Match Point

MP:

I don't know where to start with this one.

I am a bit shocked. I cannot believe this was a Woody Allen movie. It is so different than any films of his I have seen. First of all, because he didn't himself star in it, and second of all, because it was a very VERY far cry from the quirky comedies he usually makes. This was a drama, a thriller, a suspense. I did not expect that at all.

I liked how the story develloped, and how half way into it, I had absolutely NO IDEA what was going to happen and how this film was going to resolve itself. Then, it was shock, after shock. It has been a long time since I have been so stressed, so in a 'oh my god, what's going to happen' mode while watching a movie. Bravo.

Scarlett Johansson irritated me a little. Maybe because I don't think she's that hot, and that she's supposed to be the sexiest most desirable woman in the world in this film. I personally don't agree at all. But after a while, I got over it and started enjoying her performance. I think Johathan Rhys Meyers was perfect for this part, a young tennis washout who is trying to climb the social ladder. He's hard to read into, and that made this film even more intriguing.

This film is about more than a man who has an affair. It's about the weaknesses of human nature towards lust, money and greed. Well done, Woody. Loved it.

The Constant Gardener

MP:

Another one on my road to the Oscars.
I thought the title sounded a bit weird, but I was not disapointed at all.
A great film. I wished it was nominated for best picture, cause I think it deserved it.
Allen liked it too, and he is SOOOO picky and critical about movies.

It was brilliant. The actors were fantastic. There is something so refined about Ralf Finnes. He is an eternal gentleman. No matter what he does, there's always this aura about him. He's great. And I also liked Rachel Weis, which is good, because I have not been her biggest fan in the past. But she's very raw and real in this one. I enjoyed it very much.

The intrigue of the film was the best thing. There was juice until the end, it was great not to be able to predict the next event. It was really gripping, and effectively tackled really thick issues, like the greediness of pharmaceutical companies, and the value of human life, among other things. It really made its point. The flashback structure of the film also kept the whole thing very interesting and intriguing.

Loved it. Hope it wins stuff tonight.

Capote

MP:

This was fantastic.
I walked out of the theatre with the strangest feeling. I didn't say much for the next hour or two. Loved it, loved it.
The plot was nice and thick, developped nicely and in a timely fashion. As the minutes went by, you just sank deeper and deeper in this excentric, complex character that was Truman Capote.

I have always been a fan of Philip Semour Hoffman, but this, really, put him in a different category. He completely disappeared. To see him take that voice, those manurisms, that way of carrying himself, of standing, of speaking, man, I got what everyone had been talking about. He was absolutely brilliant.

I loved the fact that even though this film is about Capote, it didn't try to encapsulate his whole life into two hours. Instead, it concentrates on a turning point in his life and within that it found the means to introduce, explain and dissect who he really was. You get it. You feel the back story. You know very quickly where he's been, what he's done, just by the way Hoffman carries himself, expresses himself, and how other people act around him. It was that effective for me.

Now, I want to go and read 'In Cold Blood'.
This movie will give it a whole new meaning.

Good Night and Good Luck

MP:

This was the continuation of my pre-oscar marathon. Every year, I try to see all films nominated for best picture and any other who have enough nominations or a specific nomination I find interesting. I try to see them all before the big night, so I can make up my mind about who I want to win, and why.

Good Night and Good Luck was next on my list. Best film, best actor, best supporting actor among others.

The good points.
It looked fantastic. They did everthing to blend in the archive footage of the 50's (there was lots of them, and a lot was a very intricate part of the story): black and white film, specific lighting, out of focus shots, frames that were in style in those days...they even went and put lots of dust on the film, so that the image looked old, damaged, not new. (Nice touch, although sometimes, I thought there was lots of it) and there was a slight back sound. Everything sounded like it was played off an old gramophone. There was the hhhhrrrrrr in the back throughout. I liked the attention brought to the esthetic of the film. The archive footage fit right in, and it was believable. Good stuff.

Now. I thought it was nicely acted out it was a great cast, but maybe not to a degree of Oscar nominations... it is debatable. But hear my next point out.

The film was very very political. I had the feeling that lots of people who didn't live in the states in the 50's would have trouble relating to the witch hunt that was going on at that time to catch any communists or communists collaborators. Me myself, not being particularly saavy about the USA politics in the 50's, I must of had a few things slip by without noticing, and so, probably didn't comprehend the total inner dialogue the actors might have had. I admit to that.

I did enjoy the movie, but know I really would have apreciated it to its true value if I was either alive in the 50's, or knew more about american politics and Senator what's his name. I do think that is unfortunate. But I did enjoy the movie very much anyway. so that's a good sign.