connection between Dillon's cop character  John and Cameron's wife Christine (Thandie Newton).  Early in the film, after seeing Christine and Cameron engaging in a sex act while driving, John pulls them over and molests Christine while frisking her.  The very next day, John comes to the rescue at a car accident, and finds himself saving Christine from a burning car.  The notion that these two people could run into each other twice in such a short period of time in a city as big as Los Angeles
is hard to swallow, but so what?  Although CRASH is often realistic, it's clearly not intended to be taken as a documentary; as with almost all movies, some suspension of disbelief is necessary.  And the scene works as an extension of one of the main themes of the film: that people can surprise you.  That a stereotypically racist LA cop can also be the kind of guy who will bravely dive back into a burning car to save the life of a black woman. Furthermore, along with fitting into the film's larger point, I find the scene exciting, dramatic and extremely well played by both actors.
The other almost inevitable criticism of the film was that, despite its attempts at taking a harsh look at racism, it is itself racist.  Things get even tricky because Haggis himself is caucasian, which may make his writing and directing of non white characters in racially charged situations suspect in some people's eyes.   Generally, I don't think it's fair to say that writers and directors can't create characters of different ethnicities  than their own, not to mention that actors can always put their own spin on the characters, as the cast does in this film.  As for CRASH,  I think that the film hits at some hard truths, showing that race relations in America are indeed often difficult and that stereotypes persist because they sometimes have a grain of truth to them.  So what if many of the nonwhite characters in the film have flawed or outright criminal  behavior, the white characters suffer from the same kind of flaws, nobody in the film is perfect.  So, excepting the aforementioned Asian characters, I think Haggis's film is honest in its portrayals and well intentioned in its message that race is an inescapable factor in America today.

 SO DID THE ACADEMY GET IT RIGHT?

I think it's clear that I'm a somewhat big fan of this film, but I don't think that it's a better film than BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN.  But I think the best film of the year was yet another film that was controversial: Steven Speilberg's outstanding MUNICH, one of his more underrated but better films.

MILLION DOLLAR BABY (2004)

MILLION DOLLAR BABY (DIR: CLINT EASTWOOD) (SCR: PAUL HAGGIS, BASED ON THE SHORT STORY COLLECTION ROPE BURNS:STORIES FROM THE CORNER BY FX TOOLE)

Clint Eastwood's MILLION DOLLAR BABY was his second win for best picture after 1992's THE UNFORGIVEN, and it's also the third sports picture to win ever (the first was ROCKY in 1976, and then CHARIOTS OF FIRE in 1982; interestingly, two of them are boxing films).  Like its scrappy heroine, the film's history had a nice underdog quality to it, going from a long term unmade project to a surprise hit and best picture winner (not without some controversy, which I'll talk about later).  But, while I find much to admire in the film, it's often heavy handed characterizations and story make it fall far from greatness in my book, and I think several better films were made that year.

The movie began as a short story collection written by former boxing trainer Jerry Boyd under the name FX Toole in 2000.  Movie star Angelica Huston loved the book and took it to producer Albert S. Ruddy, hoping to direct it herself, but by the time he got the rights she had moved on to other things.  The project bounced around for several years, and eventually Paul Haggis, who had mostly worked in TV at that point, wanted to write and direct it.  He thought that Clint Eastwood would be perfect for the role of the grizzled fight trainer Frankie Dunn, and Eastwood liked both the role and the script so much that he asked Haggis to allow him to direct it, which Haggis quickly agreed to.  Sandra Bullock and Ashley Judd were both considered before Hilary Swank was chosen for the role of Maggie Fitzgerald, while Eastwood's former costar Morgan Freeman was cast as Frankie's partner, Eddie Dupris.  Despite Eastwood's name and prestige, the film still had trouble getting financed, but eventually a deal was struck in which the Warner Brothers studio would put up $15,000,000 and the smaller Lakeshore Entertainment studio would throw in around the same amount.  Eastwood shot the film quickly, in his customary fashion, and buoyed by mostly positive reviews and word of mouth, it would go on to make around $100,000,000.

Clint Eastwood & Hillary Swank

It tells the story of Maggie Fitzgerald (Swank), a waitress from Missouri, who longs to become a boxer.  She begs long time boxing coach Frankie Dunn (Eastwood) to coach her.  He at first refuses, but eventually, after some prodding by his assistant Eddie Dupris (Freeman), he agrees.  Maggie goes from one victory to another, but tragedy strikes when she badly injured in a title bout and winds up paralyzed  in a hospital bed.  Grief stricken, she asks Frankie to help her commit suicide.

Eastwood and cinematographer  Tom Stern used stark, harsh lighting to give the film a gritty, realistic look that works well for the story.  Even the fight scenes avoid flashiness, using slow motion only once, during the final, fatal blow that poor Maggie takes.  The non glossy style keeps the movie from lapsing to overt sentiment, even towards the end when the story gets sadder and sadder.  I also like the way that Haggis's script uses Eddie's voice over narration, which never tells too much and is often poetic in nature ("sometimes the best way to deliver a punch is to step back... but step back too far and you ain't fighting at all.").  And while perhaps overlong, (a subplot about dim witted boxer Danger Barch [Jay Baruchel] befriending Eddie doesn't really add much to the film) the movie builds nicely to a moving climax.
Unfortunately, it falters in some of it's characters:  I dislike the way that the champ, Billie "The Blue Bear" (Lucia Rijker), is portrayed as such a horrible villain who openly cheats, and Eastwood indulges in one of the film's more excessive moments when Billie arrives for the title fight by rising up from the shadows like some kind of demon while scary music plays. That moment also telegraphs the tragic end of the fight too obviously, and I personally think that that  ending would have been more powerful if it just happened in the normal course of a fight instead of coming from a cheap shot; the first time I saw the film I just knew that the fight was going to end badly, because Billie's cheating had been so clearly established.  I would have preferred to have been surprised.  And even worse than the champ character  is the portrayal of Maggie's mother Earline by Margo Martindale, a ludicrously broad stereotype of a poor, lazy, white trash, welfare cheat, who has literally gotten fat off the government. (Clearly, Eastwood's conservative politics played a role here).  How unlikeable a woman is she?  The first time we see her, she yells at her daughter for buying her a house.  The second time we see her, she puts off seeing her ailing daughter to go to Disneyland, and then proceeds to try to get her  to sign her money away.  She even goes out of her way to remind Maggie that she lost her fight!  And along with her mother, Maggie's brother in law is a thuggish ex-convict and her sister a baby toting dimwit, adding to the white trash stereotypes. Even though they only appears in two scenes, these ridiculous characters hurt the film as a whole; although they are supposed to show everything that  Maggie  is striving to avoid becoming, I think it would have been better for her to have had no family at all, or at least not have them all be such monsters.

Morgan Freeman

Despite these reservations, I find much to enjoy in the film: the three central characters of Frankie, Eddie and Maggie are all so likable, and so well played by their respective actors, that I find myself completely on their side and cheering every victory for Maggie, even though I'm not a sports fan.  It's great to see Eastwood and Freeman working together again twelve years after THE UNFORGIVEN, and they immediately have a humorous macho chemistry; thankfully, Freeman is given a much meatier role here, (he won a best supporting actor award for it) and is wonderful in the scene when he recounts for Maggie the fight that lost his sight in one of his eyes, accepting his fate without regret.  But the film's central relationship is between Maggie and Frankie, and while I think perhaps there is a little too obvious symmetry in their lives (he has an estranged daughter that returns his letters unopened, she still misses her father who died when she was a child), they have such a natural and winning chemistry together, the aging tough guy and the feisty tom girl, that it's impossible for me not to be moved by it.  Swank, who won her second best actress award (her first was for 1999's BOYS DON'T CRY) meets the first criteria for the role by looking like a believable boxer (she clearly trained hard for the film), but beyond that, she makes Maggie a sweet, good natured but determined character, who eventually gets Frankie to train her through sheer force of will. Swank is also very good after Maggie is paralyzed, accepting her fate the same way that Eddie did, with no regrets; she even underplays the moment when she first asks Frankie to end her life, talking in a forceful but quiet tone, knowing full well what she's asking. At first, Eastwood seems to be playing yet another of his standard tough guy roles, full of crankiness and glaring.  But as he gets closer to Maggie, he shows a genuinely tender side of himself, and he even cries as he admits to his priest (Brian O'Byrne) that he's considering giving in to Maggie's suicidal wishes.

Now, as to the final scenes in which Frankie kills Maggie, they sparked much controversy, with conservative commentators like Rush Limbaugh and Michael Medvid claiming that they were essentially endorsing the idea of euthanasia; oddly enough, these arguments were launched as "liberal Hollywood does it again" despite Eastwood's conservative views. In any event,  however one feels about that issue, I think it's unfair to characterize the film as propaganda, seeing as how Maggie is not even paralyzed until ninety minutes into the film, and even then, she only first asks Frankie to kill her twenty minutes after that.  Maggie's handicap and suffering is really just one part of the whole film.  That said, the film clearly sees Frankie's actions as an act of mercy, and he and Maggie share a tender moment in which he finally tells her what the nickname he gave her means ("Mo Chuisle", gaelic for "my darling, and my blood"), and kisses her on the cheek before giving her a lethal injection.  Personally, I find the scene moving and well acted (even if it's absurdly implausible; there's no way that Frankie could get away with that in a hospital), and I can understand both of the characters motivations, even if I don't necessary agree with them. Therefore, I think it's an ending that is true to the characters and the world they live in, and I have no problem with it.

SO DID THE ACADEMY GET IT RIGHT?

Despite my mostly positive feelings about the film, I don't think it was the best of the year, not when better films like THE HOTEL RHWANDA, THE INCREDIBLES and my favorite, THE ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND, were all released.  But, MILLION DOLLAR BABY is  a good pick, mainly thanks to the excellent interplay between the leads.

THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING (2003)

THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING (DIR: PETER JACKSON) (SCR: JACKSON, FRAN WALSH & PHILIPPA BOYENS)

The Academy's choice of Peter Jackson's THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING as the best picture of 2003 is significant on several levels: it was the first win ever for a film in the fantasy/adventure genre, the second win for a sequel (the first being GODFATHER II in 1974), and the first for a third film in a series, and it was also the first film since 1997's TITANIC to top the box office for the year while also winning best picture.  In many ways, its victory seemed inevitable because it was the last chance to give a best picture award to a film series that obviously impressed Oscar voters from the very start (the first two films in the series, THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING and THE TWO TOWERS had already won six awards between them).  Personally,  I find all three films highly entertaining, and really about as good as big budget main stream Hollywood filmmaking can get.  And while I don't think that THE RETURN OF THE KING is the best in the series, it still an exciting and great looking adventure movie, with effects that still impress  years later.

It all began in 1936 when English Oxford professor JRR Tolkien published a book that he had initially written only for his own children called THE HOBBIT.  Its success with both children and adults led to the inevitable sequel, the massive, and much more serious novel,  THE LORD OF THE RINGS.  (When it was originally published in 1954,  the book publishers demanded it be cut into three separate novels, THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING, THE TWO TOWERS, and THE RETURN OF THE KING).  Influenced by  the ancient poem BEOWULF, his own Catholic beliefs and European mythology in general, the books became massively successful, and they have never stopped finding an audience, becoming some of the most widely read novels of the twentieth century.
Given their popularity, a film version of the novels would seem inevitable, and the film rights of the novels were purchased by United Artists as far back as the late 1960's, but the enormous difficulty of bringing a fantasy world full of magical creatures to the screen seemed insurmountable.   In 1978 animator Ralph Bakshi made a feature length animated version that covered the entire first book and half of the second, but the film was a disappointment (although Jackson has admitted to using some of its imagery in his films).  A made for TV followup in 1980, not worked on by Bakshi, was far worse, reducing the story to a simple kiddie film.  Finally, in the 1990's, it looked like special effects had advanced to the level where Tolkien's middle earth could finally be brought to the screen properly. At least that's what New Zealand born director Peter Jackson thought while making the 1996 horror comedy THE FRIGHTENERS, especially because he had just formed a special effects company called Weta, and Tolkien's novels seemed like an ideal challenge.  So, Jackson and his writing partner Fran Walsh began trying to sort out the rights for the film; it took so long that at one point, it appeared that Jackson was going to make his dream project, a remake of KING KONG, first. (He would eventually make that  film in 2005). But, finally, at New Line pictures, Jackson got what he wanted: three separate films, to be shot in New Zealand,  mostly all at once,  with each film being released a year apart.  It was a massive undertaking, with Jackson pressured to produce a film series that would satisfy both long term fans of Tolkien and a new generation of movie goers who may never have even heard of the novels.  Along with that, the films would have to have huge budgets, requiring numerous location shooting, thousands of extras in full costumes and makeup and of course cutting edge special effects.  (It was such a massive undertaking that there were often four or five separate film units shooting footage simultaneously) Fortunately for New Line and Jackson, the first film, THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING, was a huge hit from the get go; its popularity led to New Line allowing him to film more scenes  and add effects for the second and third films, making them even more visually impressive than the first.  By the time THE RETURN OF THE KING was released in 2003, its success was guaranteed, and it would go on to make almost four hundred million dollars in the US alone.  (Its global box office would top  a billion!).  It would also get 14 Academy Award nominations, winning 11 in all, tying it with TITANIC and BEN HUR for most overall wins.

As the film opens, Frodo (Elijah Wood)  Sam (Sean Astin) and the treacherous Gollum (Andy Serkis) are making their way to Mordor to destroy the evil Sauron's  ring of power that Frodo is carrying.  Meanwhile, their friends Aragorn (Vigo Mortinsen) and Gandalf (Ian McCellen) work to defend the castle of Gondor from the orc hordes of Sauron.

Elijah Wood & Scott Astin

Jackson has often referred to all three films singularly as "the film", and if one watches all three films together in a marathon viewing, you can see his point.  The three films really do function as one big movie, and if the scope of the films grows, with more characters and settings, along with big battles leading to even bigger ones, it seems like a natural progression.  And Jackson gets so much of it right, from the casting to the effects, that the films have gone beyond just being hits of their era to timeless movies that new generations of fans will gladly grab on to, not unlike George Lucas's original STAR WARS trilogy. And like Lucas, Jackson really created a lived in, detailed fantasy world.  And the effects not only looked great, they created real characters, like Gollum and Tree Beard.  In finding the right actors for the films, Jackson went with the right performers instead of trying to find big name stars, and every role rings true; you're never reminded that these are actors responding  to green screens and computer generated monsters. From Ian McKellen's wise Gandalf to the likable comic relief of Merry and Pippin (Dominic Monaghan and Billy Boyd), the film is fully of immediately recognizable and likable characters.   And while the dialogue occasionally seems a bit stilted, ("So passes Denethor, son of Ecthelion.") the actors clearly respect the material and play it straight, with good results.

The battle of  Gondor

Of all the various subplots and characters that run through all three films, the one that really holds the story together is the charming relationship between Wood's troubled Frodo and Astin's ever faithful Sam; yes, in movies full of epic battles and monsters, the real heart and soul of the story lies in the sweetness of these two unlikely heroes.  Astin seems to almost radiate goodness and decency as Sam, and over the course of the three movies we will see him follow Frodo anywhere, bravely fighting off orcs and (in one of the most exciting moments of the entire series) a horrifying giant spider; if the script gives Sam  one too many speeches about how much he loves and misses the Shire, Astin delivers them well enough to never lose the audience's affection.  And at one point, when Frodo wrongly believes Gollum over Sam,  and pushes Sam away, it's probably the most moving moment of any of the films.


While I have much praise for the films overall, looked at individually, THE RETURN OF THE KING is my least favorite.  THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING has some charming scenes in the Shire and introduces the main characters nicely, along with having the memorable image of the demonic balrog creature.  THE TWO TOWERS brings in the wonderfully pathetic character of Gollum, along with the lovable tree like ent creatures.  And while all three films have their slow moments (too much time is given to the dull love story between Aragorn and the pallid elven woman Arwen [Liv Tyler]), the third really drags towards the end, with one fake ending after another. Even the film's final image, that of a small round door being shut, seems like a lame way to end a big epic tale. And while the big battle of Gondor  in THE RETURN OF THE KING is exciting, it pales in comparison to the great battle of Helm's Deep in THE TWO TOWERS.  Also, Christopher Lee's wonderful villain Saurmon is sorely missed in the third film, with the glowing eye of Sauron making far less of an impression.  (Oddly, the extended DVD version of THE RETURN OF THE KING has a nice scene early on where we see the final fate of Sauron, which was strangely cut from the theatrical version.  Why Jackson cut this effective scene when he had so much more he should have cut seems crazy to me).  Also, even as a child reading the original book, I have a problem with Frodo and Sam disguising themselves as orcs so easily while travelling in Mordor (the hideous orcs make great villains, but just how dumb are they?). Still, THE RETURN OF THE KING has a lot of great things in it, from Sam's aforementioned run in with a giant spider, to the gloriously shot final moments of Gollum as he slides into lava while still grasping at the ring.  So it's still a good ending to the story, false endings and all.

SO DID THE ACADEMY GET IT RIGHT?

Even if THE RETURN OF THE KING is the least of THE LORD OF THE RINGS films, it's perfectly understandable that the Academy wanted to reward Jackson's work on all three films by naming it best picture.  And while other, quality, smaller scaled films like AMERICAN SPLENDOR and LOST IN TRANSLATION were also released in 2003, given that it was the last chance to reward Jackson's epic, I'm certainly not going to argue with the Academy on this one.

CHICAGO (2002)

CHICAGO (DIR: ROB MARSHALL) (SCR:BILL CONDON)

CHICAGO was the first musical since 1968's OLIVER! to win best picture, and its victory marked the full blown return of the once all but forgotten genre of the Hollywood musical.  And while the film certainly owes a debt to the classic musicals of early decades, its darker tone and unlikable characters  (not to mention its more realistic way of introducing the musical numbers) marks it as a decidedly different kind of musical.  As a fan of musicals, I'm glad they made a comeback, especially in such the  high kicking style of this enormously entertaining film.
The history of Hollywood movie musicals is definitely an interesting one: for decades, they were often box office gold for the studios.  From the Astaire-Rogers films of the 30's all the way to the smash hit GREASE in 1978, they seemed unstoppable.  But in the '80's, they all but disappeared; part of this may have been because 1982 saw the release of ANNIE and the inevitable GREASE sequel, GREASE 2,  both highly promoted films that tanked at the box office.  Another reason may have been the rise in popularity of MTV, which brought new music and singing (or lip syncing) stars right into people's homes, saving them a trip to the theater. To a new generation of film goers, the idea of paying to see a musical in a movie theater seemed silly.  Oh sure, films like FLASH DANCE (1983) and FOOTLOOSE (1984) would feature lots of music and dancing, but there would be no spontaneous bursting into song, none of the sudden break with reality that the old musicals featured that now seemed passe'. In 1992, the Disney studio tried to revive the musical with NEWSIES, and the result was another flop. (Ironically, NEWSIES would eventually become a successful broadway show). Except for the singing in animated films,  the musical seemed dead in Hollywood.   That changed in 2001 when Baz Luhrmann's wild, lurid MOULIN ROUGE! was a box office success.  Meanwhile, a revival of Bob Fosse's CHICAGO was a huge, surprise hit on Broadway.
The story of CHICAGO began as a stage play back in 1926; written by Maurine Watkins, it was based on real life murder trials covered by Watkins as reporter for the Chicago Tribune.  It became a silent film in 1927, and then another movie called ROXIE HART in 1942, featuring Ginger Rogers in the title role.  In the 1960's, Gwen Verdon, wife of  legendary Broadway director and choreographer Bob Fosse, read the play and suggested he adapt it as a musical.  The show eventually opened on Broadway in 1975, but its initial run was seen as a disappointment.  Fosse planned a movie version in the 1980's, but his death in 1987 ended that, and it looked like the show would be forgotten.  But when that 1996 revival of CHICAGO was a huge success, becoming the third longest running show in Broadway history,  Hollywood could resist musicals no longer.
It was Miramax studios that was considering an adaptation and looking at various directors; Rob Marshall, a choreographer who had directed a well received TV version of ANNIE in 1999, pitched to the studio heads the idea of making most of the musical numbers in the film take place in Roxie's imagination, thereby making the transition from people talking to people singing more natural to modern audiences.  The studio loved the idea, and Marshall got the job, with screenwriter Bill Condon hired to adapt the film.  Renee Zellweger, flying high after her starring role in 2001's BRIDGET JONE'S DIARY, was hired to play Roxie Hart, despite her lack of musical training.  Catherine Zeta Jones, who began her career onstage in British musicals, was cast as Velma Kelly.  After Hugh Jackman turned down the part of shyster lawyer Billy Flynn because he felt he was too young for the role  Richard Gere was cast.  Although Gere had done musicals before, dancing was new to him, but he and Zellweger worked hard getting themselves in shape for the film, and they both had no trouble winning audiences over.  Made on a budget of around $45,000,000, and buoyed by almost universally positive reviews,  CHICAGO would go on to make a healthy $170,000,000  in the US.

Catherine Zeta Jones

Set in 1924, the film is about Roxie Hart (Zellweger), a young wannabe singer, who shoots and kills her lover Fred (Dominic West) when she finds out he's been lying to her about getting her career started.  While in jail, she meets Velma Kelly (Jones), a famous singer who also shot and killed her husband and sister after catching them in bed together.  Meanwhile, Roxie's sad sack husband, Amos (John C Reilly), hires corrupt lawyer Billy Flynn (Gere) to defend her, and Flynn immediately gears up a media campaign to get Roxie off.

The American jazz age of the 1920's has always held a certain fascination for later generations, with its cool clothes, bathtub gin, cameras with popping flashbulbs and speakeasies, and that fascination goes especially for the city of Chicago, with its infamous levels of corruption; the film nails all of that right from the start, with a exciting performance of  the song "All that Jazz" from Catherine Zeta Jones in a loveably seedy jazz joint.  Along with capturing the clothes and styles of the flapper era, the opening scene also establishes how we will see most of the movie's musical numbers inside of Roxie's imagination, (Roxie pictures herself taking Velma's place on stage).  It is immediately apparent just how right director Marshall was in making that decision; not only does the imaginary nature of the music  make watching a musical more accessible for a modern audience, it fits the character of fame obsessed Roxy perfectly; she certainly would see her life as a big on stage show with her, of course,  as the star.  And the cutting between the real world and Roxy's fantasy world is often imaginative and exciting, especially when the hanging execution of female prisoner Hunayak  (Ekaterina Chtchelkanova) is contrast with Roxie picturing the same woman on stage performing a disappearing act with a rope.
Really, I find this film  just a joy to watch; it practically  bursts with  beauty and  excitement and  it's never far from another gorgeously shot production number full of dancing and wildly colored costumes.  And the numbers all have wonderfully realized images, like Billy literally using Roxie as a ventriloquist dummy to mislead the press, whom he also plays like puppets, or Billy leading Roxie into a court room seen as a three ring circus with him as a glittery ring leader.    The songs (with music by John Kandar and lyrics by Fred Ebb) are all catchy and memorable, and each performer, from the leads to the supporting roles, delivers them excellently. My personal favorite number is the "Cell Block Tango", in which the music builds slowly from sounds Roxie hears in her cell into a full blown song; it's sung  forcefully by the six female prisoners, with its memorable "he had it coming!" chorus, and  it combines Fosse's trademark sexy choreography with dark humor ("You know, some guys just can't hold their arsenic.") into a classic scene.

The Cell Block Tango

All of the performances are good, and I especially like Richard Gene as the slippery Billy Flynn; he's not only sings and dances well, but he terrifically embodies Billy's slick hustler style; I love the way that he has Roxie recount her life story while he spells out exactly how he will spin it for the press, or the way he scoops up the money Amos offers to him to pay for Roxie's legal fees after initially rejecting it.  The fact that Gere was not even nominated for an Oscar for the role is surprising, especially given that Jones, Zellweger, Reilly and Queen Latifah all were (Jones won).
If the film has a flaw, it's that its dark and cynical tone goes too far; after all, the film ends with two unrepentant murderers gleefully finding fame and fortune! It is interesting to note that in the other two versions of the film, Roxie's fate is quite different: in the 1927 film she is freed from jail, but forgotten by the press and cast out of her home by her husband.  The movie ends with her seeing a paper with her name in the headline washing down the drain.  And in 1942's ROXIE HART her character turns out to be innocent.  Here, there is no such comeuppance or vindication.  There is really only one character in the film that is sympathetic, and that's Roxie's hangdog husband Amos (Reilly's stand out performance of the heartbreaking "Mr Cellophane" is the film's most emotional moment), who stands by Roxie even as he learns of her unfaithfulness, even raising every penny he can to pay Billy, only to have her leave him flat at the end.  Yes, this is a story of ruthless characters, who only care for themselves,(this is the rare musical without a love story, save perhaps for Roxie's love of fame),  from the bribe happy prison matron Mama to the lecherous sleaze bag  Fred that Roxie shoots without compulsion.  But we can't help admire their intelligence and determination: Billy's a corrupt lawyer, but he can play the press (and a jury) like a harp.  And Roxie is smart enough to know when to have a fainting spell and fake a pregnancy to keep media attention on her.  I think the point of the film (and the musical) is that in a violent, corrupt town like Chicago in the 1920's, where, as Billy tells Roxie, "murder is a form of entertainment", looking out for number one is the only way to succeed.  So, Amos's kindness is his downfall, while all of the other characters get what they want though sheer toughness and using what gifts (Roxie and Velma their looks and talent, Mama her position of authority over the prisoners, and Billy his law degree and media savvy) they have to get ahead.  So the film's dark tone seems just right for the film's setting: in a dog eat dog world, Roxie and Velma are the top dogs.

SO DID THE ACADEMY GET IT RIGHT?

Obviously it's clear how much I enjoy this movie, and  for it's place in helping the return of the movie musical, it's victory seems apt.  The only film I think that gives it competition is Peter Jackson's THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE TWO TOWERS, the second, and in my opinion the best, of THE  LORD OF THE RINGS films. But I couldn't take away an award from CHICAGO, especially since Jackson's turn would come soon...

A BEAUTIFUL MIND (2001)

A BEAUTIFUL MIND (DIR: RON HOWARD) (SCR: AKIVA GOLDSMAN, BASED ON  THE BOOK OF THE SAME NAME BY SYLVIA NASAR)

At first glance, the Academy's choice of Ron Howard's A BEAUTIFUL MIND for best picture made perfect sense: it was a handsome looking biopic about the trials and tribulations of a brilliant man, played by Russell Crowe, one of the world's biggest stars,  who had just won an best actor award for GLADIATOR, the previous year's best picture winner.  Furthermore, director Howard was a popular figure in Hollywood, having made the transition from successful TV star to film director smoothly years earlier.  But, like so many biographical films, A BEAUTIFUL MIND was criticized for perceived inaccuracies in the life of its subject, and it's victory may have had more to do with a multimillion dollar public relations push by it's studio, Universal, than any real merit the film had.  Now, it's impossible for any biographical film to be completely accurate, but I do think Howard and screenwriter Akiva Goldsman may have taken one liberty too many here (more on that later).  In any event, I think this overlong film falls far from greatness, with its predictable moments of uplift hitting all the obvious beats, and its glossy, almost too pretty cinematography by Roger Deakins that practically screams "Oscar"!

It all began in 1998 when writer Sylvia Nasar published A BEAUTIFUL MIND, the unauthorized biography of  John Forbes Nash Jr., a Nobel prize winning mathematician who had struggled with schizophrenia for much of his life.  Producer Brian Grazer liked the book and bought the rights and convinced Howard to direct.  Screenwriter Akiva Goldsman convinced them to let him write the script, partly because as a child both of his parents were psychologists, and it was he that came up with the film's central twist, that Nash's insanity would be portrayed from his point of view, with characters the audience assumed were real turning out to be figments of his imagination.  With Goldsman's script set, Howard considered many actors for the lead role in what was becoming a hot property; finally  Crowe was picked for Nash, and  Jennifer Connelly cast in the important role of Nash's wife, Alicia.  Crowe researched the role by watching videos of Nash delivering speeches, and he eventually met Nash himself on the set of the film.  The film was shot mostly on location, with several trips made to Princeton university, and Howard shot almost all of it in sequence, despite the added cost and difficulty, to make the character's changes in the film more natural for the actors.  Upon the film's release, it received mostly positive reviews, despite the aforementioned controversy, and it would eventually go on to make $170,000,000 on a budget of around $78,000,000.

Russell Crowe

Beginning in 1947, it tells the story of John Nash, a socially awkward but brilliant Princeton student.  While in school he befriends his English roommate Charles (Paul Bettany), and after graduation he does research and teaches classes at MIT, where he meets and falls in love with, and marries Alicia (Jennifer Connelly), one of his students.  He is eventually sought out by government agent Parcher (Ed Harris) to help  break secret Russian codes.  The more he helps, the more he becomes convinced that Russian spies are trailing him and Alicia; soon his paranoia takes over his life and he is institutionalized for schizophrenia.  While in the institution he realizes that both Charles and Parcher were just figments of his imagination.

The interesting thing about this film is that it's almost two films in one: the first film combines a love story about a socially awkward man with a spy thriller, complete with a car chase.  And then, once John is diagnosed, it winds up feeling like a classic tale of overcoming addiction; almost a remake of Billy Wilder's THE LOST WEEKEND (1945) with schizophrenia substituted for alcoholism.  Really, Goldsman's script hits almost all of the notes found in an addiction story: at first, John is in denial that he even has as a problem, and is forced into an institution, where he is helped out by a tough but supportive doctor (Christopher Plummer), then he hits rock bottom, seems better, relapses, and finally slowly builds his way back to normalcy, aided by a faithful, long suffering wife.  Of the two halves of the film, I prefer the first part, especially in the early scenes at Princeton, where it's refreshing to have a story that values intelligence in its hero, and the visualizations  of his thought processes are well handled. I also like the fact that it is clearly John's intellect that attracts Alicia to him; it's lovely how, on their first date, he finds shapes for her in the stars.  I start having trouble with the film when we first find out that Charles and Parcher are both imaginary; it hurts the plausibility of the film because he spent so much time with both of them, and on repeat viewings it becomes impossible to know just how many scenes are real or just in John's head.  It's also one of the big breaks with the real story that the film takes, in that the real John Nash's hallucinations were only auditory, and while I understand that just showing John react to voices in his head wouldn't make for much of a movie, I think the film errs in making his imaginary characters seem so real and giving them so much screen time; it would have worked better if Charles and Parcher remained in the shadows more.  I also think that both Bettany and Harris (normally fine actors) often over play their roles, especially in their later scenes when he know they're not real (That said, I think this film handles the imaginary characters reveal better than the overrated FIGHT CLUB).  And the second part of the film drags on for too long, with John's inevitable relapse and recovery slowing things down considerably (I also object to the moment where John almost accidentally drowns his infant son; putting a baby in danger is an easy way to get a jolt of out an audience, but  I don't think the story here warrants it).  Even worse, the film takes so long to get to John winning the Noble prize that it seems like an afterthought, and I would have liked to have known more about just what he did to win the award.

Jennifer Connelly

Russel Crowe may have based his performance on the real John Nash, but at times it feels more like he's imitating Dustin Hoffman in RAIN MAN.  Crowe stammers, shuffles, avoids eye contact when talking and wears a vacant stare long before we find out he's schizophrenic; I think he overdoes these mannerisms to the point where his ability to function at all before his breakdown seems unlikely.  And Crowe's muscle bound torso seems out of place on a college professor.  Still, Crowe does manage to make John likable enough to keep our interest, and the obvious pain he feels on discovering his that Charles and Parcher aren't real is palpable.  Jennifer Connelly won an Oscar for best supporting actress for her work here, and in many ways she has a tougher role than Crowe in that Alicia is both his and the audience's main link to reality.  More importantly, she really shows the hardship and difficulty of loving and living with a man as troubled as John is effectively; she has a strong scene in which she  vents her anger  by smashing a mirror, but we always see that she realizes that John's troubles are not his fault.  In the real world, Alicia divorced John for several years and then remarried him, but since Howard and Goldsman want this film to be seen as a love story, that break with reality  doesn't bother me.

SO DID THE ACADEMY GET IT RIGHT?

I think it's clear that I have mixed feelings about this film, and in all honesty, I think all four films that were also nominated for best picture  (THE LORD OF THE RINGS:THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING, IN THE BEDROOM, MOULIN ROUGE, and GOSFORD PARK) are all better.  I also preferred MOMENTO and THE ROYAL TANNENBAUMS.  So no, I don't think Ron Howard's pleasant but unspectacular movie deserved to win. 

GLADIATOR(2000)

GLADIATOR (DIR: RIDLEY SCOTT)  (SCR: DAVID FRANZONI, JOHN LOGAN AND WILLIAM NICHOLSON)

In an interesting bit of irony, the Academy started the new millennium off by awarding Ridley Scott's GLADIATOR as best picture,  which was a conscious throw back to filmmaking of a different era.   In the 1950's and '60's, when Hollywood was competing with television, the studios often used big budget spectacle to lure audiences into theaters, leading to what would be known as sword and sandal films.  Usually set in ancient Rome (like GLADIATOR), movies like BEN HUR and SPARTICUS featured epic battle scenes and casts of thousands.  Unfortunately, GLADIATOR is also like many of those films in that it doesn't hold up well and goes on for too long; while generally well made and acted, it is  a reasonably entertaining movie with some good action but I think far better films were made that year.

Screenwriter David Franzoni first came up with the idea in the 1970's after reading the book THOSE WHO ARE ABOUT TO DIE, a history of the Roman games, by Daniel P Mannix.  In 1997, while working with Steven Spielberg on ARMISTAD, Franzoni pitched the idea of a film about a Roman gladiator to the director, who got the film green lit through the DreamWorks film studio. (Given the film's inevitably big budget, co-financing was provided by Universal Studios).   Franzoni wrote a script that combined fictional characters (the hero Maximus) and historical ones (the villain Commodus) while the  studio approached veteran director Ridley Scott to helm the film; eventually producer Douglas Wick won Scott over by showing him a copy of the 1872  gladiator painting "Pollice Verso" by Jean-Leon Gerome.  Mel Gibson was offered the lead role of Maximus, but he felt he was too old, and eventually it came to Russell Crowe, who at that point was best known for starring in serious dramas like 1999's THE INSIDER, for which he was nominated for an Oscar.  But the choice of Crowe proved correct, as the role both won him an Oscar and established him as a credible action hero.  As the other roles were quickly filled in with both newcomers (Joaqin Phoenix) and vetereans (Richard Harris, Oliver Reed) the film went into production.  At first, Scott caught a lucky break when a section of woods that set to be deforested anyway could be burned down for the film's opening battle scene.  But then trouble began: first, it took months to build a one third replica of the Roman Colosseum (which would be augmented with computer effects in the film).  And then Crowe's legendarily difficult behavior reared its head, as he began to complain about the film's script.  Scott, who had already had writer John Logan rewrite Franzoni's original screenplay, brought in yet another writer, William Nicholson, to appease Crowe.  But the star was still unhappy, sometimes walking off the set when he didn't get his way.  At one point Crowe was quoted as saying to Nicholson "Your lines are garbage but I'm the greatest actor in the world and I can make even garbage sound good."(!)  To top everything off, Oliver Reed died of a heart attack before finishing the film, so a body double and more computer effects had to be used to cover for him, adding to the cost of the film.  Despite all of this, GLADIATOR would become a sizable hit, returning around $187,000,000 in the US on a budget of around $103,000,000.

Pollice Verso

Russel Crowe

Set in 810 AD, it's about Maximus (Russell Crowe) a great Roman general, who, after  leading  his army into victory against the barbarians in Germania, wants nothing more thatn to return home to his wife and child.  But Roman leader Marcus Aurelius (Richard Harris) wants Maximus to be the next leader of Rome; when Marcus's son Commodus (Joaquin Phoenix) hears of this, he kills his father and orders Maximus's family killed and Maximus executed.  Maximus escapes and eventually becomes a gladiator; after winning fame, he eventually heads to Rome and an inevitable conflict with Commodus.

GLADIATOR may resemble the sword and sandal films of the 50's and 60's in its story and location, but Scott clearly wanted to make a more gritty view of the past than those films portrayed; so, gone are the scenes of Roman leaders drinking wine out of huge goblets while slave girls hold grapes over their heads, instead, taking full advantage of an "R" rating, Scott gives us brutal fight scenes with decapitations and stabbings that could never have been shown in older films.  (Interestingly, Scott mentioned Steven Spielberg's  SAVING PRIVATE RYAN as an influence).  Clearly, the director realizes that modern audiences, like the Roman audiences of old, expect plenty of action in a movie called GLADIATOR, and so he gives it to us, cramming in numerous combat scenes in the film's two and half hours; from the opening huge battle scene to one on one sword duels to arena melees featuring snapping tigers and chariots, Scott delivers.  And all of  the scenes are well staged and exciting, letting us see Maximus use both his fighting ability and his leadership skills.   Unfortunately, it is when it's out of the arena that the film sometimes falters; while beautifully shot (Scott's films always are) it's simple plot sometimes feels overly stretched, and the completely serious tone of the proceedings, with dialogue often delivered in a stentorian style, can also get a bit wearing. To the film's detriment, and despite its historical setting, the story often feels like one from a  modern action film, with it's improbably noble (and practically indestructible) hero and cliched revenge plot.  Still, those violent scenes are undeniably rousing, and Scott understands that the build up to the action is as important as the action itself, especially in the lead up to Maximus's debut in the arena, which is given a big drum pounding lead in as we see the nervous warriors preparing for battle.

I've already mentioned that Crowe won a best actor award for the film, but I personally don't think it was deserved.  Oh sure, he's a more than credible action hero who seems right at home slashing away in an arena, but there's not much range to his character: when he isn't fighting, he mostly glowers and sulks.  In many scenes he merely reacts to other actors expressing more emotion than he does.  Really, I prefer Crowe's performances in other films, like 1999's THE INSIDER, over the work he does here.

Joaquin Phoenix

As for Joaquin Phoenix as Commodus, well, actors often say that it's more fun to play a villain than a good guy, and Phoenix certainly seems to be having a blast here!  (Phoenix also won an Oscar as best supporting actor).  Commodus is cowardly (he doesn't show up for a battle until after it's over), perverse (he lusts for his sister), and a tantrum throwing brat, and yet Phoenix gives him just enough humanity to make him often more pathetic than outright evil, especially when he admits to his father Marcus (Richard Harris) that he has fallen short of the old man's  expectations; he's almost likable in his honesty, until he has his hands around the emperor's throat.  I love the way that Phoenix absently spins a sword in his hand like a bored schoolboy while listening to the Roman senate, or the way that he chillingly threatens the life of his nephew while telling the young boy a story in front of his deceitful sister.  The dead eyed stare Phoenix gives his sister is memorable enough that he probably won his Oscar on this scene alone. The rest of the film's cast are all solid, despite the film's self serious tone,   and I especially like Oliver Reed as the warrior trainer Proximo; Reed may not have known that this was his final role, but he goes out on a high note, playing the character with full flinty vigor.  

SO DID THE ACADEMY GET IT RIGHT?

As a straightforward piece of entertainment, GLADIATOR delivers with exciting action, but I don't think it ranks as the best film of that year. I'm far more impressed with Steven Soderburgh's TRAFFIC, which took a long hard look at the drug war and may be that rare movie that could actually change the political attitudes of the viewer.  I'm also a big fan of Cameron Crowe's ALMOST FAMOUS and Ang Lee's gorgeous martial arts fantasy CROUCHING TIGER HIDDEN DRAGON.  Still, GLADIATOR is an enjoyable film,  and therefore not a bad choice.