Blogcritics Author: Ray Wong

On Film, Literature, and Politics

Ray Wong — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 10:26:58 EST

Are the Oscar nominated-films relevant to today's world?
Oh right, like we're going to talk about politics.But yes, I've been thinking (something I tend to do a lot). I don't know where to put this, but I think this crowd seems thoughtful and smart, and this relates to the films as well. So here it goes. Obviously when Upton Sinclair, Cormac McCarthy, and Ian McEwan wrote their respective...

Movie Review: Dan in Real Life

Ray Wong — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 07:35:26 EDT

A humorous look at family and love and self-worth.
Marketed as a romantic comedy starring the often hilarious Steve Carell, Dan in Real Life is actually a film about family. Okay, it is a comedy; but not the laugh-out-loud slapstick you would expect from Carell.Widowed with three young daughters, Dan Burns (Steve Carell) is an advice columnist still mourning for his wife after four years. Beside...

Announcement: Short-content feeds

Phillip Winn — Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT

Sunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding.

Movie Review: La Vie en Rose

Ray Wong — Tue, 3 Jul 2007 13:03:18 EDT

The French, or those non-French who grew up in the '40s and '50s, may know who and how big a French chanteuse Edith Piaf was. Even for those of us who are not familiar with her, her life story is a fascinating cautionary tale of love, dreams, excesses and tragedies.Edith Gassion (Marion Cotillard) is a poor child living on the streets of Paris. Her father, Louis (Jean-Paul Rouve), takes her away from her irresponsible mother and places her with his mother, who is a madam of a brothel. Kind prostitute Titine (Emmanuelle Seigner) quickly becomes Edith's surrogate mother, until Louis returns from WWI and takes Edith with him as he finds work in the circus as a contortionist.Soon Louis and Edith become street performers to make a living. That's when Edith realizes she is a natural singer. Years later, while hustling on the street with her best friend Momone (Sylvie Testud), Edith is discovered by cabaret entrepreneur Louis Leplee (Gerard Depardieu), who wants to mold her into a cabaret star. He changes her name to Edith Piaf and introduces her to his entertainment friends. One of these friends, Raymond Asso (Marc Barbe), takes her in after Leplee is murdered. Raymond trains her to become one of France's most celebrated singers.But nothing is rosy in Edith's turbulent life. Her early drug and alcohol addiction only goes deeper as she finds fame and fortune, which also makes her "difficult" around people who love her, including Momone. She finds true love with married boxer Marcel Cerdan (Jean-Pierre Martins), and that has to be one of happiest times of her life. Her health, however, begins to deteriorate after tragedies strike.Like Helen Mirren in last year's The Queen, Marion Cotillard (A Good Year) is a revelation. Her tour-de-force performance transforms her to embody the heart and soul of the legendary singer. I hardly even recognize the beauty from A Good Year. Throughout the film, Cotillard ages from age 20 to mid-40s, from a blossoming street singer to a decrepit empty shell whose dyed red hair is falling out. Marion Cotillard is mesmerizing and deserves an Oscar nomination, perhaps even a win.The rest of the cast is wonderful as well. Sylvie Testud (La France) is affecting as Momone. You can really feel her anguish when she realizes her friendship with Edith is gone. She and Cotillard have a genuine onscreen relationship. As the prostitute with a heart of gold, Emmanuelle Seigner (Four Last Songs) is heartbreaking to watch. Gerard Depardieu (Paris, Je T'aime) is wonderfully understated as Louis Leplee, the man who changed Edith's life and became her "Papa." And Jean-Pierre Martins (Empire of Wolves) is handsome and charming as Marcel Cerdan, a perfect match for Cotillard's Edith.The screenplay by writer-director Olivier Dahan (La Vie Promise -- The Promised Life) and Isabelle Sobelman is rather difficult to follow, at least in the beginning, as the story jumps around in time and bits and pieces of Edith's life are presented in sometimes unrelated segments. I understand what they intend to do and I appreciate the slow and intricate reveals -- it is fascinating to piece everything together, which makes the ending of the film extremely powerful. However, the editing is very challenging for the audiences, and it takes a while to get used to it. It is simply not the best way to tell a story, and it gives off a somewhat "pretentious" art-house vibe.To their credit, however, the story makes no apologies and never tries to sugarcoat Edith Piaf's life. She's depicted as a junkie, an alcoholic, an adulterer, and a difficult diva. She is constantly rude and cruel to the people around her. And yet, by watching her life in pieces spanned across time, we understand where she comes from and where she is going, and in truth come to care about her and feel for her, even though we may not identify with her. We come to understand why her friends are loyal to her, even when she treats them like crap. And that is a challenge -- how can we identify with someone who is brash, selfish, and a total wreck in her personal life? I find myself resisting her while being fascinated by her turbulent life and how her star rises and dims.In Dahan's hands, the movie has a wonderful, romantic period look to it, and the pacing is good, even for such a personal drama, at more than two hours of running time. Dahan is able to capture the energy, the grandeur, the sleaze, the loneliness and solitude, and the cruelty surrounding Edith Piaf. And when the camera is trained on Marion Cotillard, we can't help but be captivated by her essence and presence.Then, of course, there is the music. I was only slightly familiar with Piaf's songs until now: "La Vie en Rose", "Padam, Padam", "L'Hymne A L'Amour", "Lisieux", etc. They are gorgeous, and make me appreciate Edith Piaf's talent, and recognize why she was such a star -- the Judy Garland of France. At the end, when she starts to sing "Non, Je Ne Regrette Rien", which perfectly captures her life and her spirit, it is a powerful scene and a definitive moment that summarizes la vie en Edith Piaf.Stars: Marion Cotillard, Sylvie Testud, Pascal Greggory, Emmanuelle Seigner, Jean-Paul Rouve, Gerard Depardieu, Clotilde Courau, Jean-Pierre Martins, Catherine Allegret, Marc BarbeDirector: Olivier DahanWriters: Olivier Dahan, Isabelle SobelmanDistributor: PicturehouseMPAA Rating: PG-13 for substance abuse, sexual content, brief nudity, languageRunning Time: 140 MinutesRatings:Script: 6Performance: 9Direction: 7Cinematography: 8Music/Sound: 9Editing: 7Production: 8Overall: 7.3 out of 10

Ray Wong is the author the novel, The Pacific Between, which won a 2006 IPPY Book Award. He also writes movie reviews for Actors Ink and Talk Entertainment. Other credits include the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Writers Post Journal, the Deepening. As a professional actor, Ray has worked with Julianne Moore, Peter Falk, Sarah Jessica Parker and Rob Marshall in features as well as TV productions.

Movie Review: Ratatouille

Ray Wong — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 22:29:18 EDT

Like the titular dish (and a clever wordplay), Ratatouille is simple, subtle, yet a wonderful experience to be enjoyed by everyone, young and old.Remy (Patton Oswalt) is an ordinary rat with an extraordinary sense of smell and taste. Remy's idol is world-renowned chef Gusteau (Brad Garrett), whose motto is that "anyone can cook." Remy dreams of becoming a chef, too, but his family thinks he's nuts, until his sense of smell saves the whole clan -- that is, Remy is assigned the task to sniff out poisonous food.A disaster on the home front forces the clan to move, and in the process Remy gets separated from his family and ends up, through the sewers, in Paris; and finally at Gusteau's kitchen. When a garbage boy, Linguini (Lou Romano), messes up the soup, Remy comes to the rescue. The trouble is, the soup is a sensation and the head chef, Skinner (Ian Holm), thinks that Linguini is a fake and demands that he re-create the soup. Having no choice, Linguini teams up with Remy in a Cyrano de Bergerac way: Remy will cook by hiding in Linguini's toque and controlling Linguini's hands and body. Working together with Colette (Janeane Garofalo), Linguini develops strong feelings for her.Remy's cooking is creating a stir and reviving Gusteau's reputation as one of Paris's best restaurants, and rousing the curiosity of food critic Anton Ego (Peter O'Toole), who was responsible for taking two stars away from the once five-star Gusteau's. Meanwhile, Skinner suspects something is behind Linguini's success and he's determined to smoke out the rat, so to speak.The voice talents in Ratatouille are phenomenal in that they all fit the characters perfectly, delivering lively and affecting performances. As Remy, comedian Patton Oswalt (The King of Queens) is delightful, reminding us of Nathan Lane but also creating his own brand of friendliness in his voice. As the klutzy Linguini, Lou Romano (The Incredibles, also Pixar's artist) is perfectly goofy and sincere. Remy and Linguini don't really talk with each other (while Remy can understand the humans, his speach comes off as squeaks in Linguini's ears), but their individual voices still create a wonderful overall dynamic.Ian Holm (The Aviator) is remarkable as the frantic, conniving Skinner. He gave Skinner a wildly comical voice, which in the hands of a lesser actor could very well go over the top. As Colette, Janeane Garofalo (Southland Tales) is sweet but spunky. Sometimes she does go over the top and it's a bit difficult to understand her faux French accent. Brad Garrett (Music and Lyrics) provides a jolly and heartfelt voice for Gusteau, the chef who inspires Remy (and later becomes his conscience) to follow his dream. The standout is the formidable Peter O'Toole (Venus) as the feared critic. He helps make Anton Ego become one of Pixar's most impressive "villain."As writer and director, Brad Bird (The Incredibles) is involved in every aspect of the production, and his magical touches are evident everywhere. Bird's previous works such as The Incredibles and Iron Giant have cemented his place in the world of animation, and Ratatouille will only further establish him as a god. As with The Incredibles, the film is light in tone, high on humor (but void of crude potty jokes), and great with memorable characters and a plot that moves and twists. Sure, the theme of "follow your dream" is not new, especially in family films, but Brad Bird's story goes beyond that. For a G-rated family animation, the story is surprisingly mature. Clearly Brad Bird and Pixar had adults in mind when making this film. While children will definitely enjoy the animation, the action, and the cute characters, the themes are quite mature, and adults will truly appreciate the humor, dialogue, and story. It's not as flashy as The Incredibles or Cars, but I really appreciate the maturity of the story and the broad range of humor (from physical slapsticks to simple, funny lines).Good writing is only half the battle. I'm pleased to say that Ratatouille does not disappoint as far as the animation is concerned. It's one of the most delightful, beautiful, and amazing productions even by Pixar's stellar standards. The rats move like real rats (without being grotesque), the furs look real, and Pixar has perfected the water, which is one of the hardest things to animate. When the characters get drenched, you can feel how their furs clump together or their clothes cling to their bodies. When they cook, you can almost smell and taste the food, which looks deliciously real. And Paris literally comes to life with amazing details -- sometimes the sceneries are so photorealistic we really feel that we're there. The CG animation has the striking fluidity of hand-drawn animation, coupled with the details of CG, giving us a full experience.For an animation nut like myself, Ratatouille is a marvel to behold. The story is wonderfully thought out, the performances pitch perfect, and the humor delightful. And for everyone else, the film simply entertains with an unexpected and satisfying finish. Even if you don't care about the lessons, you will no doubt be wowed by the quality of the animation and the lighthearted story about love, friendship, and food. After the movie, I bet you can't wait to rush home and find a recipe for ratatouille -- I did. Stars: Patton Oswalt, Lou Romano, Peter O'Toole, Ian Holm, Janeane Garofalo, Brad GarrettDirector: Brad BirdWriters: Brad Bird, Jim Capabianco, Emily Cook, Kathy Greenberg, Jan PinkavaDistributor: Pixar/Buena VistaMPAA Rating: G for some intense moments that may scare little childrenRunning Time: 122 MinutesRatings:Script – 8Performance – 9Direction – 9Animation – 10Music/Sound– 9Editing – 8Production – 10Total – 9.1 out of 10

Movie Review: Premonition

Ray Wong — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 19:21:58 EDT

I really wanted to like Premonition, a mystery-thriller with the über-likable Sandra Bullock, because I enjoyed The Lake House a lot. Actually, I am split about the film, and I will tell you why later.The story opens on a Thursday. Linda Hanson (Bullock) is a housewife with two beautiful girls, Bridgette (Courtney Taylor Burness) and Megan (Shyann McClure). Her husband, Jim (Julian McMahon) is on a business trip. Later during the day, she notices a strange voicemail from her husband; just then, a sheriff knocks on her door and tells her that Jim was killed in an auto accident the day before. But how could Jim have died if she just got his voicemail today? Shocked, Linda asks her mother Joanne (Kate Nelligan) to come and help take care of the girls and deal with the tragedy. Exhausted, she falls asleep on the couch.When Linda wakes up, she finds Jim alive and well. Confused, she goes about her day thinking maybe she's had a bad dream. But it feels too real to her, and she's seeing people she's never met before (such as the sheriff). Then, Linda wakes up again, and it's now Saturday, the day of the funeral. But Linda has no idea what is happening. She has no memory of anything, including another accident that happened. One bad thing leads to another, sending her into a psychiatric ward.But then, she wakes up again and it's now Tuesday. Once Linda realizes what's going on, she starts to piece everything together, and she realizes that she's having premonitions, and Wednesday (or Thursday, when she heard the news) hasn't really happened yet, and that she can still stop Jim's death. But should she? Her marriage to Jim is falling apart, and she suspects that he's having an affair. She asks, "If I let Jim die, is it the same as murder?" What is she going to do?Sandra Bullock sinks her teeth in yet another paranormal romance, but this time she shows more of her dramatic edge. She usually picks roles that fit her real-life personality, and as Linda Hanson, she displays a genuine vulnerability that makes us want to root for her. Her emotional range is excellent. As her husband, Julian McMahan (Fantastic Four) holds his own in a relatively small role. His calm and distant performance makes for a great counterpoint to Bullock's emotional turmoil. Though his role is small, his portrayal is pivotal to Bullock's character arc.Courtney Taylor Burness (Fur) and Shyann McClure (House M.D.) are good as the daughters. Thank goodness they don't overact like other child actors, and they give the film its needed warmth and gravity. As Linda's concerned mother, Kate Nelligan (The Cider House Rules) gives a solid performance, with enough conflict to make us ache for her decisions. Nia Long (Big Mama's House) doesn't have much to do as Linda's best friend -- her role is rather peripheral and probably not even necessary. Peter Stormare (Nacho Libre) has a small role as a creepy psychiatrist. For some reason, I suspect that his role was much larger in the original script (I've heard there was as different ending).Speaking of the script, written by Bill Kelly (Blast from the Past), it's really confusing and complicated -- at least in the beginning -- when the time line is all jumbled and we can't really tell what is real. I got confused because I thought it was a time-traveling story, until I reminded myself that it's about "premonition," as the title indicates. Still, the non-linear storytelling (as far as the real time line is concerned) can be very challenging to understand, especially when things are changed around Linda. Did she cause the changes? Can she change the future? Like The Butterfly Effect, the cause-effect plot can be mind-numbing. There are too many inconsistencies.Even if you figure out the time line and the story arc, there still seem to be too many plot holes. And even when I understand what is real and what is premonition, I still have trouble figuring out why the order? Why Monday first instead of Sunday, if she's going to live her real life in chronological order? It's baffling, and judging from the buzz on Internet bulletin boards, I know many people feel the same way. And I think that's a detriment to the screenwriter. True, Donnie Darko has a weird time line and is challenging to understand as well, and it went on to become a cult classic. But I do think that Kelly is trying too hard to be clever and the script becomes needlessly complicated. Unfortunately, the plotting is not as tight or meticulous to compensate for the complexity.German director Mennan Yapo (Framed) should be given kudos for weaving this jumbled plot into something that is at least entertaining. Of course, Sandra Bullock's performance contributes to that. Still, I think much of the movie plods along too slowly. There are of course intrigue and mysteries and suspense, but there were times when I looked at my watch and wished the pace would pick up. And the ending -- I think I understand the meaning of the ending, and why they want it that way. Premonition is really a philosophical meditation on love, relationships, meanings, and choices. Still, for anyone expecting some kind of real resolution, the ending is a letdown. The whole thing seems like a long revelation. I'm looking forward to seeing the alternate ending.On top of that, just because of how the events are played out, it's very frustrating to watch Linda repeating everything she "sees" in her premonitions, and without noticing that she's doing it. I mean, hello? She's not all that bright, is she? And that's frustrating. If she knows her husband is going to die or something is going to happen to her daughter, why not try everything she can to stop it, like tying him up or something? I understand -- yes, I do -- why the events have to happen because of its philosophical theme, but as a story, the character loses her credibility. And that's one thing I find very annoying. I really wanted to love this movie, but if I had had any premonition about this before, I would have chosen to wait for it on Netflix.Stars: Sandra Bullock, Julian McMahon, Shyann McClure, Courtney Taylor Burness, Nia Long, Peter Stomare, Kate NelliganDirector: Mennan YapoWriters: Bill KellyDistributor: Sony PicturesMPAA Rating: PG-13 for some violent, disturbing images, thematic material and brief languageRunning Time: 110 MinutesRatings:Script: 6Performance: 7Direction: 6Cinematography: 7Music/Sound: 7Editing: 7Production: 7Total: 6.7 out of 10

Movie Review: 300

Ray Wong — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 10:02:39 EDT

Hollywood has long been in love with Frank Miller's graphic novels, from RoboCop to Sin City. His 300 takes us back more than two thousand years to the Battle of Thermopylae in 480 B.C. In truth, this is more of a fantasy than a historical drama.As the narrator begins the story, King Leonidas (Gerard Butler), like all the kings before him, has been bred and raised as a soldier, the best of the best to represent the military state of Sparta. He and his queen, Gorgo (Lena Headey) enjoy the beauty and the peace of their land with their son until the Persian king, Xerxes (Rodrigo Santoro) rages a war against Sparta and all of Greece.Leonidas wants to lead his troops to fight off the invaders, but according to Spartan laws, he must obtain the blessing from the Ephors. Little does he know, politician Theron (Dominic West) has corrupted them. Not to be discouraged, Leonidas recruits 300 of his finest warriors - each have at least a son to replace them - on a suicide mission to hold off the Persian army while Gorgo tries to persuade the council to send a pan-Greek army to their aid.Leonidas' 300 Spartans clearly are outnumbered by Xerxes' 100,000-strong army. But they find a way to fend off the Persians for as long as they can, by guarding the mountain pass of Thermopylae. Xerxes gives Leonidas ten days to surrender, or he threatens to slaughter the Spartans. The 300 Spartans are joined by about 700 Thespians and slave soldiers, and they fight bravely, killing thousands of Persian soldiers, and holding the pass for three days. Unfortunately, a local shepherd, Ephialtes (Tierman), betrays Leonidas by showing Xerxes an alternate path around Thermopylae. The Spartans fight till their last breaths and their sacrifices inspire the rest of Greece to band together to later defeat the Persians.Gerard Butler (The Phantom of the Opera) has transformed himself physically and mentally to play the fearless King Leonidas. His presence dominates the film, and his characterization is larger than life. Yet he shows great tenderness toward his queen and son. Butler shows a good range without relying on a pedestrian portrayal of a warrior hero. As Queen Gorgo, Lena Headey (Imagine Me & You) is a worthy counterpart to Butler. They share wonderful chemistry, and it's gratifying to see a strong female character in a male-dominated story.As Theron, Dominic West (The Forgotten) plays a through-and-through bad guy with gusto. Too bad his character is really one-dimensional. Vincent Regan (Troy) is admirable as the heroic Captain. David Wenham (The Lord of the Rings) seems a bit weak as fellow Spartan Dilios, but redeems himself as the story's narrator. Andrew Tierman (Murphy's Law) dons heavy prosthetics and makeup to play Ephialtes, and his performance is one of the more layered in the film. And Rodrigo Santoro (Love Actually) is almost unrecognizable as Xerxes, effusing a cold arrogance that is fit for a king. Also, they all earn kudos for working so hard to build those spectacular pecs and abs, and for being brave enough to show up in nothing more than red capes and leather briefs.The script and storyboard by Zack Snyder, Kurt Johnstad, and Michael Gordon follows Frank Miller's graphic novel closely. The storytelling is rather straightforward, with over-the-top narration and on the nose dialogue. Except for the tortured soul Ephialtes, good and evil are clearly defined. The story has a surreal fantasy feel to it, and the characters are all larger-than-life with no ambiguity. It seems that the writers are determined to create some catch phrases ("We are SPARTANS!" Leonidas proclaims before kicking a Persian messenger off into a well), which generally work very well for the genre. They have done a good job creating a fluid storyline with Queen Gorgo's subplot as a counterbalance. That creates good tension and drama, even though we all know the story and the ending so well. Unfortunately, the story is a bit thin over all, so it drags in places and some of the action feels somewhat repetitious.Zack Snyder (Dawn of the Dead) compensates with a stunning visual style that gives the film a surreal, fantastical look. Even though it's based on historical events, 300 is made as a fantasy. Except for the actors, their costumes and the props, almost everything else is created by CG, which has created a lush, dream-like world in sepia tone. The monochromatic color scheme might get a little tiring after a while, but Synder should be commended for creating a consistent and mostly stunning vision. Every frame is beautifully constructed, and many scenes work like a Frank Frazetta painting set in motion.Obviously, Snyder and company know who their audiences are. The film is overripe with testosterone, especially with the heavy metal soundtrack. The battle scenes are well-choreographed and rendered, and the stylized violence, gore, and dismemberments are oddly pleasing (at least aesthetically). Yet the females get to have their beefcakes, too. If you're looking for something deeper and better rounded, this might not be for you. And those who have been spoiled by Lord of the Rings may not find this movie all that impressive. However, historical accuracies and lack of character development aside, 300 is a spectacle that should appeal to fans of graphic novels and fantasies.Stars: Gerard Butler, Lena Headey, Dominic West, David Wenham, Vincent Regan, Michael Fassbender, Andrew Tierman, Rodrigo SantoroDirector: Zack SnyderWriters: Zack Snyder, Kurt Johnstad, Michael Gordon (based on graphic novel by Frank Miller and Lynn Varley)Distributor: Warner BrosMPAA Rating: R for graphic violence, battle sequences, sexuality and nudityRunning Time: 117 MinutesRatings:Script: 6Performance: 7Direction: 8Cinematography: 9Music/Sound: 7Editing: 7Production: 9Total: 7.3 out of 10

Ray Wong's Annual Oscar Predictions

Ray Wong — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 07:35:39 EST

As a movie critic, I see a lot of films every year. As a movie buff, I enjoy movies. As a writer, I appreciate a good script. As an actor, I understand good performances. And as a consumer, I believe in solid entertainment that also enlightens, enthralls, and educates.I've seen most of the nominated films and performances this year. I have to admit, I don't think 2006 was a stellar year for films. I am, however, impressed by the number of independent as well as mainstream films that deal with interesting characters and stories and dare to take some risks. The problem is, the general public might not be on the same page. Audiences prefer mainstream, high profile productions -- big names, big stars, big budgets. With four of the five best picture nominees being independent films, Oscar might lose its luster once again this year (except for Ellen Degeneres -- she's going to bring some fun to the show, I'm sure).Best PictureLittle Miss SunshineBabelLetters from Iwo JimaThe DepartedThe QueenLetters is critically acclaimed but without the box office traction; and it's in Japanese with subtitles. Sunshine has a lot going for it -- humor, dysfunctional family, crowd-pleasing plot and characters, and stellar performances -- but it may simply be too lightweight; besides, comedies seldom win. The Queen is wonderful, but perhaps a bit too intimate, and many voters might be satisfied with giving Helen Mirren an award. That leaves Babel -- this year's Crash -- and The Departed. Both are violent and disturbing but also very entertaining. Personally, I am disappointed with The Departed, but Babel is not necessarily a crowd-pleaser either.Will win: BabelShould win: Letters from Iwo JimaBest DirectorClint Eastwood (Letters from Iwo Jima)Martin Scorsese (The Departed)Stephen Frears (The Queen)Alejandro González Iñárritu (Babel)Paul Greengrass (Flight 93)Eastwood already won twice in the last five years -- enough said. The Queen is a showcase for its acting talent; Frears should be honored just to be nominated. Greengrass is the dark horse -- his handling of the 9/11 film garnered much respect. Iñárritu is a long shot, but a Babel vote may push him over the top as well. Scorsese has been passed over so many times it's become a joke. And Hollywood may want to right some wrongs this year.Will win: Martin ScorseseShould win: Martin ScorseseBest ActorWill SmithRyan GoslingLeonardo DiCaprioForest WhitakerPeter O'TooleSmith's performance is good, but only good for a nomination, not a win. Gosling's star is definitely rising, but this is not his year, with such strong competition. DiCarprio should have been nominated for The Departed instead. Peter O'Toole is a marvel, and may get enough sentimental votes to win. Forest Whitaker's tour de force performance makes him a front-runner, but many believe his was a supporting role.Will win: Forest WhitakerShould win: Peter O'TooleBest ActressMeryl StreepHelen MirrenPenélope CruzJudi DenchKate WinsletMeryl Streep is delicious in Prada but it's difficult to win for a comedy, especially with such strong dramatic competition. Cruz's powerful performance is too intimate, plus it's a foreign film. Judi Dench has a juicy role, but I find it too stereotypical and predictable. Kate Winslet is a great actress and her time will come, just not this year. Why? Because Helen Mirren is in the running. There's absolutely nothing negative about Mirren's performance. It was a revelation. Besides, it's about time the wonderful actress gets her crown.Will win: Helen MirrenShould win: Helen MirrenBest Supporting ActorAlan ArkinEddie MurphyMark WahlbergDjimon HounsouJackie Earle HaleyAlan Arkin is hilarious in Little Miss Sunshine, and it's a category in which comedic performances really have a good chance. Eddie Murphy shines in Dreamgirls. It's one of those once-in-a-lifetime role and he did an outstanding job. But would the Academy award someone who also gave us Norbit and Daddy Daycare? Mark Wahlberg has come a long way -- he was great in Invincible and he practically stole the scenes from everyone in The Departed, but his role is too small. I'm not sure why Djimon Hounsou is nominated -- his over-acting and stock character are underwhelming. Jackie Earle Haley has two things going against him: lack of name recognition plus the smallness of Little Children.Will win: Alan ArkinShould win: Eddie MurphyBest Supporting ActressRinko KikuchiAbigail BreslinJennifer HudsonCate BlanchettAdrianna BarrazaRinko Kikuchi and Adrianna Barraza are both extraordinary, but they're splitting the Babel votes. Abigail Breslin is lovely in Sunshine, but she is very young and she has very strong competition, plus it's a comedic role. Cate Blanchett is excellent in Notes on a Scandal, but her character may alienate voters; besides, she won in the same category two years ago for a much showier role. That leaves Jennifer Hudson. She stole every scene and was the heart and soul of the entire movie. Her triumphant turn from being an American Idol reject to Oscar nominee is inspiring. The only thing against her is that it's her first film role, but that never stopped the Academy before.Will win: Jennifer HudsonShould win: Jennifer HudsonBest Original ScreenplayLittle Miss SunshineThe QueenBabelPan's LabyrinthLetters from Iwo JimaThe Queen is wonderfully written, but it really is Helen Mirren's show, and the nomination should be honor enough. Babel is complicated and manipulative -- then again, Crash won last year. Pan's Labyrinth is a wonderful, inventive story and might get some solid votes. Letters suffers for its subtitles. Sunshine has that Cinderella story written all over it, plus it really was a crowd-pleaser.Will win: Pan's LabyrinthShould win: Pan's LabyrinthBest Adapted ScreenplayThe DepartedLittle ChildrenNotes on a ScandalBoratChildren of MenThis is tough. Okay, maybe not that tough. I think Borat's nomination is a joke. William Monahan (The Departed) did a marvelous adapting a Hong Kong action film into a drama about Bostonian Irish mobs, but the convoluted plot might hurt it. Little Chidren is a bit stark and slight. I find Patrick Marber's (a writer I admire) adaptation of Zoe Heller's controversial novel, Notes on a Scandal, too on the nose and obvious. Children of Men is extraordinarily dark and violent, but it leaves you with a sense of awe.Will win: The DepartedShould win: Children of Men

Movie Review: Dreamgirls

Ray Wong — Wed, 3 Jan 2007 19:43:45 EST

Based on the hit Tony-winning musical, Dreamgirls chronicles the history of a Motown trio that is based on Diana Ross and the Supremes.Deena Jones (Beyoncé Knowles), Lorrell Robinson (Anika Noni Rose), and Effie White (Jennifer Hudson) are soul sisters of a singing trio, the Dreamettes, looking for a break. They are discovered by Curtis Taylor Jr. (Jamie Foxx), an auto dealer who wants to break into the music business as well. As the Dreamettes' manager, Curtis quickly books them as James "Thunder" Early's (Eddie Murphy) backup singers. Early also hires Effie's brother, C.C. (Keith Robinson) as a songwriter.Romantically involved with Curtis, Effie thinks she deserves better than being a backup. She has the best voice and dreams of becoming a star. Then the chance comes -- Curtis books their own act, now called the Dreams, at the Tropicana. However, Curtis decides to make beautiful Deena the lead instead of plain and overweight Effie, even though Deena doesn't have the "voice." Feeling betrayed, Effie begins to display her resentment by showing up late and walking out of rehearsals. Eventually, Curtis replaces Effie with Michelle Morris (Sharon Leal), and Effie severs all ties with them, including her brother.Years later, the Dreams have become a sensation and Deena is a superstar, while Effie is a poor single mother going nowhere with her life. Curtis becomes more and more controlling, much to the group's dismay. Despite her fame and fortune, Deena, now married to Curtis, is particularly unhappy. C.C. seeks out Effie and tries to patch things up with her. Meanwhile, Deena realizes that the Dreams may have finally come to an end.As the charming but aggressive businessman, Jamie Foxx (Miami Vice) does a great job of showing his ruthless side, balanced by some genuine tenderness. He shows some fine singing chops as well. Eddie Murphy (Shrek) is wonderful as a James Brown-esque idol who later becomes washed up and dejected.Beyoncé Knowles (The Pink Panther) is fine as the Diana Ross-esque diva, but her character requires her (and her voice) to be reserved, thus making her performance somewhat one-note and tame. On the contrary, American Idol alumnus Jennifer Hudson makes her impressive film debut as fiery Effie. Her voice is incredible and she shows great acting range. It's hard to believe this is her first acting job.Danny Glover (Bamako) is seasoned as James Early's former manager. Anika Noni Rose (Surviving Christmas) is sweet as Lorrell, and Keith Robinson (Fat Albert) is earnest as C.C.Writer-director Bill Condon (Kinsey) does a remarkable job adapting Tom Eyen's Broadway musical to the big screen. The film's first and second acts feel strong and exciting and energetic. The plot follows the different characters in a streamlined plot that is easy to follow and fascinating to watch. The musical staging is marvelous and seamless. The characters are well-drawn, with clear motivation and conflicts. The character arc of Effie, in particular, is wonderfully developed and acted.The final act, however, loses steam in that it drags the plot into a sappy melodrama. There's a gap in the timeline between the second and the last act, thus a disconnect between the audiences and the characters. Also, the characters start to sing their dialogue in this act, which feels odd and inconsistent with the rest of the film. The plot feels contrived, and the ending is rather anti-climactic, especially after the electrifying first half of the film.The production is scrumptious and the costumes delectable. The musical numbers are fantastic -- the actors all do a great job. Eddie Murphy shines, and Jennifer Hudson proves that she is indeed a diva in the making. The period details ('60s and '70s) are spot on. Although not as good as Chicago or Moulin Rouge, with its fine acting and soulful production, Dreamgirls is an entertaining and crowd-pleasing film that should keep the dreams of movie musicals alive, at least for a while.Stars: Jamie Foxx, Eddie Murphy, Beyoncé Knowles, Danny Glover, Anika Noni Rose, Keith Robinson, Jennifer Hudson, Sharon Leal, Hinton BattleDirector: Bill CondonWriters: Bill Condon, Tom EyenDistributor: DreamworksMPAA Rating: PG-13 for language, some sexuality and drug contentRunning Time: 131 minutesRatings:Script – 7Performance – 8Direction – 8Cinematography – 8Music/Sound– 9Editing – 7Production – 8Total – 7.6 out of 10

Movie Review: Stranger Than Fiction

Ray Wong — Wed, 15 Nov 2006 07:19:31 EST

The ideas around Stranger Than Fiction are so cliched and commonplace among writers that they actually become intriguing. Every fiction writer has writer's block, and they all have felt that godlike power and that their characters are real. So what if their characters are real -- that they can actually manipulate their lives, or terminate them?Harold Crick (Will Ferrell) is an IRS agent who lives his life literally by the numbers. He counts his brush strokes in the morning and times his arrival to the bus stop at exactly the same moment the bus arrives. He eats alone and has no friends. He's rather content with his life until one day he hears a female voice saying, "Harold Crick just counted his brush strokes." At first he thinks he's going through some kind of psychological breakdown, but soon discovers that the voice is actually narrating his life, accurately. It's simply a minor annoyance, until one day the voice says, "Little did he know, a chain of events have been set in motion to lead to his imminent death." He asks Jules Hilbert (Dustin Hoffman), a literary scholar, to help him find the voice and stop her from killing him. Jules suggests Harold face the inevitable and start living his life.It turns out the voice belongs to best-selling novelist Kay Eiffel (Emma Thompson), who is suffering from a major writer's block: She doesn't know how to kill her character, who happens to be Harold. Impatient with her progress, her publisher sends her an assistant, Penny (Queen Latifah), to help her find a way to kill off Harold Crick. Meanwhile, Harold is falling for Anna, a feisty baker whose tax returns he is auditing. In a race against time, Harold must learn to unlearn everything and make every day count until he can find the voice.Ferrell (Talladega Nights) is best known for his juvenile shticks. But if Elf was any indication, Ferrell is best when he lets his quiet, childlike quality carry the humor. Such is the case in Stranger Than Fiction. Ferrell is able to underplay his character with innocence and a subtle yet inherently funny undercurrent of befuddlement and resolve. As the blocked novelist, Thompson (Nanny McPhee) literally lets her hair down and is delightfully neurotic and manic-depressive. Ferrell and Thompson only share a brief scene together, but their chemistry as well as characterization of their respective characters play off each other very well.The supporting cast is outstanding. Maggie Gyllenhaal (World Trade Center) is fantastic as Harold's unlikely object of affection. She could easily exaggerate her performance as a larger-than-life character opposite Ferrell's Harold Crick, but she chooses to play off her nuances and barb-coated sweetness. Hoffman (Meet the Fockers) is perfect as the indifferent professor who thinks life is either a tragedy or comedy depending on our outlooks. Latifah (Last Holiday) has a minor role as the assistant but she grounds Thompson's character.Writer Zach Helm (Other People's Business) has created an interesting high concept, and he executes it with precise Charlie Kaufman-esque strange humor. The script is teeming with cliches, especially when it comes to the characters of author and character. But these cliches work within the framework because in a way, the film is a satire, a cautionary fairytale about art vs. life. It poses an interesting question: If you must choose between art and life, which would you choose? Helm's dialogue and narrative are sharp, witty, and observant, and his characters are interesting. He employs all the writerly cliches in the structure of the screenplay as well: dramatic irony, foreshadowing, mirroring, etc., giving every writer in the audience a chance to giggle at the inside jokes. Even the title is a cliche -- and it's perfect.Director Marc Forster (Finding Neverland) has assembled a perfect cast for this production. Everyone plays their roles and plays off each other wonderfully. Forster also engages us with a brisk pace and minimalist yet visually arresting production. Ferrell's subdued performance compliments Thompson's morose narration perfectly to achieve a certain comic revelation. There is not a dull moment in the film. It keeps us guessing until the end. Okay, maybe not whether Harold is going to live or die, but rather, how exactly Kay Eiffel is going to kill Harold Crick. The question looms over us from the very first reel and it's a smart move. Perhaps this fantasy won't change the world, but it certainly is thought-provoking in an entertaining way. And if it does manage to change the world, even for a bit, that won't be exactly stranger than fiction.Stars: Will Ferrell, Emma Thompson, Dustin Hoffman, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Queen LatifahDirector: Marc ForsterWriter: Zach HelmDistributor: ColumbiaMPAA Rating: PG-13 for some disturbing images, sexuality, brief language and nudityRunning Time: 113 minutesRatings:Script: 8Performance: 9Direction: 8Cinematography: 8Music/Sound: 8Editing: 7Production: 7Overall: 7.9 out of 10

Movie Review: Borat!: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan

Ray Wong — Tue, 7 Nov 2006 17:48:25 EST

For those who are not familiar with Sacha Baron Cohen's Da Ali G Show and his character Borat, you're in for a treat. And for those who do know him, you won't be disappointed with this hilarious, raunchy, rowdy comedy.Borat (Cohen) is a TV talk show reporter from Kazakhstan. He's sent to America to make a documentary on the "greatest country in the world," so Kazakhstan can learn from it. He and his crew arrive in New York City to do street interviews and report on American culture. When Borat sees Pamela Anderson in a rerun of Baywatch, he falls head over heels for the actress and decides to drive across the country to California so he can marry her. He lies to his producer Azamat (Ken Davitian) and convinces him that they will document their trip about the "real" America, traveling south through the Heartland. Cultural shock ensues.Cohen (Talladega Nights) is a true chameleon and he stays in character at almost all times. His Borat is crude, rude, and ignorant, but through his portrayal, he makes Borat funny and lovable at the same time. There are moments when his accent slips a bit and he comes off as less than sincere, but over all he holds up very well and never truly breaks out of character. His Borat is genuine. That's rather remarkable considering the outrageous things he says and does and the sometimes violent and nasty reactions he gets. What's more remarkable though is that the whole film rests on his shoulders and he manages to hold our interest through and through.Davitian (Holes) has a most unflattering role as Borat's grotesque producer. You have to hand it to the guy to make his character so believable and such a great support for Borat, including some of the most incredibly offensive scenes. Together with Cohen, they really go all out to make this work.Cohen uses the relative obscurity of Borat, and the guise of a foreign media reporter, to infiltrate the fabric of America and show us some of the truly outrageous aspects of the country. Borat might not be real, but the people he interacts with are, and their reactions to Borat are what make the fake documentary so funny. He gets to interview real politicians, celebrities, and everyday folks and, in the process, ruffles some feathers. Many of the scenes are cringe-inducing, including an interview at a feminist group, singing the national anthem at a rodeo, and learning dinner etiquette at a posh Southern home.Granted, many of these premises have been exhibited on Da Ali G Show, so Cohen is recycling his material, but they work wonderfully in the context of the film and, even if you have seen them before, they are still funny. Cohen adds to what was done before so that the hoaxes are now more elaborate. There are moments in the film that are beyond offensive and must be seen in a packed theater (preferably with college students) where everyone howls and claps at the same time. Kudos go to Cohen and company for going all out.On their own, the skits are hilarious and superbly played out. On the whole, the film serves as a strange social commentary on how absurd we Americans can be. Cohen's comedy not only makes us laugh, but also makes us think. For example, when a prostitute shows up at a stately home, Borat and his companion are ordered to leave immediately. Similar things happen at the rodeo. It shows us that in the land of the free, not quite everything is free, and certainly not quite everything is acceptable. Cohen is able to make these observations from the eyes of a foreigner (albeit an idiot), and the notion of looking at ourselves carries a serious undertone on top of all the raunchiness. Borat himself is a racial caricature, and the inherent racism and sexism in his character as well as the reactions he conjures really open our eyes. So, while we laugh our asses off we understand what Borat is really about. By telling the truth through his adventures, Borat gives Cohen, et. al., a comedic power that is beyond measure.Stars: Sacha Baron Cohen, Ken Davitian, Luenell, Pamela AndersonDirector: Larry CharlesWriters: Sacha Baron Cohen, Anthony Hines, Peter Baynham, Dan Mazer, Todd PhillipsDistributor: 20th Century FoxMPAA Rating: R for pervasive crude content including graphic nudity, languageRunning Time: 84 minutesRatings:Script – 7Performance – 8Direction – 7Cinematography – 7Music/Sound– 8Editing – 8Production – 8Total – 7.8 out of 10