Madame de . . . / (The Earrings of Madame de . . . ) - Movie Review
Madame de... / (The Earrings of Madame de . . . ) (1953)
Max Ophüls, for some ungodly reason has rarely received the international fame and recognition of a Hitchcock, Ford or even Welles. Certainly his claim to being one of the great auteurs of the twentieth century is on par with all three giants. He shares a love of fluid tracking shots with Hitchcock, a solid sense of composition and tight narrative flow akin to Ford. And like Welles, his deliriously cinematic oeuvre runs to a relatively low output of films – each one as memorable as the chubby boy geniuses.
For the lucky cinemagoers in the tri-state area, his 1953 masterpiece, “Madame de . . .” has been revived at Film Forum in a lovely new print courtesy of Janus Films. The original title is “Madame de . . .” and for the purposes of consistency, we are sticking with that one! (The English title seems far too concerned with a plot device and not the heart of the film.) “Madame de . . .” is set in the demimondaine realm of the Parisian aristocracy. We meet Madame de . . . (her full name is never revealed in one of the films many clever bits) as she rummages through her expansive wardrobe searching for a pair of earrings that she has decided to sell in order to help chisel away at her substantial debt. A debt that she obviously owes to hundreds of furriers, milliners and dressmakers throughout the finer neighborhoods of Paris. Seriously kids, this bitch can shop with the best of them.
“Madame de . . . " is a movielovers dream for various reasons. First, its sumptuous production values that provide a view into a lost world of manners and civility that frame the social canvas for this elegant comedy of errors. The Madame and her husband, the General exist in an echelon of Paris that is reserved for impeccable manners, wit and wordplay that belie their very carnal desires simmering underneath. Wherein today’s cinema we might encounter a cheating spouse and cuckolded husband, in Ophüls’ world, sex is reduced to a mutual understanding between consenting adults that seems at first to be less important than issues of mutual respect, trust and keeping up appearances.
Flirting is encouraged, affairs are tolerated, but falling in love and lying about it are cause for dueling. It is a world where affairs of the flesh are less volatile than affairs of the heart. Once Madame de has entered willingly into her ‘folie a deux’ with a dashing diplomat, her fate is sealed. Their erotically charged dance of love is evocated in a series of waltzes from various parties and bal masqués that blur into one deliciously ripe setpiece filled with lust, admiration and comic asides. It is a justifiably famous sequence made more so by the caliber of its players.
As Madame de, the legendary Danielle Darrieux shimmers in her Belle Époque finery. At first, petulant and incorrigibly haughty, she seems incapable of betraying anything besides her wardrobe. For here is a woman who drifts along on the caprices of fashion, without ever bothering to observe the mysteries that lie underneath. As the game of love proceeds to its inevitably complicated finale – she will learn that the costs of betraying her husband, her lover and worst of all, her own soul will leave her morally bankrupt.
The eternally debonair Charles Boyer is simply superb as le General. His military bearing and training carry him through the routine ordeals of such an oft played courting ritual, but his unwavering sense of honor prevent him from admitting defeat in the face of his wife’s genuine shift in affections. Not that the General is beyond reproach. We witness his frightfully formal and altogether polite discarding of a mistress who has fallen out of favor early in the film. Her dismissal is all the more ripe with irony since the General has decided to bestow a parting gift on the teary eyed tramp, the earrings that his wife has sold in order to maintain her lavish lifestyle. How the earrings will return into his wife’s possession and their ultimate fate we leave up to the viewer to witness.
The Baron is portrayed by one of cinema’s other great directors. The fact that Vittorio De Sica helmed such masterpieces as: “Shoeshine”, “Bicycle Thieves”, “Umberto D.” and “The Garden of the Finzi-Continis”; along with slightly lesser but equally memorable films like: “Miracle in Milan”, “Indiscretion of an American Wife”, “Two Women”, “Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow” and “Marriage, Italian Style” – and was able to act as well as he does in “Madame de . . .” seems an obscenely rich overabundance of talent. His Baron is more than the catalyst for the lead couples’ marital meltdown. Gallant, dashing and passionately devoted to his new found inamorata, he in many ways has the most difficult role to eschew. Typically lovestruck dupe is hardly the stuff of great performances. Which makes De Sica’s charming and effortless turn all the more appreciable.
Ophüls’ attention to detail rivals Von Stroheim’s notorious obsessive compulsiveness. As elegant, soignée and ephemeral as the cinematic playground of “Madame de . . .” might seem, the consistency of design and largesse of visual riches involves us completely. Every frame seems suitable for framing. But this is not merely a pretty painting come to life. While some fools have accused Ophüls of swimming in his operatic camera movements, they fail to see that nothing escapes his eye. The physical world of Madame de is as important as her psychological one.
“Madame de . . . “ is a portrait of three adults who act nobly throughout an ignoble scandal. While the earrings of the English title act as a metaphor for love – lost and found, it is merely the conduit and not the heart of the movie. The heart lies within Ophüls enchanted lens. In the textures, the atmosphere, the music and the movement of his unstoppable camera. He sweeps the audience away into a dreamlike state, where we begin to feel the same intoxication of love that overwhelms Madame de, in one of her many fainting spells.
Rarely has a film been met with such universal acclaim. Andrew Sarris names it his choice for “The Greatest Film of All Time”. His arch-nemesis Pauline Kael once called it “perfection” and “romantic, seductive, and at times, almost hypnotic”. Roger Ebert claims that “Madame de . . .” is “one of the great pleasures of the cinema”. For a true movielover, there can hardly be better reason to rejoice, than to be able to see this glorious vintage film flickering across the silver screen once more. Stop what you’re doing and go see it. Now! Bless you all!
(Endnote: One final parting thought on this masterful piece of moviemaking that bridges the all too contentious ports of art and entertainment: for all the DVDs, videos, internet movie downloading and zillion cable channels out in today’s markets, the films of Max Ophüls are still criminally overlooked. Only one, his brilliant final masterpiece “Lola Montès” is currently available on DVD. And people have the unmitigated gall to protest the war in Iraq. Here is the real crime against humanity! Write your congressman/woman and demand the release of Ophüls greatest works onto DVD today!)Directed by Max Ophüls
Screenplay by Marcel Achard, Max Ophüls and Annette Wademant
Based on the novel by Louise de Vilmorin
Starring
Charles Boyer as Général André de . . .
Danielle Darrieux as Comtesse Louise de . . .
Vittorio De Sica as Baron Fabrizio Donati
Jean Debucourt as Monsieur Rémy
Jean Galland as Monsieur de Bernac
Mireille Perrey as La Nourrice
Paul Azaïs as Le premier cocher
Josselin
Hubert Noël as Henri de Maleville
Lia Di Leo as Lola
Madeleine Barbulée as Une amie de Madame de . . .
Charles Bayard as Un convive
Jacques Beauvais as Un majordome
Gérard Buhr as Le douanier
Jean Degrave as Le clubman
Claire Duhamel as La demoiselle de compagnie
Guy Favières as Julien
Émile Genevois as Un soldat
Serge Lecointe as Jérome Rémy
Franck Maurice as Un témoin
Max Mégy as Un domestique
Daniel Mendaille as Un passant
Albert Michel Le second cocher
Robert Moor as Un diplomate
Georges Paulais as Le premier témoin du duel
Léon Pauléon as Un huissier
Colette Régis as Vendeuse de cierges
Louis Saintève as Un passant
Michel Salina as Un témoin
Germaine Stainval as L’ambassadrice
Jean Toulout as Le doyen du corps diplomatique
Roger Vincent as Le second témoin du duel
Georges Vitray as Vieux reporter
Léon Walther as L’administrateur
René Worms as Un convive
Cinematography by Christian Matras
Film Editing by Borys Lewin
Costume Design by Georges Annenkov and Rosine Delamare
Original Music by Oscar Straus and Georges Van Parys
Production Design by Jean d’Eaubonne
Makeup by Carmen Brel
Labels: Classic Films, Movie Review
posted by The Bloody Red Carpet at 2:20 PM
0 comments
Is Ken Loach the best unheard of director working today? Well, according to the numerous international film awards he’s received over his four decades long career, he very well might be. Beginning with his startling feature length film debut in 1967, the wonderfully unsung “
While the movie masses may return empty stares at the sound of his name, Ken Loach has certainly not escaped the eyes and ears and thunderously clapping hands of his peers, critics and international film festival panelists who have awarded him the top honors at the 
His latest film to win the top honors at Cannes, has finally arrived, almost a year after its win. Nice. A bloody fucking year of sitting through crap like 
Cillian Murphy, who might very well be the most talented actor of his generation (he has our vote after his brilliant and varied turns in “
He decides to take the fateful step of joining the Irish Republican Army, alongside his brother Teddy, played by one fine doorful of a man by the name of Padraic Delaney . . . whew! (That’s it, pack our bags, we’re County Cork bound!)
Together with assorted mates and roughs, including the very fine actor Liam Cunningham as the elder statesman of the group, Dan, the Irish rebels launch small but keenly felt attacks against the bullying Brits that are terrorizing their countryside. And terror is indeed the word. For daring to speak in their native tongue of Gaelic qualifies one poor sod to a beating so brutal it snuffs the life out of him. The message is clear: the Irish are nothing but second rate animals in the eyes of the British army.
Now, while other directors may have focused on the epic struggle for freedom through the eyes of a legendary historical figure like Neil Jordan did in “
“The Wind That Shakes the Barley” is an extraordinarily powerful film in its brilliant use of subdued violence. Not that there is a lack of bloodshed here, but rather it is not the focus. While we never see the vicious beating given to the young lad who refused to speak in English, we are made more than aware of the horrible aftermath. The scenes that do contain exchange of bullets are mercilessly swift and punctual, as if to mirror the tactics of surprise and efficiency on the part of the IRA. This is a film that longs to depict violence as abhorrent, rather than sensual.
There are many reasons to enjoy “The Wind That Shakes the Barley”. The uniformity of fine performances, in particular from Murphy, Delaney and Cunningham. The fine use of the rural Irish landscape to frame the bloody fight for freedom. While Loach’s approach never ventures too far into 
A storm of righteous indignity against their second class citizen status, which causes great heartbreak amongst the clan when they are forced to turn on their own. If ever the absurdity of war lent itself to a storyline, this is it. For how does one engage in guerilla warfare without endangering the lives of innocents? An impossible situation. For every step they gain against the Brits, they are forced to sacrifice an ally or member of their support network.
But Loach is not satisfied with merely depicting their brave struggle for emancipation. The film reaches a midway point that is startling in its shift of attitudes and pacing. For suddenly, out of the blue the British seem to have acquiesced to their demands. A “Cease Fire” has been declared and Ireland earns the right to be recognized as the Irish Free State, consisting of twenty six of its thirty two counties. The only catch was, that England retained the right to govern them and every Irishman had to swear an oath of allegiance to good King George V!
Hardly the stuff worth dying for, in Damien’s eyes. His brother Teddy however, seems to recognize that this might be all they could hope for under the Empire’s firm grasp. And so, brother goes to war against brother as Damien returns to the rebel forces and Teddy joins the newfound Irish military, under the rule of England. It is here that the film falters, but thankfully never completely falls. For in discussing the various political angles, machinations and complexities; Ken Loach’s famed improvisatory manner with dialogue and actors sells the movie short. Briefly! In order for us to accept that brother would fight brother at this stage of the game, it would have required a beautifully scripted scene that could handle the emotional as well as the historical divide. Sadly, there is not. What we get instead is a series of truncated complaints and declarations of wounded pride that may feel emotionally honest on the part of each actor, but do little to strengthen their position in our minds.
Thankfully, the film will recover once it continues its well crafted depictions of warfare, this time with the required emphasis on the interpersonal. As Damien and Teddy plunge headfirst towards their inevitable doom, we are carried along on the crest of their passion and fortitude. We care for these men, and their shattered relationship. The ending more than earns its tears and bloodshed, even if it had to struggle up that final hill. We encourage you to see “The Wind That Shakes the Barley”, whether it is for the obvious parallels to the present day world warfare culture or to take a slice of history home with you. A bloody and oft times painful slice to swallow, but a decidedly cinematic one. Bless you all!
Hey, kids! Want to see a good movie about the Rwandan genocide? Anyone? Wait! Where are you going! Sigh. Well, we’ll tell you about it anyway. “Beyond the Gates” (Originally titled “Shooting Dogs” in the U.K.) is the latest flick to tackle the steamy political milieu surrounding the atrocities that occurred in Rwanda in the mid-1990s. As we now know, ‘cause 
Now, before you backclick away from us, and log onto your preferred porn site please take a moment to consider the reasons to go see this movie.
1. Michael Caton-Jones. The Scottish born director who helmed the marvelously entertaining “
2. John Hurt. The elder statesman of British character actors has been charming audiences and impressing the critics since his early days in the Oscar winning “
3. Hugh Dancy. This baby faced beauty, has been slowly creeping up the glory clutching ladder of young turks to carve his name into the short roster of young actors to be watched. And while we can think of severely scenarios that we’d like to watch young Mister Dancy in, they usually involve Baby Oil and arm restraints. Thankfully his strong turns in Ridley Scott’s “
4. The message. Since, the earliest days of flickers – film has often looked to history and some of its darkest passages for its source material. Whether we are being asked to open our eyes to 
The best films containing a political or social message are the ones that manage to impart the horrors of reality, while simultaneously telling a cinematic story that doesn’t undercut the truth or drown the subject in a miasma of false theatrics. In other words, damn few movies.
“Beyond the Gates” works beautifully when it dares to show the depths of depravity mankind is capable of committing. Friend turned into enemy, the limp and all too transparent rationale behind the political decisions, the cost of sacrificing one's beliefs. While “Hotel Rwanda” focused on the heroism and bravery of one lone voice amidst the bloody storm, “Beyond the Gates” throws its lens onto the atrocities that were allowed to be committed when the West turned its collective gaze away from the bloodshed.
The setting is the Ecole Technique Officielle in Kigali, a real school where the fictional Father Christopher played by John Hurt and one of his young teachers, Joe Connor portrayed by Hugh Dancy are forced to deal with the horrors when thousands of refugees show up on their doorstep as the killings begin. For as the Hutu militia begin to hack away at the populace with rusty machetes, a small troop of Belgian representatives of UN peacekeepers defends their base at the Ecole and attempts to keep the peace behind the gates.
As the food begins to run out, and disease and panic start to overtake the refugees – the fear of an all out attack by the gathering hordes of Hutus becomes very real. A fear that will grip the refugees and cause them to risk their lives in attempting an escape. It is a horrible moment, when the Hutu descend in a bloodthirsty rage and massacre the few dissenters a few yards from their protective barrier. A moment that painfully foreshadows the remaining refugees inevitable fate.
What this film does manage to do quite well is to depict the painfully blunt order of events that led to the genocide. We watch through young Joe’s eyes as his charmingly rustic town, where he has chosen to help the “underprivileged” begins to fester with ethnic hatred. He runs into a reporter chum who has witnessed the first stirrings of violence and learns of the racial vitriol between the Hutu and the Tutsis. His awareness of the political situation is reflected in Father Christopher’s awakening to the spiritual depravity of his neighbors. Both men are made to reexamine their beliefs in the good of mankind from opposite perspectives. One will learn that “good intentions” are not enough to overcome monstrous obstacles and the other will learn that “faith and trust” are not enough to forgive or to forget acts of violence.
While we can sit back and admire the directorial flair of Caton-Jones, the leading man skills of Hugh Dancy and the quiet grace of John Hurt in one of his better roles, the focus will remain on the horrible acts of cruelty. The final moments after the departure of the UN troops is devastating. We watch as the life saving trucks filled with refugees speed off in a dust cloud, and a Hutu leader yells out for the “work to begin”. The camera remains stationary as the Hutu gunmen and machete wielding murderers cry out with their bloodthirst and begin to run towards the barricades. The screams of the refugees are all that are needed to understand their final fate.
While the coda that follows the massacre may tie up the final bits of storyline, and attempt to rationalize the abandonment of a doomed nation – it doesn’t suffice. We all know deep down in our hearts and minds, why this happened. The Rwandan genocide happened because the West chose to ignore the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent lives. Their skin color, their poverty, their lack of any potentially money making resource for outsiders to exploit dug their collective graves. In the history of mankind, there has never been a “just cause” that propelled a powerful nation to liberate a desperate people from bloodshed. Mighty nations have always invaded other countries in the name of money or power, and never for humanitarian reasons. A simple and painful fact.
As simple and painful as the end credits that reveal some fascinating facts behind the making of this movie that we will leave for the viewer to experience. All we can say is that it is astounding in its ability to hammer at your emotions.
And so dear readers we are faced with the daunting task of recommending a fine British import that dares to expose the still fresh scars of the civilized world’s most recent embarrassing blunder. But, hey, you can all just relax and opt not to see this film. After all it might actually get you to donate money, or call your senator or develop a conscience. Who knows? And if not, you can always wait five or ten years when 
Ye Gods! Where to begin? When we first heard about Zack Snyder adapting Frank Miller and Lynn Varley’s “graphic novel” (COMIC BOOK, JUST SAY IT!) version of the legendary Battle of Thermopylae – we admit we were excited. After all, we were fans of 
We were certainly fans of that humpy piece of Scottish ass, Gerard Butler who was hired to portray the brave King Leonidas and once we saw the making of featurettes that began to crop up on the internet, we were sold! Woo-hoo! Large, muscley, sweaty men in leather jockstraps, flowing capes, pummeling the shit out of each other! What’s not to like?
Well, the short answer is everything. Here is a film that plays it so close to the source material, which we must remind you is a comic book, that it is absolutely trapped underneath the static rhythms of that pulpy genre. Now, faithful readers will recognize that we have nothing against a comic book flick, if they are made with a sense of style and vigor. In particular, we enjoyed the last Frank Miller derived piece, the neo-Noir stylings of “
For those of you under the age of 2,500, the 
All of which should make for a great and grand tale of bravery, fighting the odds and heroism . . . and all of which is washed down the sepia colored drain of this miserably overwrought movie. Zack Snyder has opted to drench the film under the weight of CGI dross that ultimately depletes the movie of any sense of scope or pageantry. We simply never believe this movie is any deeper than a rough sketch. The invading armies appear to be leftover scenes from a handheld video game. While CGI continues to evolve, bringing with it the promise to capture untold “other worlds” scenarios, it will never replace the physically awesome sight of a landscape filled with actual participants. One glance at the thundering hordes streaming across the tundra in Sergei Bondarchuk’s 1968 version of “
All of which could be forgivable if the film did not dare to venture forth into the heretical. The political arena. Now, to be fair, Mr. Snyder has gone on record as refuting any political overtones. Well, he is either blind to his own directorial vision or a damn fool. To make a film about Persians invading Greece, and to portray the Greeks as white bread muscle boys and the enemies as dark skinned degenerates is tantamount to declaring your membership in a neo-Nazi support group. Throw in needless declarations of “manliness” on the part of the Spartans and taunts and epithets of “boy lovers” and “mystics” to the opposition, and you’d be welcomed with open arms into any fundamentalist right wing church in the country.
“300” is the epitome of negligent filmmaking in a time of war that not only manages to insult the current day political atmosphere, but to deny the complexities of the reality of war. This film may go down in history as the most blatantly obtuse piece of war propaganda since John Wayne’s “
While the cast may have certainly earned their bravery marks in the unearthly training sessions that produced such heaping mounds of abs, one wishes they had spent some time in acting classes. Gerard Butler may cut a dashing figure as their good 
Not that the remainder of the cast fares any better. Lena Headey seems to be channeling 
As the duplicitous Theron, the normally attractive Dominic West is buried under makeup meant to project “menacing”, and begins to resemble a garden gnome. His idea of exuding sinister amounts to acting with his rubberized forehead and spitting out his dialogue with all the polish of an amateur porn star.
And speaking of porn, there is absolutely no excuse to what has been done to Rodrigo Santoro in the role of Xerxes. Arriving on a gilded litter meant to evoke Elizabeth Taylor’s entrance into 
It seems more likely he is the cinematic offspring of 
“300” may pretend to focus on the stylized visuals, and chest thumping testosterone antics of the main storyline but it is undone at each turn by the trivialization of its source material. Surely one of the most famous battles in mankind’s history deserves better than music video graphics slathered over a troop of shaved glistening hardbodies.
This is a history PowerPoint presentation filled with images from an all male strip club. Even gay porn versions of 
Has there ever been a “Sword and Sandals” epic ripe with such empty graphics? It was bad enough when the Spartans encounter their slain brethren crucified en masse upon a giant tree, and all we could think of was the poster design for Stephen Sondheim’s musical, “
But nothing could prepare us for the mind numbing scene wherein King Leonidas ventures forth to a 
Ultimately, that is the grand failure of “300”. For a film that is being lauded for its alleged creativity, it is decidedly bereft of anything original. Its sets and costumes seemed culled from central storage. The acting is wooden at best and laughable at its worst moments – of which there are multitudes. It’s difficult to decide who is worse, Butler as the one note posturing leader, or Headey who is practically asleep throughout her scenes. And why bother with a subplot of betrayal and greed when the masses of pimply geeks all came to see the big boys play with their CGI toys? A mock game of honor that makes us yearn for the days before “
Directed by Zack Snyder
When Bong Joon-ho’s “The Host” premiered at last year’s 
For both films dealing with underwater behemoths terrorizing the local populace knew one vital piece of information in selling a great monster movie. Focus on the characters, earn our sympathies and then let them face their greatest fears in the guise of the otherworldly creature and let ‘er rip! The premise for “The Host” is beautifully laid out in the opening scene which does the unthinkable; it introduces the monster in the first few minutes of the movie.
We meet the Park family, a disjointed band consisting of an elderly riverside kiosk owner, his seemingly ne’er-do-well son, his studious and feisty granddaughter and his daughter who turns out to be an Olympic level archer. The grandfather gripes about his son’s narcoleptic tendencies and slacker status while he busies himself with doling out snacks and toys to the residents of Seoul who choose the park by the river Han to sunbathe and relax.
Unbeknownst to them, a sin against nature has occurred months earlier when an American military pathologist orders a Korean subordinate to dump a small warehouse full of toxic formaldehyde down the drain into the Han water system. Before you can cry “
The two worlds intersect as the Park family find themselves in the center of the creature’s first foray onto land. It rampages across the riverside denizens, squashing several, ripping others apart and finally and horribly for the Parks, runs away with their youngest held captive in its slimy appendages. The groundwork has been laid for a roaring good yarn!
While a shocked populace struggles to understand what could have birthed such a creature, the Parks discover a new sense of family in their outpouring of grief. We knew we were in for a good time at the movies, with the hysterical antics of the grieving scene. A makeshift shrine to the lost victims is the stage for a ridiculous reunion of sorts between the Park siblings, now joined by their booze guzzling brother as they claw the turf and howl at the injustice of their beloved daughter / niece / granddaughter perishing in such a horrendous manner.
Their grief quickly turns to fear as they and others are carted off to a segregated facility by the military who is attempting to squelch any spread of an alleged contagion brought upon by the mysterious creature. While in medical seclusion, the unthinkable happens. The slacker dad receives a cell phone call, from his missing child! It turns out that the creature has opted to save her for a snack and has unceremoniously dumped her in a large sewer underneath Seoul’s winding streets.
The race is on to rescue young Hyun-seo, before she is gobbled up by the foul beast. But by now you must be thinking, what is so special about “The Host”? Well, we’ll tell you dear readers. “The Host” is so far above your typical monster flick in its complete dedication to making us care for a family already in tatters prior to disaster striking. By layering their various storylines into the search for their youngest, Bong has dared to make a horror flick with a heart and he pulls it off masterfully.
For while the various individual storylines are none too surprising: we’ve seen the “dysfunctional family” scenario one too many times, he does show quite the knack for incorporating them into his amazing set pieces. From the creatures first attack, the focus is aimed low at the terrorized bystanders and their flight to escape the monster’s various drooling mouths. The camera sits tightly on the foreground, capturing the young Hyun-seo’s disbelieving panic as she is lifted high into the air and taken away to her doom.
Later, when she is forced to fend for herself in her sewer / cage, she will find amazing levels of inner strength and courage to help maneuver her escape attempts. Attempts that are made all the more necessary once she finds herself in charge of a similarly abandoned child that the creature has dumped alongside her. Their storyline forms the heart of the film’s various threads, which leads up to a pay-off that is equally tense and surprising.
This is where “The Host” really shines. In taking the initial set-up of a brave and hearty crew standing up against the big bad, and turning it on its ear slightly by allowing the family’s relationships to drive the action. We care about the slacker father finding his strength and resolve to rescue his child. We think we may know how the aunt’s archery skills will come into play, but surprises abound in this clever screenplay.
And the direction! Sublime in it’s ability to focus equally on the horrific and the everyday. Several set pieces are absolutely stunning in their composition and execution. The grandfather’s bravery in their darkest hour. The family's brief respite amidst their harrowing journey wherein they allow themselves a moment of blisfull "wish fulfillment". The granddaughter’s anxiety causing attempt at escaping her deathtrap and the final showdown between the citizens of Seoul and the monster.
“The Host” succeeds so beautifully because it never speaks down to its audience. It assumes a level of intelligence and sophistication that is so rare in moviemaking in general, much less for a monster from the deep flick. Ultimately, we realized that hyperbole aside, this may indeed be the most solidly directed monster flick since that fateful summer of ’75. “The Host” has already taken South Korea by storm, being crowned its all time king of the box office. One hopes that in this fallow period of movie releases, it can drum up a few dollars more stateside. Go ahead, take a dip into the surprisingly smart and entertaining cinematic waters of “The Host”. You’ll be glad you did. Bless you all!
When the film genre of “Romantic Comedy” died, roughly after Woody Allen updated, dissected and metastasized it with “
So, when we were forced to go and sit through yet another “Romantic Comedy” which had the balls no less than to place it’s storyline in the early 1980s, we were forced to take five Xanax and two Vodka Gimlets in order to gird our critical loins. Well, either the pills helped considerably or we are softening up in our old age. (We’re sure it’s the former, and never the latter!) “Starter for 10” is a darling little British import that works for two reasons: James McAvoy as the young brainy lead, and the young semi-brainy script by David Nicholls based on his novel.
We meet Brian at a very early age, as a clever child who daydreams about the University Challenge quiz show found on the telly as he tries his best to outguess the contestants. His father eggs him on supportively as his mother smiles in slightly bemused indifference. When next we meet Brian, his beloved Dad has passed away and he is about to embark on his university career where he is sure he will discover like minded individuals who care more about culture, social issues and the all important pursuit of trivia that dominates his desires. If he is forced to leave his working class mates behind, well, such is life for a lad too clever to be held down by his social setting.
Brian does indeed go to college, and quickly discovers that while he is not alone in the pursuit of knowledge, he may be alone for the rest of his life if he doesn’t learn to speak to members of the opposite sex. Enter Rebecca Epstein, a bohemian jewish lass with a penchant for picketing against the world’s injustices. And Alice Harbinson, the embodiment of the upper crust British doll whose resemblance to a young Christie Brinkley does not go unnoticed by the director, 
We are introduced to Alice via a slow motion shot meant to display her best assets, her ability to toss her hair from side to side with passionate abandon. She has entered Brian’s life in the most unlikely of settings, his audition to become one of the 
Anyone who has sat through the 
Completely believable as a young dope, determined to make the most of his university experience until his hormones get the better of him, James McAvoy skirts across the lumpier aspects of the film: brainy girl versus blonde beauty, discovering you’ve outgrown your working class background and chums, etc. Basically, every cliché we’ve sat through before in any coming of age comedy. We don’t doubt for a minute that Brian will wakeup one morning to realize who his real true love is; we simply must sit through the preordained scenes. But if there’s one thing we’ve learned in the past one hundred years of moviegoing, its that once must look for the differences within a tired genre in order to grab hold of any cinematic enjoyment.
“Starter for 10” has no breakthrough moments in direction, script, cinematography or design. While it relies on a buoyant period soundtrack consisting of choice cuts from the eighties prepackaged cold meats section of 
Yes, we wish there had not been the inevitable “dress up in drag” moment of confusion, or the painfully unfunny scene where Brian bumps into Alice’s parents in a pot infused haze in their kitchen and surprise of surprises – Alice’s parents walk around their house butt naked! (Please. This was by far the clumsiest moment in the script, in particular since the parents were played by the far too talented for this slight a fare duo: 
But at this point in the game, one has to expect one in any Romantic Comedy. What does come as a pleasant surprise is the script actually regards its principle players as characters, not just caricatures . . . for the most part. Alice and Rebecca are blissfully given moments within the confines of the genre to break out of their tired molds. The “dumb Blonde” is certainly no dummy and the “bohemian chick” is hardly flighty or as neurotic as we have seen in the past.
“Starter for 10” fulfills its intentions quite nicely when it focuses on Brian’s relationships. We enjoyed the thoughtful scenes where Brian gets to actually converse with Alice and Rebecca alternately. There was a nice quality of not rushing the proceedings that actually drew us into the story. His scenes with his best mate, Spencer played with the right amount of working class bravado by 
We only wish the film had made better use of the prodigious comedic talents of 
While the routine fumbles culled from a million previous “Romantic Comedies” do not come across well, it is in the grounded and wonderfully etched performance by James McAvoy that sets this film apart. We just wish the director had been brave or quick witted enough to avoid the clichéd pitfalls and venture out a tad more. We feel we can still recommend this film, since the few scenes that do work well provide a glimmer of what could have been. Yikes. Not the most shimmering endorsement, but there you have it. Bless you all!
Ah, the South! When they’re not busy enslaving over half their populace, they’re celebrating their 
To wit, meet Lazarus a onetime blues singer turned man of the soil who tends his vegetables and sells them from the flatbed of his truck. He is also on the verge of a nervous breakdown upon learning his wife has run off with his brother. A notion he doesn’t take to kindly to – even if it means having to threaten either one of them with bodily harm.
Rae and Ronnie are a charming young couple, who are clearly in love. They make love with wild abandon, on the eve of Ronnie shipping out to the military. The only problem is that Ronnie suffers violent anxiety attacks that only Rae can help ease. And Rae suffers from . . . well, Rae is your garden variety slutbag whore, that will fuck anything that moves once her true love has departed.
So, once Ronnie has been sent packing to boot camp, Rae finds herself in the less than honorable position of party favor to the town locals. After a particularly ugly night of booze, pills, sex and violence she is left for dead on a dirt road. A dirt road that happens to be within spitting distance of Lazarus’ home. But being the honest man that he is, Lazarus decides to help this poor wreck of a girl never realizing the depths of her seeming depravity. Well, one thing leads to another and he ends up chaining her to his radiator to help cure her of any demons while he nurses her back to health.
“A high station in life is earned by the gallantry with which appalling experiences are survived with grace.” – Tennessee Williams
And if any of you kind readers are still with us, you might want to know that this is one terrifically entertaining flick that steams along with the same style and panache that Mister Brewer demonstrated in his last critically lauded movie. We aren’t really sure what goes on in the mind of Craig Brewer, but we find ourselves loving every minute of it! Trust us, when we heard there was a movie about a rapping pimp that was the “breakout hit” of last summer, we shied away. We were wrong then, and you would be wrong now if you ignored the esoteric charms of this potboiler.
And a potboiler it is! With no remorse. Which is exactly the tone the lead actors have adapted in eschewing their deliriously trippy roles. Samuel L. Jackson, who has seen his share of 
As Rae, the town mattress, Christina Ricci reaches new heights of orgiastic daring. This one time 
As Ronnie, Justin Timberlake gets 
The lead trio is ably supported by the extremely talented S. Epatha Merkerson as Lazarus’ overtly friendly pharmacist. Michael Raymond-James as Ronnie’s best friend and Rae’s secret nemesis. John Cothran as the Reverend R.L., who attempts to bring some order into the chaos at hand. And in the role of . . . could that be? No . . . tell us it ain’t so! It IS!!!! In the role of Rae’s momma, a woman whose cruelty or tolerance for cruelty can only be guessed at is Kim Richards, former 
Which is certainly a viable option for those in attendance. “Black Snake Moan” is the kind of movie that audiences either get in step with, or run from the theatre in a desperate bid for freedom. Which in this case is particularly ironic, we wish we could strap in every member and tie them to their seat with a forty foot chain. It would make for some theatrical experience!
“The theme is the theme of humiliation, which is the square root of sin, as opposed to the freedom from humiliation, and love, which is the square root of wonderful.”
“Black Snake Moan” deserves to be seen for its unforgettable imagery, fabulously eccentric themes and powerhouse performances. With a homegrown auteur like Craig Brewer in charge of this hoedown, we know we are in very capable hands of a man who is capable of pulling the poetry out of the most outlandish scenario. The movies were created from a melding of magic and realism, to watch dreamy landscapes dance in front of our unbelieving eyes. We knew that “Black Snake Moan” was well worth our time and money, when we had reached Lazarus’ own reawakening as he returns to his blues roots to recapture some of his faded glory. It was a scene straight out of movie making heaven. A blend of music, emotion, color, light and shadow that sold us completely on the power of our own disbelief. Go ahead, do yourselves a favor and sample this wickedly delightful exploration of some very lost souls – you’ll be surprised how enjoyable the journey can be. Bless you all!
Written and Directed by Craig Brewer
When David Fincher first burst upon the movie making scene (after an 
Just how fucking sadomasochistic is this fucker? Yes, we think he has talent. Yes, we appreciate the care and detail he put into his projects. And he was by now more than able to line up the heavy hitters to star in his dark and dreary tales of violence, violence and more violence. And so, when we heard that his latest picture would focus on the investigation surrounding the identity of famed serial killer, self labeled “Zodiac”, we were concerned. Okay, we were repulsed. We threw up our hands in the air and declared: “Great, here we go again, more violence in well lit rooms, probably photographed from the viewpoint of the nail in the floorboard.”
Well, we couldn’t have been more wrong. Like a cinematic phoenix from the bloody ashes of a tired genre, David Fincher has directed his most assured and mature work to date. Lining up a top notch roster of actors, armed with a warehouse full of information and investigative materials from Zodiac’s most famed chronicler, one Robert Graysmith and seemingly ditching his overt stylistic flourishes from his most famous flicks (almost), Fincher has delivered an epic on the terror stricken media frenzy that gripped the Bay Area throughout the seventies, when Zodiac came to call.
The film opens with Zodiac’s alleged first crime, the gristly shooting of a young couple parked in a “lover’s lane” hillside retreat. As the seemingly innocuous strains of Donovan’s “Hurdy Gurdy Man” play presciently over the car radio, the unlucky duo find themselves being taunted by a lone driver. This mystery man, who calmly and methodically leaves his vehicle to spray the pair with bullets is barely visible to the audience. From the very start of the movie, Fincher has demonstrated his control over the subject matter by refusing to glorify the violence – for a change, and daring to focus on the clinical facts of the case.
It is the correct choice. Although, it may not be one that your typical moviegoer will find appealing – which is even more reason to appreciate Fincher’s stunning new film. While we sat and watched the opening scene, a gleeful effluvium loving yelp let out from an audience member seated nearby. It was the kind of blood sniffing reaction that earmarks the main audience to the avalanche of grisly serial killer movies that have been in vogue for far too many years. We understand the appeal of “Grand Guignol”, and certainly over the centuries mankind has repeatedly demonstrated that there is nothing more entertaining than a good bloodletting: from the 
The most incredible aspect of “Zodiac” is that while it does not shy away from violence, it is coldly removed from the more visceral aspects. This is no celebration of gore – it merely enumerates the murders as part of the larger investigation. An investigation that begins in of all places, the editorial meeting room of the 
Now, while this film, despite it’s pedigree of cast and crew could have laid back on its collective haunches and played out the rest of the story with a network television 
In that, Fincher has managed to secure the most interesting cast to come down the pike in quite awhile. Our future husband, Jake Gyllenhaal leads the incredibly talented cast in the role of Robert Graysmith, a newspaper cartoonist whose fondness for puzzles sparks his mounting interest in the first menacing epistle delivered to his newspaper’s editor. A self described Eagle Scout of the highest rank, his sincerity in wanting to help the professionals is what drives him to such extraordinary lengths. An obsession with the Zodiac killer that will threaten to overtake his own life.
Robert Downey Jr. co-stars as Paul Avery, a reporter with a theatrical flair that is covering the crime beat and is the first to realize that young Graysmith may be of help in the investigation. When his involvement in the case becomes too personal, and the cost too high, he will discover that his method of coping with the pressure is . . . well, let’s just say that Robert Downey Jr. is the perfect actor for the role.
Mark Ruffalo and Anthony Edwards appear as the detectives David Toschi and William Armstrong, who lead the charge in identifying the suspect. We loved their interaction – two detectives who have allegedly seen it all, but persevere in the middle of the three ring circus, in order to follow their gut instincts.
The rest of the cast is uniformly brilliant, with such fine character actors as Brian Cox, 
The standouts include 
The underrated 
And ultimately, that is what we have to applaud. Fincher’s ability to maintain a tight pace, and interest throughout is to be commended. In particular, since the film is roughly two hours and forty minutes in length! Now, wait, wait – just hold on there a second. The film more than earns it demanding running time, due to its highly effective script. It is a wonderful compression of massive amounts of detailed information, including the various time, place and locations. The film is broken up into three larger arcs that carry us from the murderer, to the police investigation to the private campaign by Graysmith without ever losing its terrific momentum.
Perhaps there is precedence here, certainly the great “realistic” thrillers of the seventies come to mind: “
Still, we didn’t expect him to abandon his own sense of directorial style, merely to suit our needs. We wouldn’t dream of asking a director to change who they are . . . unless they are 
(Endnote: Is 2007 shaping up to be THE year for smart thrillers? What with the towering performance of Chris Cooper in “
Ker-rist, is it March already? The major film awards have all been taken care of, and with each one, we get the obligatory “Dead People” montage which ends up becoming an applause barometer to either their level of fame or the short term memory of the attendees. Well, here at the Bloody Red Carpet, we have a very long memory and we would like to take a moment or two of your time to honor those film legends that passed in 2006.
While we don’t have the time to delve into the lives and careers of each beloved performer and creator who has gone onto the great soundstage in the sky, we would like to applaud the careers of such talented folks as: 
(Note: We are listing them in the chronological order of their passing to the great soundstages in the sky, so don’t go reading any favoritism into it!)
“I have bursts of being a lady, but it doesn’t last long.”
"Isn't it strange that something you've never really wanted to do turns out to be the very thing that's given you a name and identity?...The Red Shoes ruined my career in the ballet. They (her peers) never trusted me again."
"I never had that problem. People looked at me on stage and said, 'Jesus, that broad better be able to act.’”
“Not only are her shapes and features perfect: from her eyes radiates an irresistible flashing of love." – Gregory Peck
Sally Bowles: “Have you ever slept with a dwarf?”
"I have big teeth. I lisp. My eyes disappear when I smile. My voice is funny. I don't sing like Judy Garland. I don't dance like Cyd Charisse. But women identify with me. And while men desire Cyd Charisse, they'd take me home to meet Mom".
“Today we make everything so complicated. The lighting, the cameras, the acting. It has taken me thirty years to arrive at simplicity.”
"What I would prefer for people to discover is something that is in all my films, a certain kind of tenderness for man, an affection which grows from the fragility of the human condition. (His wife enters with a bowl of soup.) But we must have soup. Soup over all."
"I never vacuumed at home wearing my pearls. In fact, I never vacuumed at all. I was always working at the studio. I would have gone crazy staying at home like Margaret Anderson, and my family knew that."
"For doing my best. I think anything I've ever tried, I tried to do my best. In the end, that's all you can do!"
"I go to see maybe seven films a year at the most, and since I only go to see the best, it follows that I very rarely see my own."
“Retirement? You’re talking about death, right?”
Waaaaggggghhhhhh!!!!!! That’s it! We can’t take it. We’re going to go drown our sorrows in a movie marathon or two and a magnum of champagne! Now, go run out and rent all the films we mentioned above and glory in the classic work left to us by such talented artists. Bless you all!
Well, kids . . . now that the Oscars are over and done with and studio moguls are revving up for next years awards (no kidding, it’s never too early to launch an Oscar campaign), we thought we would help close the curtain to 2006 by giving you, our faithful readers our comprehensive and brilliantly selected list of the Best Performances of 2006! Let's let this year's Oscar winning actress enjoy her post show burger and let’s dive right into the Best Performances by the Ladies, shall we?
And what a year it’s been. Unlike last year where the gals could barely get a well toned ankle through the door. This year was filled with wonderful performances from the distaff side, a true moviegoing treat! In looking back, we realized that the year was so kind to the ladies, that three of them were greedy enough to excel in three different movies, a piece!
Toni Colette, who has excelled at emotionally bruised women struggling to free themselves from their prisons: be it psychological, physical or emotional. She kept the guesswork interesting in “
Maggie Gyllenhaal pulled off a terrific performance in a less than terrific film as the recovering heroin addict in “
But those two gals, as good as they were couldn’t compare to the lovely and luminescent Cate Blanchett who outshone all the competition with three terrific performances! In “
Luminita Gheorghiu for her no nonsense emergency services attendee who deals with every level of bureaucracy in “
Mary Beth Hurt as the harridan housewife who uncovers the dirtiest secrets relating to “
Carmen Maura as a pale memory of a woman who fights to regain her right to be one of the family in “
Jeanne Moreau as the loving grandmother who comforts her dying grandson in “
Charlotte Rampling for her vitriolic turn as the vengeful woman scorned in “
Hilary Swank as the glam lesbian femme fatale in “
Emma Thompson for her omniscient writer struggling to shake off her writer’s block in “
And cult favorite, Grace Zabriskie for her indescribably neurotic and mysterious neighbor in “
Adrianna Barraza as the bedraggled housekeeper and nanny to two emotionally orphaned children who finds herself their sole hope of salvation after a disastrous case of miscommunication in “
Tammy Blanchard for her heartbreaking and emotionally honest turn as the true love of a man who cannot avoid his destiny in “
Rinko Kikuchi as the deaf teenager, whose world is likely to implode if she is unable to communicate her desires in “Babel”.
Diane Lane for her mesmerizing turn as the wizened Hollywood trophy wife, whose dalliance with a young stud helps catapult him to stardom and just might have caused his sordid downfall in “
Catherine O’Hara as the hardworking character actress who begins to fall for the rumors of an Oscar nomination on the set of her latest film and finds herself clamoring for more in “
We refer of course to veteran actresses Meryl Streep and Lily Tomlin, as the lovingly contentious Johnson sisters, Rhonda and Yolanda who bicker, harmonize, stroll down memory lane and end up charming the pants off the audience in Robert Altman’s final masterpiece: “
Champagne and cheers to the gals in the Supporting category! As for the Best Actresses of 2006, you might think you’ve heard all their names called out by the various critical and industry groups – but you would be wrong. There were so many wonderful lead turns by the ladies, that we had to list them ALL! (We’ll try to be brief. We swear!)
Catherine Deneuve as the weary wife and mother whose decades old tryst returns to upturn her life in “
Kirsten Dunst as the title character in “
Gretchen Moll as the famed pin-up gal in “
Charlotte Rampling for “
Laura Smet as Senta Bellange in “
Naomi Watts as Kitty Fane in “
Kate Winslet as Sarah Pierce in “
The seven performances listed above were all deserving of the top honors, but this past year saw a remarkable amount of fine acting turns. The following six ladies deserve the accolades and honors they received. Except for one that might surprise you, if you failed to catch her brilliant performance.
Annette Bening as the monstrously self absorbed mother who seemingly abandons her husband and child in order to pursue her demented dreams of achieving acclaim for her overwrought poetry in “
Penélope Cruz as Raimunda in “
Dame Judi Dench as the sociopathic schoolteacher whose unhealthy obsession with a comrade mirrors her years of self denial in “
Laura Dern for her three or four (?) performances in David Lynch’s “
Isabelle Huppert for “
Dame Helen Mirren for “
But, wait! How could you not mention another Oscar nominee, young Abigail Breslin who charmed critics and audiences alike for her heartfelt turn in “Little Miss Sunshine”? Well, as we have mentioned in the past, while we can certainly admire the performances of youngsters, we believe that no matter how good their portrayals may be – there should be no comparison between a nine year old and a veteran. The art of acting may be instinctual, or it may be possible to perfect your craft through arduous training – but considering how few child actors maintain a career once they hit puberty, their performances must be viewed in comparison to their real peers, each other.
Ivana Baquero as the young lady escaping her wartorn reality by entering “
Abigail Breslin for “
Shareeka Epps for “
Sarala for “Water”. Perhaps the most curious of all our nominees. This child actress was put through the ringer as the prepubescent widow sentenced to a life time of poverty and outcast status amidst India’s socially stunted misogynistic caste system. While the promotional material and back history of the film portrayed it as a piece of social reform propaganda – it was in actuality, the oldest story known to cinema. A “Romeo and Juliet” for the bindi toting crowd. The film itself was lovely, it might have been more powerful if they had focused on the social injustices thrust upon this innocent victim – but thankfully, young Sarala captured the frustration, confusion and lust for freedom that the part called for.
Gwyneth Paltrow as the cabaret singer Kitty Deans in “
Viola Davis as the aggrieved mother longing to hear news of her missing son in “World Trade Center”. While she may be on the screen for only a few minutes, this fiercely talented and highly underrated character actress deserves mention for finding the emotional honesty in all too trumped up paean to the crimes committed on that particular September morning.
Most Valuable Player – Cate Blanchett for her brilliant trio of performances in “Babel”, “The Good German” and “Notes on a Scandal” and the Outstanding Young Actress of 2006 – Ivana Baquero for “Pan’s Labyrinth”.
Our Best Supporting Actress(es) – Meryl Streep and Lily Tomlin for “A Prairie Home Companion” and finally our Best Actress of the Year – Isabelle Huppert for “Gabrielle”! Thank you, thank you . . . ladies, take a well deserved bow! What? You didn’t think we’d just bend over like the rest of the awards givers and hand our trophy over to Dame Helen, did you? She was fantastic. Not as fantastic as Isabelle Huppert, but very deserving of the accolades. Now, quit your bitching and go rent “Babel”, “The Good German”, “Gabrielle”, “A Prairie Home Companion” and run out to the theatre and go see “Pan’s Labyrinth” and “Notes on a Scandal” to bathe in the splendors of some fiercely talented women. Bless you all! 
The civilized world can finally rest easily knowing that perennial Oscar loser, Martin Scorsese has finally won the competitive Best Director accolade on his sixth nomination. And what a lovely moment in Oscar history it was when his old chums; Francis Ford Coppola, George Lucas and Steven Spielberg were on hand to present him with his long overdue honor. Would that the Academy had extended a similar courtesy to the great Peter O’Toole on his 
The selection of Scorsese’s “
The other major awards went to the usual suspects this season: Dame Helen Mirren and Forest Whitaker trumping the competition for their royal turns in “
Another very wise choice encapsulates the entire wounded spirit of Awards in general. Faithful readers will know that we simply adored Guillermo del Toro’s visionary “
And the real losers would be the television viewers that suffered through all twenty hours of pre-Oscar Red Carpet coverage on the E! channel. Okay, that was us. In a moment straight out of “Sunset Boulevard”, bitter Brown Betty Jennifer Holiday, the original star of the Broadway musical “Dreamgirls” stood atop the Roosevelt Hotel, next to the Cinegrill sign and belted out an emotionally overwrought version of an already musically overwrought song: “And I Am Telling You I’m Not Going”. It was one of the most pathetic moments in show business history as she looked over the red carpet to the Kodak Theatre, singing basically to the A-lister’s publicists and the paparazzi. The only way she could have redeemed herself is if she had actually jumped off the roof after finishing the final strangling chords. Pity she did not. And pity the fact she had to answer this question from Ryan “Q-tip” Seacrest without one second to regain her breath.
And now for the moment you all have been waiting for – our fashion round-up! We begin with the biggest shock to come down the red carpet in years. Our choice for the Best Dressed Woman:
Reese Witherspoon in Nina Ricci by Olivier Theyskens with Van Cleef & Arpels private-collection jewels.
“Off With Her Head!”
We Are Amused!
Science Fiction, Double Chin Creature
C. Unless your next film is a remake of “
¡Ay, Dios Mio!
Most Improved
Heavenly.
You Can Take the Latina Out of Spain . . .
The Absolved
Ouch! Aw well, it was the late eighties, we’ll forgive her. And we simply adore her for having no bloody clue as to the identity of Ryan Seacrest during the pre-show when he managed to nab her for an interview. A highlight of the evening.
La Belle
Et La Bête!
“Be still, and know that I am God.” Hooookay. Can somebody revoke her Academy membership, please? And back the camera up about eight hundred yards? Speaking of revoking Oscars . . .
The Dummy Returns
Party Crasher
No Problem In Getting Arrested
Matron in Manhattan
Powerless Couple
Gang Bangs of Los Angeles
Seventh Circle of Hell
Battlefield Girth
Eyes, Neck, Chin, Forehead and Cheekbones of 
Dreambloat
Viva Las Vegas!
“Move Your Blooming Arse!”
A Rush of Blood to Our Hearts
Shaken and Stirring
Listen Up, Bitch
Did you say 
MaggieHoney
Portrait of a Star
Oh, thank God, Nicole found some candy in her purse and is about to pop it into her mouth. Hang on . . .
The Lollipop League
Speaking of which, this would be the Milky Discharge from the aforementioned Ebola Virus.
Lemony Skintone’s Series of Unfortunate Choices
Best Peformance by a Proud Mother Sitting in the Audience
Speaking of which . . .
AGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Spoke too soon . . .
You’ll Never Get Plastic Surgery in This Town Again!
Los Dos Amigos
Thankfully, the show itself was helped considerably by the charms of Ellen Degeneres in her maiden outing as the hostess. Although, if she returns next year and we see no reason she shouldn’t, she might want to ban the Shadow Puppet Troupe. And while the final votes may not have surprised us, we salute the Winners and Losers of the 79th Annual Academy Awards! Bless you all!
The 79th Annual Academy Awards – The Winners!
Back in 1945, we like most of the free world were busy celebrating the end of WWII. Whew, that was tough on the nylons having all the boys back at once, but that’s another story. A lovely little stark melodrama came out from Warner Bros. It was called “Pride of the Marines” and starred three of our favorites: John Garfield, Eleanor Parker and Dane Clark. It concerned the real life drama of veteran Al Schmid, a GI blinded during the war who has an understandably tough time readjusting to civilian life. And why are we talking about a WWII GI drama when we’re supposed to be reviewing “Amazing Grace”, the latest film by Michael Apted? Well, they share two things in common. One, they are both fine melodramas featuring some well tuned performances. And two, they both suffer from what we like to call “Movie Marketing Mayhem”. Take a gander at the original trailer for “
“Amazing Grace” is a film that we hesitated to see, since the ad campaign and previews promised us the backstory to the well known sing-a-long eponymous hymn. What the hymn “Amazing Grace” has to do with William Wilberforce’s decades long battle to abolish slavery in the United Kingdom is tangential at best and hardly the focus of this well made movie. So much for truth in advertising.
In 1789, British politician and philanthropist 
Ioan Gruffudd, that Welsh hotty known for 
As his potential love interest, Romola Garai cuts a very elegant figure in her luxurious finery courtesy of the very talented 
Two of our favorite young character actors also make their voices heard: Stephen Campbell Moore who was so delightful in his film debut in the very underrated “
And as the famous 
As with any historical drama focusing on politics, there are ample roles for character actors that excel in the formal language and style of the day. 
One of the more interesting cast members is famed Senegalese vocalist 
And finally, we arrive at the reason this film has such a lousy marketing campaign. Five time Oscar nominee, Albert Finney briefly appears as 
Which is a real shame, since “Amazing Grace” is a very solid piece of filmmaking from veteran director 
Seventy? What the hell do you mean seventy? It’s the seventy-ninth Oscar ceremonies that will be held this Sunday. Well, yes. It certainly is, but when the nominations were announced and we posted 
Remember her? No? Well, that dear readers is none other than the beautiful and talented Gale Sondergaard, the first recipient of the Best Supporting Actress Oscar for her role in the period epic, “
Her co-nominees that inaugural year were: Beulah Bondi, the maven of all motherly roles in the historical sudster “
Bonita Granville, the first of many child actresses to earn an Oscar nomination, for her malicious little gossip in “
The first Best Supporting Actor Oscar went to that great character actor, 
His co-nominees were: Mischa Auer, as a slightly unhinged layabout in “My Man Godfrey”.
Stuart Erwin, erroneously categorized (see below) in the musical comedy “Pigskin Parade”. The dashing Basil Rathbone for his fiery Tybalt in the deluxe MGM version of “
And that chubby scene stealer nonpareil, Akim Tamiroff for his turn in “
While the Oscars may be seventy nine years in the running, they only deemed it right to start honoring supporting or featured players in their ninth year. (Handing out plaques, in lieu of actual statuettes, even! The Supporting Acting Winners would have to wait until 1943 before they started receiving the full Oscars.)
Let’s back up a bit and give you some history. When the Oscars began in 1929, they were still a semi-informal industry affair that was selected by a small group of studio honchos, honoring the magic of movies in twelve separate categories. As the Academy grew over the years, many categories changed or morphed and would continue to do so even to the present day.
As we noted in our 
By 1935, the situation had reached a critical mass. The guilds had successfully boycotted the Oscar ceremonies, sending a shiver up the spine of the Academy’s then president, noted film director 
Prior to 1936, a few supporting performances had managed to creep into the official nominations. Lewis Stone in “
When the inaugural categories were announced in 1936, they still managed to mix up a few names. 
It would be a pattern that would continue throughout the years, reaching their zenith in 1944 when Barry Fitzgerald managed something that no other actor has before or since. He was nominated for “
And still they managed to fuck it up. Over the years there have been several discrepancies between what one would consider a true Lead or Supporting performance. This current year brings two further controversial nominations. Meryl Streep has scored a ridiculous fourteenth nomination for her supporting turn in the slight comedy “
And so the question remains how to make a differentiation between the two categories? You can take into account: star billing, length of role, whether the story revolves around that particular character or they are ancillary . . . all of which can be chucked out the limo window come Oscar night. Just consider such leading roles as: Walter Matthau for “
Timothy Hutton for “
Jake Gyllenhaal for “
And Geena Davis for “
But in our expert opinion, the most egregious errors have been in awarding the Lead Acting Oscars to performances that were clearly supporting in nature. For example: Patricia Neal’s wonderful turn in “
Still, despite the mix-ups, we are thrilled that the Academy decided seventy years ago to acquiesce to the demands of needy actors and instate two additional acting categories. For in the past seventy years, we have seen some of our favorite screen performances enter the hallowed ranks of winners, losers and yes, even the overlooked come Oscar night; with this year being no exception. In the next few days we will be taking a closer look at our favorites in the Supporting Actor and Actress categories, and hope you will join us in celebrating the birth of some stars, the crowning glory of some veterans and the inevitable moment that comes with looking back at Oscar history – the “who the hell was that” moment? For now, let’s take another glance at the first winners in the category and raise a glass in their honor. Thanks to Gale and Walter, who started it all! Bless you all!
