This year's Golden Globe Awards seemed even more casual and lackluster than in years past. I was pleased by some of the winners and disappointed by others, but as I suggested previously, the Hollywood Foreign Press comes off as being so star-struck and questionably motivated that it's hard to get too excited or upset no matter what films or actors they choose to award. They seem to be better when it comes to television than movies, although I'm only going to talk about their film choices.

It was nice to see Charlize Theron receive her first high-profile award for her performance in MONSTER, so if she doesn't win the Oscar at least she got something. There wasn't a more sincere winner all night long than Theron, who seemed genuinely touched during her speech. You also had to appreciate the way she singled out writer-director Patty Jenkins and thanked her for giving her the opportunity.

On the other side of the Best Actress category, I was disappointed to see Diane Keaton win the award for Best Actress in a Comedy or Musical. I thought her performance in SOMETHING'S GOTTA GIVE was all right, but she gave one of the most horrible acceptance speeches I've ever heard in my life. Reading from a piece of paper in her hand, she apparently forgot to realize that sometimes the things you write down don't come off quite as well when read aloud.

There were no surprises in both of the leading actor categories, with the Globes going to Sean Penn for MYSTIC RIVER and Bill Murray for LOST IN TRANSLATION. Murray had two of the great quotes of the night; first, he mockingly acknowledged his fellow actors in the dramatic categories, as if comedians were the ones who always get the credit. He then made a crack about so many different people trying to take credit for his award that he doesn't know who to thank. Penn was even more aloof, opting to not show up at all (a decision I have to respect in a lot of ways, especially seeing as this year will be the first time he's attended The Academy Awards despite being nominated three times). One of my favorite moments was when Clint Eastwood accepted the award on Penn's behalf, noting that Penn is one of those actors who is always so good that he never gets the credit he deserves and we take him for granted.

There were a number of categories in which the winners were utterly predictable (as much as I hoped for someone or something else to win). THE RETURN OF THE KING and Peter Jackson for Best Dramatic Motion Picture and Best Director, respectively, and even more boring was Renee Zellweger winning for Best Supporting Actress. I wanted LOST IN TRANSLATION to win for Best Comedy or Musical and it did, surprising absolutely no one.

Tim Robbins for Supporting Actor was also a predictable win for MYSTIC RIVER, although I guess it could have gone to Ken Watanabe just as easily (either one would be a good choice as far as I'm concerned). Anyway, I was glad to see Robbins finally win an award because he's certainly paid his dues and his performance was one of the most underrated all year.

I could discuss the other categories, Danny DeVito's somewhat unsettling intro speech for his pal Michael Douglas, and maybe even go on a rant about how lame the Golden Globes are for bothering to include both drama and comedy categories without even separating original and adapted screenplays, but frankly I don't have the energy or the motivation.

Posted January 30, 2004 | link | 0 comments

The more I see those anti-piracy commercials the movie industry has been pushing in theaters and on television, the more they piss me off. No, I don't agree with the people downloading movies over the Internet and I believe what they're doing is wrong, but what bothers me is how the studios put forward the idea that the alleged billions in lost revenue due to piracy is hurting the little guy, like that girl serving you popcorn at the concession counter while making a measly $6.75 per hour. Puh-leese.

Does anyone believe this anti-piracy campaign is about anything other than big corporations and a bunch of rich guys trying to retain every filthy cent they possibly can? Sure, they have the right to do exactly that, but cut the crap. These commercials will probably have the reverse effect and cause people to be more blase about the whole issue, because the one thing I know about Americans is they can see right through a phony message (unless of course it involves something important, like bombing another country or deciding who to vote for).

I whole-heartedly believe the film industry doesn't deserve to be pirated the way the music industry does, because despite rising ticket prices they never lied to consumers about the future price of their product (like CDs). However, I also believe the amount of lost revenue is greatly exaggerated. People seem to forget who is most likely to download a movie online or buy a bootleg copy; I have absolutely no evidence to back this up, but I'm willing to bet a significant percentage of the people who engage in these activities live in areas where they never even have the opportunity to see smaller movies. And by smaller I don't mean art-house flicks that only reach L.A. and New York, I'm talking about movies such as LOST IN TRANSLATION and MYSTIC RIVER, which have both performed well at the box office but I guarantee you were not available to more than just a few people living in the middle of nowhere.

I've always lived in California (both Northern and Southern) and have always been lucky when it comes to having a wide variety of films to choose from on any given day, so it makes sense that someone like myself has never once had the desire to obtain a film illegally. The same goes for almost everyone I know. But I have to tell you, if I lived in an area where there was only one giant theater dedicating all of its screens to THE RETURN OF THE KING and ALONG CAME POLLY, I'd probably be busy downloading a movie right now instead of writing this column. When you're making someone choose between driving four hours to see a film or simply downloading it, is it really fair to place all of the blame on them? Furthermore, is it really accurate to call this lost revenue? I'm sure there are plenty of people in Manhattan and Burbank who download new movies every week, but I doubt they're the majority.

Posted January 23, 2004 | link | 0 comments

Even though I'd heard the buzz about Charlize Theron's performance in MONSTER in advance and she'd already been named best actress by several critics groups, she still surprised me. Leaving the theater, I couldn't help but think, "Where the hell did that come from?" I mean, it's not that before this year I thought she was a bad actress -- she had proven herself capable enough, I suppose -- but it's as though she suddenly became a veteran of her craft overnight.


The first time I remember seeing Theron in a movie was certainly memorable. TWO DAYS IN THE VALLEY... need I say more? It was clear she had the glamour and sex appeal to end up in a number of films no matter what happened, always having the option to play the "beautiful woman" if no other parts came her way. Most of the time this is exactly what she settled for (think TRIAL AND ERROR, SWEET NOVEMBER, REINDEER GAMES, etc.), but as I looked over her resume, I realized there were definitely some early glimpses of her acting chops. Playing the desirable girl who turns Tobey Maguire into a man in THE CIDER HOUSE RULES, she gave the film emotion and heart whenever Michael Caine wasn't around, and she also made us care about the characters in THE DEVIL'S ADVOCATE, which would have been hollow without her. I'm not implying she should have won any awards, but you can tell she was reaching for more, although for her sake I think we all need to forget about MIGHTY JOE YOUNG.

Still, none of her past performances could have prepared us for what she does in MONSTER. Everyone talks about the 40-or-so pounds she put on and the incredible makeup job that makes her look just like real-life prostitute turned serial killer Aileen Wuornos, but the truth is the surface can only get you so far. Theron's performance is good not because of the bad skin and extra weight, it's the subtle (and not-so-subtle) nuances, such as the convincing intensity of her eyes and the ticks and patterns in her voice. Surely some people will find a way to be insulted by Hollywood giving another ugly role to a supermodel-esque actress; I say get over it. Theron is so good as Wuornos because in reality she's so different, both physically and economically. Adding that much weight after being thin and beautiful your entire life must have some sort of increased mental effect and make the transformation more jarring. This is a good thing when you're supposed to be playing a serial killer, not to say she does it by sacrificing the role's humanity.


As for the rest of the film, I couldn't say I enjoyed MONSTER considering the subject matter is so grim and depressing, but it's well made and admirably unapologetic. Writer and director Patty Jenkins was smart enough to know that we aren't going to feel much compassion for someone who, despite going through hell and being delt a shitty hand of cards in life, was at the end of the day a cold-blooded killer without much compassion herself. I love how the film doesn't make any decisions for the audience. Why did Wuornos kill all of these men and convince herself she was justified in doing so? That's for you to decide, but you don't have to like her or hate her or feel sorry for her to appreciate the film, and this is precisely why it works. A more compromised version of the same story would have been absolute crap, and it's refreshing to see a first-time director avoid such mistakes.

Posted January 21, 2004 | link | 0 comments

Even though the Hollywood Foreign Press often does a better job of picking the winners than The Academy, it's hard to shake the vibe of the Golden Globes feeling slightly rigged, especially with their nominations. Case in point: Tom Cruise being nominated for his performance in THE LAST SAMURAI. Sure, Cruise got the job done, but there's a reason he hasn't been acknowledged by any other critics or awards groups.

The members who comprise the Hollywood Foreign Press are so desperate to have a "real American superstar" show up to their little shin-dig that they'd probably nominate Cruise for reading a phone book. As much as I admire how they went out on a limb and awarded Jim Carrey not once but twice (first for THE TRUMAN SHOW, then for MAN ON THE MOON), I'm starting to wonder if they nominated him in the first place because he's a big star and they knew he'd show up. Don't get me wrong, I think both performances by Carrey were actually quite underrated and the Academy should have at least nominated him once, but there's definitely reason to question this group's intentions, especially as they continue to attempt to raise their profile and bring higher ratings to the annual NBC telecast. The Academy Awards can be pathetic when it comes to handing out their little gold men, but you have to respect the whole "we don't give a damn what you think" attitude they have about it.


So what am I getting at with all of this? The Globes are trying to gain more respect, despite no longer being able to claim they have an effect on Oscar voters (as all Oscar ballots must be completed two days earlier). So instead of everything going to THE RETURN OF THE KING and COLD MOUNTAIN (which will battle it out for Best Drama), don't be surprised if LOST IN TRANSLATION wins more than Best Comedy or Musical. It could be a good night for both Bill Murray and Scarlett Johansson, and possibly director Sofia Coppola as well.

Posted January 19, 2004 | link | 0 comments

Serving as a polar opposite to HOUSE OF SAND AND FOG is the upbeat and inspiring BIG FISH, directed by Tim Burton and adapted from Daniel Wallace's novel by screenwriter John August. Yes, the film is interesting because it contains a lot of original scenes and is unlike any other movie, but on a deeper level it addresses the conflict between hardcore realists and those who exist in a more fantastic state of mind, and does so without necessarily choosing one over the other. The idea is that both can co-exist in harmony.


I don't think anyone doubts that Tim Burton -- the director of films like EDWARD SCISSORHANDS and BEETLEJUICE -- falls on the fantasy side of this debate, which is probably what attracted him to the material in the first place. To his credit, I was amazed by the way Burton managed to combine the film's realism and fantasy elements, blending the two without ever losing control of the overall feel and tone. A less skilled director would have made a film that felt disjointed.

If you don't already know the premise, the always good (and rarely acknowledged) Billy Crudup stars as William Bloom, a realist at heart who has had to suffer through his father's countless tall tales over the years. The two become so divided by this that they're barely on speaking terms towards the beginning of the film. But when his dad (played by Albert Finney) ends up on his death bed, Will returns home with the idea that he might be able to get past all of the unbelievable stuff and figure out what kind of man his father really was. No such luck, however, as we are treated to the fantastic story of Edward Bloom's life, and I must say it's definitely worth hearing even if it is far-fetched. From working in a circus to flying behind enemy lines during the Korean war, Edward just about does it all.


Ewan McGregor plays the optimistic and adventurous younger version of Edward, and delivers one of those performances that is pitch perfect and couldn't have been done with more charm. His character is almost unrealistically cheery and upbeat, but it matches the surrealism of the story. Had McGregor pushed any further, we would be forced to write off the entire film as being too far over the top.

BIG FISH is a fantasy film that can be enjoyed by realists and fantasy-fans alike, which is quite an impressive accomplishment. You don't have to believe everything that happens, but that's fine because you're not always supposed to. The end manages to be heartfelt and moving without manipulating the viewer, and also ties things up nicely with a resolution between father and son that should satisfy you no matter what your personal tastes. Ultimately, the film is about embracing life to the fullest and having a good time along the way. BIG FISH is one of the best films of 2003 and good enough that I'm finally ready to forgive Burton for making me sit through his PLANET OF THE APES remake.

Posted January 11, 2004 | link | 0 comments

A powerful and somewhat moving film that is hampered by a skilled first-time director (Vadim Perelman), who seems all too aware of the film's dramatic implications. Instead of trusting that the story's drama and meaning will come to the foreground on its own, Perelman imposes it on the audience with countless shots of fog rolling over the house and characters pondering their respective fates. These types of moments are an important element of any good drama, but unless they're relatively subtle they can be far more damaging than beneficial.


Compare HOUSE OF SAND AND FOG to Sam Raimi's similar but vastly superior A SIMPLE PLAN. Both stories are about characters who dig themselves deeper and deeper and end up way over their heads, engaging in behavior they never thought imaginable. Raimi also makes use of quiet setting shots to provide a strong sense of environment and depth, but the moments glide right into the story and don't feel as though they're being crammed in by the director.

What makes this forced drama stand out as being particularly unnecessary is how honest the movie is otherwise. Jennifer Connelly turns in another emotionally stirring performance as a depressed woman who finds herself in a desperate situation, and Ben Kingsley excels as a prideful Iranian immigrant forced to bear the burden of expectations while adapting to a hard life in a new country. His wife, played by Shohreh Aghdashloo, is also quite excellent, not showing much emotion on the surface but plenty underneath.

What makes the end of this film so tragic is the fact that both characters are not at fault for the conflict between them, yet they're both equally responsible for the hard-headed manner in which they react, as well as the resulting consequences. HOUSE is obviously a real downer and probably not the best movie for the holiday season, but it's a good lesson in not allowing your desires or principles to surpass your sense of morality and compassion.

Posted January 8, 2004 | link | 0 comments

I have absolutely no intention whatsoever of seeing the upcoming TORQUE, which appears to be another clone of THE FAST AND THE FURIOUS (the first was last year's BIKER BOYZ). By now, everyone knows how the studios dump their worst movies into the unfortunate month of January, as if putting them alongside some of the year's better films is somehow going to help their cause. But could TORQUE be more than your average January crap-fest?

I'm basing this only on the trailer and the commercials I've seen (which is more than enough, thank you very much), but I think TORQUE may have the potential to be one of the worst studio-made movies of all time. However, it doesn't star J.Lo and Ben Affleck or any other Hollywood couples the media is just itching to trash, so it won't get even one-tenth the response no matter how good or bad it is. Seriously, though, have you seen the previews for this turd? Fast-moving vehicles, low-grade computer-generated explosions, and sluts galore with skirts being blown up by the wind of motorcycles flying past. It looks like being trapped inside the subconscious of a fourteen-year-old boy for 90-plus minutes, and it wasn't even directed by Michael Bay.

Posted January 3, 2004 | link | 0 comments