Friday the 13th Part VII: The New Blood (1988)

Seven years ago I rented the first Friday the 13th for a Halloween treat and haven't looked back. Now I know a lot of people have written off the whole horror genre as something that is senseless and generally lame. Even I would be hard pressed to come up with any kind of Oscar pitch. This does not mean that you won't have a good time watching it. The whole series is a blast to sit around with your friends and crack jokes ala MST3000. The lack of a plot is almost pornographic and the hacky dialog is hilarious in its own right.

Part VII takes things up a notch by introducing Tina--a telekenitic teen who uses her powers to take on Jason after she accidentally brings him back to life. Sure Tina is an obvious ripoff of Carrie (1976) but that doesn't stop the fun when the two battle it out. As an added bonus you get the guy who plays Bernie in the Weekend at Bernie's movies. I like him much better as the dead guy in all three movies.

2.5 stars out of 5

Finding Forester (2000)

My friend Ryan told me to rent this time after time. After reading the back of the box I thought this would be another version of "Dangerous Minds" where the dedicated teacher finds a way to school inner city underprivileged youth. I couldn't have been more wrong.

Sean Connery plays the eccentric old guy while Rob Brown hits a home run on his first performance ever. By the end of the film I was wondering, who really helped who? Find yourself a copy of this great film.

4 stars out of 5

Man Bites Dog (1992)

Due to a screwup on my part this is only going to be a 3/4 review. I made a copy of the DVD to watch later but didn't include a copy of the English subtitles so either I'll have to rent it again or learn French to finish it.

This is a pretty crazy movie about a serial killer and a film crew that follows him around to document his craft (ie murder). I enjoyed what I saw of this movie but it has been a good six months and I haven't even thought about re-renting it so I figured I'll post now and be done with it.

2.75 stars out of 5

Little Miss Sunshine (2006)

Steve Carell is on a hot streak. I just hope he doesn't get too big for network television.
( Is there a better character on network t.v. today than Michael Scott? ) Put that excellent role from NBC's "The Office" together with "The 40 Year Old Virgin," and now "Little Miss Sunshine," and you wonder where Carell can go from here... well hopefully a good 5 or 6 more seasons of "The Office."

Unlike "The 40 Year Old Virgin," however, Carell is not the main character in "Little Miss Sunshine," but instead shares the billing with a wonderful ensemble cast of actors who are his comedic equals in this delightful film. The story centers around a tried and true comedy format, the family road trip. In "Little Miss Sunshine," the family is driving from Albuquerque to California so their eight year old daughter, Olive, can compete in the "Little Miss Sunshine Beauty Pageant." And what a family it is! Along on this journey to get Olive to the pageant is the father, Richard, an inspirational speaker seeking a book deal on his '9 steps to success,' the vulgar, sex-crazed, heroin-snorting Grandpa, the teenage brother who, inspired by writings of philosopher Nietzsche, has taken a vow of silence and hasn't spoken in months, the suicidal Proust-scholar, Uncle Frank, and the rock of the family, Olive's mother Sheryl, who is attempting to hold them all together. In lesser hands on all fronts, from the screenwriters to the directors and actors, this plot setup could have easily slid into cliched physical gags and sophomoric lampooning of these eccentric characters. The script does not fall into that trap, however, and the actors are allowed to infuse their characters with a realism so that even though each has their own strong eccentricities, they are not defined by that, but are rather fully developed and realized human beings. I've heard that acting in comedies is much harder than in dramas, however, I believe the hardest type of acting would probably be what is on display in this movie: acting in a comedy, making it funny, yet always maintaining the comedy with a perfect balance of realism. Greg Kinnear, as Richard, Alan Arkin as Grandpa, Steve Carell as Uncle Frank, Toni Collete as Sheryl, and even the children, Paul Dano as Dwayne, and the wonderful Abigail Breslin as Olive, all create fully developed, odd-ball characters who we as viewers believe in and care about... and are who are absolutely hilarious. A combination that is not found too often in movies.

The movie is itself one of the funnier views I've had in a long time. The movie has, for the most part an indie, non-Hollywood feel to it, and the humor clearly works with that style, it being often more subtle and observational, though there are also plenty of physical gags, they push the boundaries but are never taken overboard. Many parts become even more funny after its over and you've had time to reflect on it and talk about it with those who have also seen it. Much of the humor is based in reality, these are real people, and this is a real family. You feel that connection with them and can relate to their life. Take for instance the opening dinner scene, when Sheryl is preparing for a family dinner that consists a bucket of chicken, and a bowl of cole-slaw, that she brought home from the local fried chicken place. She is quickly running around the kitchen repeatedly calling her family in for dinner as she prepares the table with paper plates and mixmatch cups and glasses, including a "McBurglar" glass. Simple, touching, real, and very funny. Some comedies stick straight to the punchline, but the reason "Little Miss Sunshine" works so well is because it does a fine job of balancing other emotions perfectly along with the humor. There are a number of scenes that would make you cry from sadness if you were not laughing so hard from humor. The other emotions always feel as real as the comedy, and never feel tacked on and fake as is often the case many other comedies.

I know I'm gushing about this movie, but frankly I loved it and I think you will too. Maybe I'm basking in the afterglow of this wonderful little movie and in time I will think that I've gone overboard with my praise, but for now I stand by my review. It is a great movie. Go see it.

5 out of 5 stars.

Olive: Grandpa, do you think I'm pretty?
Grandpa: Olive, you are the most beautiful girl in the whole world!
Olive: Nah you're just saying that...
Grandpa: No! I'm not kidding. I'm madly in love with you, and it's not because of your brains or your personality.

Inside Man (2006)

I don't know how many Spike Lee movies I've seen, but based off of the two I know I have, not enough. Previous to "The Inside Man," the last Lee movie I viewed was "25th Hour," an excellent day in the life take of the last day of a man before he had to go to prison for a number of years. It was great, centered around another fine performance by Ed Norton (does he do anything but?) That review will be for a different day, but if I never get around to getting to the review, take my word, rent it. Powerful stuff. With "Inside Man" Lee comes this time with a movie which on its surface seems like a typical bank heist gone wrong/hostage-negotiation movie. Which it is, but the acting and directing is top notch and the plot is tight with a number of surprises that elevates the movie above what might be expected upon seeing the trailer or poster.

"Inside Man" stars the always solid Denzel Washington, playing a typical Denzel Washington role, but once again doing it better than anybody else could, (so why get anyone else to do it?) as Detective Frazier. We quickly learn that Frazier is in a bit of trouble with the law himself, but has an opportunity to redeem himself when a bank heist becomes a hostage situation and he is responsible for the negotiation because his superior is gone on vacation. Clive Owen is the organizer and head of the heist team attempting to rob the bank (or are they?) and he believes he has the perfect plan to pull of his crime. Although there are a few scenes in which he shows his face, similar to Hugo Weaving as V in "V for Vendetta," Owen is required to do much of his acting behind a mask, leaving him to establish a strong presence on screen with only his voice and body work, and he does an admirable job. His villain is multi-dimensional and often a sympathetic character. Jodie Foster's role is very ambiguous. She plays a mysterious, strong-arm woman who is called in by the very rich, in this case the owner of the bank being robbed, to help 'fix' problems (and just why is she called in by the bank owner... what is he trying to hide?) She is strong-willed, direct, and persuasive, and Foster does a solid job of portraying this mysterious power woman.

The directing is solid and interesting, even though it is a long movie, clocking in at over 2 hours, there does not seem to be a wasted scene. There are flashforward scenes of testimony given by the hostages intercut throughout the narrative of the film, at first creating a sense of confusion in the viewer - intentionally - then slowly revealing, bit by bit,exactly what it going on and why. I found this to be interesting because it gave the viewer a chance to feel like the detectives must have trying to figure out exactly what happened and how. It is one of those movies where you find yourself pausing occasionally, especially if you're watching it with someone else, to discuss what you think is going on. And it definitely keeps you guessing right up until the very end. The conclusion makes perfect sense to the, by then, stacks of information we have been given bit by bit throughout the movie. It in no way feels cheap or added on, but a natural answer to the questions we have had viewing the movie.

I like movies like this, "12 Monkeys," "The Usual Suspects," and "Memento" are just a few examples, in which your brain gets a work out trying to figure the damn thing out as you watch it. "Inside Man," while maybe not quite as good as those, is a good mystery right up until the very end. This is due in large part to a tight screen-play, solid directing, and strong acting, making the movie a very enjoyable view.

3.5 out of 5 stars.

The Descent (2006)

Mordern horror movies are probably the weakest genre of movies being made today. Most horror movies released nowadays seem as if they are merely opportunities to score an easy profit for the studios. Hire a bunch of hot young minor actors, tweak a previously made movie (most likely from Japan), throw in a few descent CGI effects, promote the new movies during prime time T.V. a bit for a couple weeks, and whalla, here come throes of gullible teenagers willing to throw down the $8.50 they made from working an hour and a half at Juicy Lucy's the night before, to get a few cheap thrills. I don't blame the teenagers, and really I don't blame the studios, the only problem is that good horror movies are far and few in between.

That is what makes "The Descent" such a pleasent suprise. And not too suprising that it is not a Hollywood movie (but look for Hollywood's version starring Tara Reid and Sarah Michelle Gellar in a couple years) but is instead a British movie. Some horror movies try far too hard to have complicated plots, for example "Pulse," Hollywood's latest horror movie, has something to do with cell phones and wireless internet hookups being able to channel the dead from another world through which the demons or whatever teleport into our world, but only if you are using the right frequency during blah blah blah. The plot of "The Descent," on the other hand, is very straightforward, so here goes the overview: A group of thrill seeking women go sprelunkering in an uncharted cave in the Appalacian Mountains. Quickly things go wrong as a collapse traps the women underground in a labrynth of claustrophobic tunnels, crevaces, and complete darkness... this is worthy enough of a frightening experience, but to make things even worse, dwelling within this cave are Gollum-like monsters, (without the sympathetic Smeagol side to them) who are human-like creatures that have evolved perfectly for the environment of the cave, and they are intent on destroying the intruders to their home one by one. Bassically, women go into cave, get trapped, and are hunted down by monsters in said cave.

This plot sounds like it has the potential to be a terrible movie, but the directing is perfect for the plot and the result is a tense, bloody, fun, horrifying creep show. Don't take the kids to see this one. What the director, Neil Marshall, does exceptionally well is use old-school scare techniques using lighting or lack of lighting to set a horrifying tone throughout the movie. In some scenes for a while all we see is complete darkness, and are left to wonder what will be in front of us, or the trapped women, when there is light to show us the horrors we cannot see. It is the old addage that what you cannot see is scarryier then what you can. The women use glow sticks, matches, flares, and a camcorder with night vision to light up the complete darkness of the cave, all of these sources of light leave eery shadows and odd colors to illuminate the cave giving the cave an eery otherworldly feel. The other tactic Marshall uses to near perfection is sound, often times we hear things that will scare the wits out of us long before we can see them, just as would be the case for these trapped women in this unknown cave. There seems to be very little use of any CGI at all, instead the movie relies on lighting and sound, as well as excellent make-up and art direction to achieve its goals.

The acting is strong as can be expected. The women are all unknowns which gives a sence of reality to what would otherwise be an unbelievable story ( although if your going to a horror movie to see a believable representation of the world around us, you will always be dissapointed, most horror movies need some suspension of disbelief on the viewers part in order to succeed.) It is not without its flaws, these are brave atheletic women, however, it is hard to believe that they become the ruthless killing machines that they do at the end, especially because the one who this happens to the most is, at the beginning, the most 'soft' of the women.

But these are minor quibles, and if you are in the mood for a good, fun, scary, blood-fest (and it is very bloody!) this is a movie that can't be beat. Its not the most substantial movie of all time but it succeeds superbly at what it is trying to do and does not try to be something beyond what it is. And you have to respect that.

3 our of 4 stars

Waking Life (2001)

The "Waking Life" follows a young man's interactions with deep thinkers and crazys in setting that borders on dream and reality. The first thing you will notice is the animated look and feel. The technique is call interpolated rotoscoping and has been used recently in a Charles Schwab ad campaign as well as 2006's "A Scanner Darkly" (also directed by Richard Linklater). The interpolated rotoscoping only adds to the dream like state of the film but can be a bit nauseating due the separation and random floating of objects in all different directions but after a while I got used to it.

I would recommend this film if you are interested in an experiment in film style or want to explore different philosophies on what dreams are. If a plot is central to enjoying a movie I would pass it by.

3.5 stars out of 5

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

I have a few friends who will seize any opportunity to drink rum, slap on an eye patch, and growl, "y'arrrr" all night. That is how I ended up seeing Pirates of the Caribbean 2 on opening night. I felt a little dirty going to a movie I did not want to see in full costume.

Two and a half hours later two things were going through my mind.

1) the vision of a boardroom of movie executives coming up with ideas on how to top the first Pirates of the Caribbean. Pens furiously flying across pads of paper jotting down idea after idea. Exclamations of, "this will be the greatest movie ever!" followed by cheers. I strongly believe they used every single idea, plot twist, and homage they could think of. This movie dragged on so long that someone in my row left with about three minutes left to use the bathroom. There honestly was no end in sight.

2) I was also pondering how they could have made the movie better. 60 minutes less of movie and a bottle of rum are a good start.

To think I was part of the box office record breaking weekend saddens me. I can't think of a bigger blockbuster piece of crap. Taking a theme park ride and trying to make it into a "Lord of the Rings" epic is where they went wrong. The movie reeks of a lack of choices in back story, characters, and plot. It seems as though egos prevailed and everything was left in. I set my bar low knowing that the possibility of disappointment but even a typically excellent Johnny Depp seemed played out and cartoonish. You can bet when "Pirates of the Caribbean: The Search for Curly's Gold" comes out next summer no amount of booze will get me in a seat. I would rather have a dead man crap on my chest then see this two and a half hour snore fest a second time.

1 star out of 5

Lucky Number Slevin (2006)

While working in Wichita I caught this movie. It edged out "Scary Move 4" for my eight dollars but I was pleasantly surprised. I don't even remember seeing a commercial for it but I figure if it has Bruce Willis it can't be any dumber then another horror parody. The movie follows Josh Hartnett and he gets caught between two rival king pins in a case of mistaken identity.

If you do the math on this review you will notice that the movie has probably already come out on video. That is good news for you because it is only rental material anyway but I needed to post something in hopes of getting me interested in this blog again.

3 stars out of 5

The Constant Gardener

Every so often an exciting young new director comes on the scene who once you see their first few movies you know that everyone they direct from then on will be one to watch, Quinten Tarrantino in the 90's comes to mind. With "The Constant Gardener" following the brilliant "City of God" from 2003, Brazilian director Fernando Mierreles may be the next. His movies are alive and fresh giving beauty and life to some of the most poor, destitute places in the world. In "City of God" it was the slums of Rio de' Jenero, in "The Constant Garder" it is the shanty town of Nairobi, Kenya. In both movies he brings out the life that is burning strong within these places, but which most observers would probably miss because they are too distracted by the horrid conditions and the severe poverty.

Before I give my full review I highly reccomend that everybody sees Mierreles debut "City of God," it is a foreign movie with subtitles from Brazil which maybe was the best movie overall out of that year. (With the exception of course of "Lord of the Rings: Return of the King") yet wasn't even nominated for best foreign language film! (One of my posts in the future is worst Oscar f-ups... here's a preview: "Titanic" over "L.A. Confidential!") But I digress, "The Constant Gardener" is Mierreles first foray into English film and it does not dissapoint, an excellent follow up to a tremendous debut.

"The Constant Gardener" is a balances several genres in one movie, it is a murder-mystery, and a critique of big-business corruption. But at its heart it is a moving love story. The greatness of this movie is that it is able to blend these seemingly different genres into one beautiful whole, so that each aspect is integral to and supported by the other. I will not get to deep into describing the story because a major plot developement happens early in the movie and is the basis of the ensuing mystery.

The movie is grounded by several excellent performances, especially from the two leads, Ralph Fiennes, as Justin Quayle, a mid-level British Ambassador to Kenya, whose passion is his garden, and Rachel Weiss as his wife, Tessa, a strong willed activist for human rights in Africa. Weiss, who rightfully won an academy award for best supporting actress for this role, gives a strong performance. Tessa is a strong willed, terse, and vocal activist and Weiss portrays the intensity of her beliefs with great passion, but also handles the quieter, sensitive side of Tessa's personality with equal passion. We come to discover through the course of the movie, as does her husband, Justin, the resons behind her motives and spirit, and as the movie progresses so does the depth of the character, Tessa. The same can be said for Justin, he at first seems to be a bit of a bore; introverted and more interested in his garden and his predictable plants than to human relationships. But through the developements of the plot, a fire is stoked in his belly, and he comes to find and release the same passion within himself that Tessa wears so proudly on her sleeve. Fiennes is equal to the task and what can be said for Weiss's performance is also true for his.

The excellent screenplay, complicated full of flashbacks and memory flashes, is grounded by the performances, but at the heart of the story is Kenya. Mierelles is brilliant at filming on location and finding the beauty within the most desolate of places. Throughout "The Constant Garderner" Mierrelles finds this beauty in the vast wilderness of the African landscape, and especially within the residents of the location. He utilizes the residents and makes them an integral part of the story, movingly portraying the vitality, determination, life, and love of the Kenyans he films. He proves that the beauty of any place comes not just from the physical landscape, but especially from the people who inhabit the place. Africa proves to be the most lasting aspect in the viewer who wathces this excellent movie.

Please see this movie, and "City of God" because they have the feeling of the beginning of a great career for a wonderful director. The life and energy Mierelles brings to "The Constant Garderner" is arresting, and moving. But when you add to that a great screenplay and strong acting all around, what you get is a memorable, excellent movie.

4 out of 5 stars
City of God: 5 of 5

Note: Brian, interesting that you reviewed "City of God." I actually started this review months ago, and am glad that you have seen it. I agree with Zack, and no disrespect to you, but "City of God" is one of my favorite movies... now you have to see "The Constant Gardener." I can't wait to see what he does next. It will be hard to keep up.

Comedian (2002)

An intimate and at times painful look at two comedians, Jerry Seinfeld and Orny Adams. This documentary takes place after Seinfeld's TV show and follows Jerry as he crafts a totally new act. Orny Adams is still trying to make his way up and adds contrast to Jerry's style both in comedy and in life. To be honest the story line is pretty boring and the actual stand up is few and far between but there was something really exciting about this film. I really enjoyed this oddball angle on the actual craft of stand-up comedy and what brings stand-ups back for more.

4 stars out of 5

City of God (2002)

The City of God (Cidade de Deus) is a slum located outside of Rio de Janeiro where violence and corruption rules the streets. The story follows Rocket as he grows up in the dangerous environment living day by day. I can only assume this film is based somewhat on real life. Unless you speak Portuguese, you'll have to read subtitles but it didn't really deter me from liking this movie. Over all, the movie is directed beautifully and really sucks you in. If you don't mind subtitles I would check this one out.

3 stars out of 5

The Aristocrats (2005)

This 90 minute documentary on the telling of one single joke really caught me off guard. The same joke, that dates back to at least the 1920s, told over and over again by dozens of comedians had me cracking up. What is this joke and how can this film be funny you are thinking? They key is the joke, same beginning and punch line but the middle is open to interpretation. Let's just say doing the middle tastefully will get you no where. There is a good reason this movie is UR, I think the censors would have a heart attack in just the first 10 minutes. If you like gross, vile and extremely offensive humor check it out.

"The Aristocrats!" - everyone in the film

4 stars out of 5

Primer (2004)

My brother tipped me off to this 2004 Sundance Grand Jury winner. Due to the nature of this film I couldn't even start a review until I watched it twice. This is going to be tricky because I don't want to give a single thing about the plot for fear of ruining it. Let's just say the movie starts off with some nerdy engineers working on inventions in their spare time in their garage. Serendipitdy strikes (not the crappy chick flick) and they are faced with some tough decisions.

This movie really appealed to the nerd in me and had me trying to work out the details for weeks. I found it to be an amazing example of what can be done with a small budget. How small you might ask? I read online somewhere that it was done for $7,000 which wouldn't even have covered Bruce Willis's bar tab for "Armageddon".

"What's worse, thinking you're being paranoid or knowing you should be? " - Aaron

4 stars out of 5

Oscars Blunders: Best Picture

With the Academy Awards coming soon I thought I'd do a post I have been wanting to do for a while. Those of you who know me really well know how I feel about some of the selections of the Academy Awards. I'm sure a few can probably name my biggest complaint, which I will get to later, but time after time the best nominated movie is not selected. Why? I don't know, my guess is popularity and ticket sales plays a major role, more of one then it should. Again for those of you who feel I'm being cynical take a look at this weeks Billboards top 10 to see if you get my point that the most popular does not always equal the best.

So what follows is a list of what I believe are the worst selections for Best Picture in the history of the Academy Awards. A few explanation points: 1) I am only comparing movies that were nominated. I'm sure there were many movies that were not even nominated which could have been the best movies of the year, but it would take way to much time and effort to look that up. Maybe some day. 2) You will see many more selections from recent years Why? Because I have seen many more movies made recently then I have those from the 30's, 40's, 50's and 60's. 3) I have not seen all the nominated movies, in fact, in most cases, especially the older ones I may have seen none of the nominees except 1, but having seen that one I may find it so good that I will say it should have won. In several cases I have seen both the winner and only one other one and since I know that the winner was not better then the other one I have seen. I then make the assumption that the other one I've seen should have won. 4) I am choosing only those that are obvious screw ups, if a couple movies were close, or if none of the nominated movies from a certain year were all that great I will not even mention it. 5) I am right in every single one of these cases- so here goes.

1941: I've never seen either the movie that won best picture or the one which I believe should have, but this is the earliest Oscar blunder I found. I don't know anything about the movie that won, "How Green Was My Valley." And I'm embarrased to say that I've never seen the movie which should have won, but how can a movie considered to be one of the all-time greats, if not the best ever, not win. "How Green Was My Valley" won over "Citizen Kane."

1964: My Fair Lady won best picture. Never seen it but I know exactly what kind of movie it is, a fun, festive, Hollywood big-studio musical, and I know that there is absolutely no way in hell it is better than Stanley Kubrick's classic Cold-War satire, "Dr. Strangelove: or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb."

1976: Rocky won best picture. Rocky is a good movie, an unlikely underdog-does-the- unthinkable, feel good movie full of unlikely-underdog-does-the-unthinkable-feel-good-movie cliche's before they were cliches. I'm not criticising it. Its a good movie. Good. But Martin Scorcesse's "Taxi Driver" is a great movie.

1979: Kramer vs. Kramer won best picture. I have seen this movie, believe it or not. A long time ago. If I remember its about a divorce and what it does to a family. Ok may be good. Usually Oscar seems to be biased to big epics over smaller character driven films, but not in 1979; a year when it absolutely should have, because Kramer vs. Kramer is not even close to being as good as "Apacolypse Now," Francis Ford Coppala's classic Vietnam War movie.

1989: "Driving Miss Daisey" better than "Born on the Fourth of July?" Tom Cruises' and maybe Oliver Stones best work. I haven't seen "Driving Miss Daisey" but I highly doubt it could be better than "Born on the 4th." The only reason I can think of is because Stones' "Platoon" won best film three years earlier. But that shouldn't matter, the best movie is the best movie.

1990: "Dances With Wolves" is the heartbreaking story of the Plaines Sioux Indians, a movie which finally turned the tables and made the Indians out to be the victems they were and not the brutal savages as they had been represented in movies the 50 years before. A deserving movie, but lets be honest. Sometimes deserving movies happen to be nominated the same year as one which ought get the award because it is one of the all time greats. 1975 comes to mind, a great nominee class, maybe the best, when "Barry Lyndon," "Jaws," and "A Dog Day Afternoon" were all deserving and much better then many previous winners, but were, unfortunately for them, up against "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest," and therefore I believe rightfully lost out when they would have been easy winners in other years. In 1990 "Dances With Wolves" should have suffered the same bad luck because also nominated in the same year was Scorceses' classic mob movie, "Goodfellas." The better movie lost. Why? My guess is the people in Hollywood and the Academy only picked "Dances..." instead, because they could all give themselves a big pat on the back for picking the sentimental and politically correct choice. So now thats twice that Scorcese got jipped.

1994: "Forrest Gump" won mostly, I believe, because of the hype surrounding it. I'm not going to keep repeating myself saying its a solid movie, as many of the other choices I disagree with are, its just that it was not deserving to win. Quinten Tarrantino's classic hip, stylisitic "Pulp Fiction" was easily a much better choice. Even "The Shawshank Redemption," also nominated, was better then "Forrest Gump." But sometimes its hard to look past the hype and ticket sales, I guess.

1996 : "Fargo," Joel and Ethan Coehn's Minnessota-murder-mystery masterpiece, one of my favorites, ( and of course then one of the best ) lost to the snooze-fest "The English Patient." This is one of those situations when the big epic love story was chosen over a smaller, plot and character driven, and vastly superior movies. I don't get it.

1997: This one has just been irking me ever since it happened. The sad thing is you knew it was going to happen. Why? The winner was a big romantic epic love story (see above) which also was at the time the biggest movie ever as far as ticket sales ( and I believe still is), due in large part to the teenie-bop girls who went to see it 5, 10, 15, 20 times, because its so romantic, and so sad, and oh-my-god isn't Leo sooooo cute! If you haven't guessed yet the movie that won was "Titanic" which I'll give it credit was really good for 1/2, the half after it hit the ice burg. However, the great modern film-noir Curtis Hansen masterpiece "L.A. Confidential" was overlooked, as I knew it would be. I'll save the review for a different day, but there is not one minute of "Titanic" that is better than any second of "L.A. Confidential." This stands in my opinion as the biggest blunder of a choice. But there are more... I'll keep the rest short.

1998: "Shakespeare in Love" over "Saving Private Ryan"

2001: " A Beautiful Mind" over "Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring."

2002: I'd have been happier if any of the following 3 movies would have won over the musical dreck, "Chicago:" "LTR: the Two Towers," "Gangs of New York," and the movie which should have won, Roman Polanski's "The Pianist." But if not "The Pianist," how did "Chicago" get picked. Another one I just don't get.

Thats my list. There a number of movies which should have won best movie that weren't even nominated, "2001: A Space Odyssey," and "Boogie Nights" are just a couple of examples but I wouldn't even know where to start with that list. Maybe my next one will be Oscar Brilliance, Best Picture selections that were absolutely correct. Ok talk to you next time.

Capote (2005)

"Capote," directed by Bennet Miller, is not as much a biopic about the famous author Truman Capote, who penned "Breakfast at Tiffany's" and "In Cold Blood," as one would expect as it to be, as it is a crime story and study of human relationships. It chronicles only the years of Capote's life where he was researching and writing "In Cold Blood."

The movie is headed by an exceptional performance by Phillip Seymore Hoffman, and is a taught, suspenseful crime story, as well as an emotional study of human relationships in extraordinary circumstances. The best film of 2005 that I have seen and by far the best performance (granted I have not seen many of the other popular candidates yet, so I guess final judgement will have to be withheld but I can't see how either a movie or performance could be much better.)

Phillip Seymore Hoffman has become one of the great actors of this generation. He is probably more well known for the characters he has played than he is by his name. If you don't know him by name you should know instantly who I am talking about when I say he was Brandt in "The Big Labowski," the big Laboskis' butler/assistant, he also was hilarious as Scotty, the gay microphone guy with a crush on Dirk in "Boogie Nights," my favorite movie. However, this is his star making turn, and rightfully so. Many people have done great immitations of famous people in movies, recent examples being Jaimie Fox in "Ray," Jaquin Phoenix and Reese Witherspoon in "Walk the Line." However, in each of those cases you never completely forget that you are watching actors doing a great job immitating those people. Hoffman becomes Capote. It is an award winning performance.

Many times a great performance is misplaced in a sub-par film, however this is not the case. This is a powerful movie on many fronts. The basic plot summary: Truman is a famous American author. An effeminant, personable homosexual with impish tendancies who comes across a story about a family who was murdered in a rural Kansas town. He is fascinated by the story and goes to the town with his friend Harper Lee, author of "To Kill A Mockingbird," to meet the people for the purpose of writing an article in a journal. However, when he gets there and talks with the characters involved and especially after he meets one of the murderers, Perry Smith, he realizes that what he is researching is not an article but a full length book. The book it turns out to be is "In Cold Blood." It becomes a best seller and the first 'true-crime' novel of its type.

The most important relationship in the movie is that between Capote and Perry Smith, one of the murderers. Capote sees in Perry a fascinating, thoughtful person... who will make a great character in his book, and he forges a loving, yet flawed relationship with him. He uses Perry's hopes and emotions to draw out his deepest thoughts, especially his describing the night of the murders. It is a complicated relationship full of guilt, love, lying, understanding, and ultimately, death, which ironically, Truman needed to have happen in order to finish his book. He sees in Perry a kindred spirit and found it fascinating how he ended up rich and famous while Perry ended up locked in a cell on death row, at one point saying, " It's as if Perry and I grew up in the same house. And one day he went out the back door and I went out the front. "

While I make "Capote" sound like a melodrama about human relationships, which it is, I'm afraid saying it is that alone might turn people off because those movies are often associated with being boring. However, not only is it a fine study human relationships it is also a tense, finely crafted crime movie. The scene where Perry finally tells Truman about the night of the murders is shocking and grizzly in both its visual and emotional impact. Starkly filmed with a motionless camera, and bleached, deadened color, "Capote's" visually mesmerizing and minimalist cinematography fit the tone of the movie perfectly.

"Capote" is an emotional powerhouse, headed by a career defining performance by Phillip Seymore Hoffman. It is rounded out by a stellar cast of supporting roles. Katherine Keener (The 40 year old Virgin-- Andy's girlfriend) is fine as Harper Lee, and Chris Cooper, who plays the chief investigator, is always excellent ( he is probably most famously known for his roles in American Beauty, as the stern, in-the-closet, military father of the neighbor boy, and in "Seabisquit" as the recluse horse trainer, Tom Smith.) "Capote" understands perfectly the complexity and contradictions of many human relatioinships and is an excellent murder mystery and crime story all in one. The best movie I have seen this year, and the best performance.

my rating: 4 out of 5

( Interesting note: In the original movie version of "In Cold Blood," A very famous and critically acclaimed movie in its own right, Perry Smith is played by a young Robert Blake. Blake recieved high praise for his acting in that movie, but maybe he didn't have to act at all. Ironically, he was recently acquited in the criminal court and found guilty in the civil court, and this was WELL publicised on the tabloid shows and court t.v., for the murder of his own wife. The actor sort of became the role he played.)