2006 Screening Log

[Loomis]

Loomis, what's the general atmosphere of the film festival? I've always wanted to go to one and have always wondered what it actually feels like to be surrounded by fellow film lovers. Also, do you find it hard to digest all these films in rapid succession? I've heard from some that it's hard to make solid assessments of a particular film because eventually, they all start to blend together, especially when you're watching three to four everyday. Do you think any of your opininons on these films will change with a second, more isolated viewing?

Sorry I didn't see this earlier, Eric. I guess you'd be in China now, but I'll respond anyway. The atmosphere is great, for as you say, it is nice to be surrounded by a group of people that KNOW film. More to the point - especially after a child-filled session of Superman I saw today - it is a crowd that knows how to behave at a cinema. The films did start to blur a little bit, simply because we saw so many. However, we only picked 11 in the end - over 12 days - so we intentionally chose a diverse range of films that gave us a good idea of what the festival had to offer. We had everything from classic French cinema, to modern horror, with Danish films and documentaries in between. I'd like to see the Danish film, Pusher, again in another environment, and the Melville films because one of them was on so late, that I began to nod off a little (hey, I'd been working all day). I think that I may change for the better on Pusher. But to answer your question, I think seeing them in a Festival context DOES force you to examine them in a way you wouldn't otherwise do. At each session, you get a card to mark out of 5. Now, I started doing things like "Well, Igave X a 4, and this wasn't as good, so it should get a 3". I may have given it a 4 if I'd seen it earlier, or in isolation, for example. Still, a worthwhile experience I hope to repeat next year. We may even go the whole hog and pop down to Melbourne for their Festival, which is typically the following month.

Now, back to my logging!

Tristram Shandy: A Cock & Bull Story (2006 - UK) (Viewed 1 July 2006): An incredibly fun film in which Steve Coogan and Rob Brydon play themselves, as well as characters within their adaptation of Tristram Shandy. Works really well, with lots of references to itself and other films, and the comedy is spot-on. Especially good are the exchanges between Coogan and Brydon when they are playing "themselves". The Al Pacino impersonations towards the end are priceless, as are the smaller parts by Dylan Moran and various others. A veritable who's who of British comedy and drama, with Kelly Macdonald, Jeremy Northam, Shirley Hendersen, David Walliams and of course, Stephen Fry. All it needed was Bill Nighy and it would have been perfect. Rating: A

Superman Returns (2006 - US) (Viewed 2 July 2006): I want to preface this by saying that I am a huge comic book fan, and especially a DC comic book fan. However, I have never been "in to" Superman, so any negative comments - of which there are only a few - don't stem from my fanboy leanings. First up, I had the biggest grin on my face during the opening credits with the familiar theme. The excitement level kept up for much of the first 2/3 of the film, up until the end of the Luthor plot resolution. I guess my only real complaint is length, as the film felt REALLY drawn out after the Luthor plot was resolved, and the 'revelations' about Lois' son were...annoying. (Ok, that was my one fanboy gripe! Allow me that!) Still, while it couldn't live up to the dark masterpiece Batman Begins, it did provide a rollicking adventure story that was - like Superman - larger than life. I had fun, although it did drag for the last 40 minutes or so. Rating: B-

[Loomis]

Loomis, what's the general atmosphere of the film festival? I've always wanted to go to one and have always wondered what it actually feels like to be surrounded by fellow film lovers. Also, do you find it hard to digest all these films in rapid succession? I've heard from some that it's hard to make solid assessments of a particular film because eventually, they all start to blend together, especially when you're watching three to four everyday. Do you think any of your opininons on these films will change with a second, more isolated viewing?

Tried responding before, but the thing timed out on me and I lost the lot. You are probably in China by now, but I'll respond anyway.

The Festival atmosphere is great simply because, as you suggested, the people who go there are film fans and not just 'Sunday drivers' as it were. While on some level it is hard to digest all those films - especially when we saw 11 films over 12 days - we intentionally chose diverse films simply because we wanted to sample something outside our regular viewing menu. We had everything from classic French cinema to British horror, and the Danish and documentaries in between. There are a few I'd like to investigate again "on the outside", primarily the Pusher films (which are the Danish ones, and I don't think I got as much out of them as I should have) and some of Jean-Pierre Melville's stuff I'd like to see in isolation to appreciate the subtle moments. Still, a worthwhile experience and one I plan to repeat next year. We may even pop down to Melbourne (capital city of the next state over) to see their Film Festival, which typically runs a month after ours. They are far and away more of a 'film city' than Sydney, although our film culture is developing nicely.

As for my post-Festival screening log:

Tristram Shandy - A Cock & Bull Story (2006 - UK) (Viewed 1 July 2006): Steve Coogan and Rob Brydon play themselves as well as characters from Tristram Shandy in the film within a film. A very clever film about film and filmmaking, it has some priceless comedy moments (the ones between the leads, especially an over-the-credits series of Al Pacino impersonations) are worth the ticket price alone. Dylan Moran also makes this worthwhile viewing, as does the who's who of British cinema - Shirley Henderson, Jeremy Northam, Kelly Macdonald and of course, Stephen Fry. They've even thrown in Gillian Anderson for good measure. If this had Bill Nighy in it, it'd be perfect. Rating: A

Superman Returns (2006 - USA) (Viewed 2 July 2006): I want to start by saying that I am not only a comics fan, and a collector of 13 years, but a DC Comics fan. Despite that, I've never really "gotten into" Superman in a big way, largely due to his impossibly super powered powers. It's just a personal quirk. So in no way do any of my negative comments reflect a fanboy gripe with the film. Having said that, I still really enjoyed Superman Returns. A far cry from the dark masterpiece that was Batman Begins (because that and Sin City have spoiled us rotten, methinks), it is still exactly what you'd expect from a film about a guy who can fly, shoot heat beams, see through walls, has super strength and is largely invulnerable. My major gripe with Superman is that he is so super, the threat has to be even bigger just to bring him down. However, thanks to some marvellous performances by Kevin Spacey and Parker Posey (she really should be in every film), the villaninous plot is never anything less than fun. If I had to pick my main problem with the film, it would be the length - once the Luthor plot is wrapped up, it really drags for half an hour. Also, I didn't like all the revelations about Lois Lane's son (ok, I had one fanboy grip - forgive me). Otherwise a bit of fun, and I can't say I'm disappointed because I wasn't that excited to start with. Rating: B

[Timon/Pumbaa fan]

Rating: B-

Rating: B

C'mon Loomis, which rating do you really give it?

You're going to give me several sleepless nights!

[Loomis]

That is odd! The first of those DEFINITELY had not gone through when I posted the second this morning, because I had to repost. Eric's was the last thing that showed up on my screen! I posted the second a day later from memory. Pretty close actually...

Well, I'll say B more than B-. B- was my initial reaction - what a difference a day makes!

If any mods could delete my first post I'd be most grateful.

[Loomis]

I'll try to only post once this time

Junebug (2005 - USA): I had been looking forward to this one, even if only because it had a redhead in it. Mind you, a hyeavily pregnant redhead, but a redhead nonetheless. One of those quiet little movies that has garnered a lot of attention, and risks overhype. While I thought that Amy Adams overdid the character a little to start with, she became such a sympathetic voice that your heart couldn't help but go out for her. There weren't many likeable characters here, but they felt real. It could have easily been stereotype city, but it wasn't. Scott Wilson is especially effective as the taciturn father. Rating: B-

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006 - USA): The BIG Disney film of the year has arrived, and what can be said except: WOOHOO! Call me an easy sell, but I thought this film was top-notch. Yes it was too long; yes the CGI was overdone and yes it was a retread of the first film. Does that really matter? Hell no. It was something that very few films manage to be these days - it was FUN. If you allow yourself to just roll with it, it is one of the best rides you'll go on for a while. Speaking of rides, I really appreciated the references to the Disneyland attraction throughout - the mayor dunking in the well; the dog and the keys - and I also think that those swining cages could be the next Disneyland attraction! (Or is that already DCA's 'Sun Wheel'? ). Most fun I've had in months, and I can't wait until The World's End. Rating: A -

[Loomis]

Hard Candy (2005 - USA): Been waiting a while for this one, and it finally came out this week in Australia. A 14 year old meets a 36 year old man on the Internet, and they hit it off. However...well, that would be telling. Indeed, the trailers kind of give this away, but knowing what is what kind of spoils the first act of this film. That said, your allegiances change so frequently throughout, it doesn't matter. It is a genuinely tense ride, so tense in fact that the film was stopped as somebody had a "medical incident". (As it turned out, they were just really tense and needed water. Other patrons heckled them and they left). While there wasn't enough ambiguity by the end, and when you think about it the ending is a cop-out, it is still a great character study given that the entire film really only features two characters in a house. Rating: B+

[castleinthesky]

Ok I've got a lot of catching up to do!

The End of the Spear
This film was a film about the natives of an isolated Amazon tribe in South America and how they get converted. The film had its good parts, but didn't hold much substance. The plot just wasn't there. The acting by the natives was especially good. But the film didn't show anything new, and the plot was much to ask for. I suggest The New World over this. Final Grade: D

The Devil Wears Prada
2 Words: Meryl Streep. She made the movie as good as it was. Of course Anne Hathaway brought a lot to the movie, however if Streep wasn't in this movie, it would have been another Princess Diaries 2. The plot was strong. The character development was the most important thing in this movie. The film sets, however were not always the best (mostly at Anne Hathaway's house). This film definately deserves the praise it got. Final Grade: B+

Cars
Pixar unleashed another one of their great films with Cars. Some people have been tough on the film, but I find most of their toughness of this film coming just because they don't appreciate auto racing. But besides that point, the plot did meander in the middle of the film, which is my only problem with the film, If I would even call it a problem. The animation was gorgeous, and definately Pixar's best so far, and the best of all CGI so far. The voice acting was good, while the score, sound, and songs for the film all fit. The film definately beats Pixar's own Monster's Inc and ties Finding Nemo for Pixar's 5th best film so far. Final Grade: A-

Lady in the Water
I wanted to love this film. The film could have been great. M. Night is a great director, that's for sure. However, this film was not a great film, unlike his previous 4 releases. The acting by Paul Giamatti was strained. The film should have been longer, so the plot could develop. Characters needed to develop. None of this was allowed. It should have. The film was still good, but could have been great. Final Grade: C+

Syriana
Talk about a connundrum. Another film with multiple plot lines. Yes, I know there is artistic creativity to these types of films (see Traffic and Crash), but I just can't appreciate it. The plot was very hard to comprehend, especially when certain terms were not explained. One, of the four plotlines, had nothing to do with the others (or at least I think so, I'm not sure because the film was so hard to follow). However, there is a bright spot to the film. George Clooney's perfomance was great, maybe not oscar worthy, but still great. Matt Damon also performed well. The Academy should have, however, given the award to Jake Gyllenhall for Brokeback Mountain . The three other nominees (Hurt, Dillon, and Giamatti) were mediocre at best in their films. Final Grade: C -

Mrs. Henderson Presents
This film surprised me. It was better than I had expected. The plot was good, however weak, in a sense, as no major event happened (when the audience would think something would). Judi Dench was great in her role, while Bob Hoskins wasn't as good as he should have been. The nude parts of the film were not obtrusive unlike some previous films (see Kinsey and Closer). The film deserves some merit, and deserved it's Golden Globe Best Musical nomination. Final Grade: B+

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest
I just saw this film today. The film seemed like it dragged on. The plot meandered and was mucky. The plot wasn't up to par, compared to its predecessor. However, I still loved this film. The entertainment value in this film was great. The acting was also good. The CGI was the best of this year so far (easily surpasing X3, and I havn't seen Superman yet). This film was a "fun" film, and deservedly so. Final Grade: B-

Coming in the Very Near Future: Superman Returns, Pride and Prejudice

Coming Soon: Transamerica, Tsotsi, V for Vendetta, Monster House

[dvdjunkie]

World Trade Center - August 3, 2006

Whenever I hear the name Oliver Stone I cringe just a little because most of his films end up being laced with his political slants (JFK, Born on the 4th of July, Heart of Darkness), but when he leaves everything alone and just directs from the script handed to him he gets fabulous results, i.e. "Platoon" and, now "World Trade Center".

I am really glad that Stone let this story tell itself. There are no flashings, no showboating, or over-the-top theatrics used in this film. The director goes cold turkey here with not a single conspiracy theory or off-handed accusation. It was very quickly obvious, in the first few minutes that he had a higher purpose with this film.

The story recounts the rescue of two Port Authority Policemen, number 18 and 19 of the 20 who found alive in the rubble of the twin towers on that fateful day in September of 2001.

I thought the movie was simple and direct without a screaming musical score to inflame melodramatic emotional scenes. Instead what we get is a very subdued, very haunting low-key, often solo piano, or cello. The story unfolds from the street level and inside the World Trade Center buildings. Despite the wealth of available newsreel footage available of the planes hitting the buildings or other dramatic events of that day, we are instead asked to use our imagination as all we hear is the dull 'thump' when the building is hit and then the visual of people looking about trying to figure out what just happened, and then the inevitable collapse of the structures.

The ever-increasing sound of 'bump - bump - bump' is heard as the floors collapse on one another. The rushing roar becomes truly terrifying and - be forewarned - may be to intense for some audiences.

Based on true accounts the movie is built around the discovery and rescue of those twenty people. There is plenty of star power here, but Stone uses them as if they were an ensemble cast with each contributing a small part to the story. Nicolas Cage plays a 21-year-veteran, Sgt. John McLoughlin, who heads up a first response rescue team. MIchael Pena is Officer Will Jimeno, who has only been with the department for less than nine months and is the first to volunteer for McLoughlin's team. These two men are trapped in the rubble as the towers come down. I truly felt very claustrophobic in some of the scenes that followed. Stones is quick to recognize this and switches to the surface very often to show the rescuers, played by Michael Shannon, Stephen Dorff, Stoney Westmoreland and Frank Whaley. Maria Bello plays the wife of McLoughlin and Maggie Gyllenhaal gives an Oscar-worthy performance as Jimeno's pregnant wife.

I found myself welled up with tears many different times in this film, but the water really flowed upon the actual rescue when we see the bonding of human beings who share their joy and happiness without restraint of any political or race emotions.

This truly is a remarkable movie, it runs just under two hours, and there is not a dry eye in the house when the lights come up. When I first saw the trailers for this film I wondered if it was too soon to do a movie about this horrific event in American history, but now the answer I have is - no it is not too soon. I give this filma strong A.

[castleinthesky]

Superman Returns
A very good Superhero film. This film however had my head turning in the beginning, since I had no idea you had to see the first two films. The acting was good. The film brought back the old Superman feel. However, I find that Kevin Spacey was out of place in the film. Maybe someone else would have been better in the role. The plot however was very nice, and I commend the crew for such a great job with it. The CGI was breathtaking and made the film what it is. Final Grade: B+

Pride and Prejudice
One of the movies I've been trying to see since it was in theatres. I finally got to see it. I was rather pleased with it. The dialogue, acting, everything was how I liked it. The only thing I wished was different was some turns of the plot. But overall a great film. This film should have been nominated instead of Crash. (I'm feeling real lazy, or else I'd write more). Final grade: A

In the Future: Monster House, Transamerica, V for Vendetta

[Loomis]

Thank You For Smoking (Viewed 19 August 2006): Thanks to moving and a few other going concerns, I hadn't had the chance to pop up the road to the cinema for over a month. Silly, especially given that I am now within walking distance of a major cinemaplex. At any rate, I certainly picked a good one to return to the Silver Screen with, as this was one of the funniest films I had seen all year. Admirable is the fact that the film doesn't attempt to take a stand one way or the other on smoking - or more accurately, it doesn't judge one or the other. Instead, the film is about talking or 'spinning', and how deeply that has become a part of our everyday lives.

A absolutely excellent cast rounds out this well-written script, with the only exception being Katie Holmes. Not that there is anything particularly wrong with her here, but rather that she isn't really extending much outside her very limited range. Still, Aaron Eckhart is criminally underused in modern cinema, although I see he has quite a few projects slated now (including the highly anticipated Black Dahlia).

I'm rambling, but a big A Rating from me.

[dvdjunkie]

Snakes on a Plane - August 17, 18, 20, 21, 2006

This is my favorite movie of the summer. It makes no pretenses of what it is about, and the addition of Samuel L. Jackson and Juliana Margulies just put it step up most of the other "B" movie titles that have come down the road in the past couple of summers. David Ellis directs a tight, taught story about an FBI agent (Jackson) who is escorting a federal witness (Nathan Phillips) on a Red Eye flight from Honolulu to Los Angeles. The drug lord and murderer that Phillips is to testify against has had his 'boys' spray a pheramone on the Hawaiian leis that are put about the passengers necks as they embark on the plane. They have also stowed 300 poisonous reptiles from Central America (there are no snakes in Hawaii) aboard the plane set with a timer that will release them 15 minutes after the plane takes off. The plot is paper-thin, and you know what is going to happen, but you don't know when. This film has you screaming at the screen, laughing your butt off, and screaming from fright for the whole hour and half it is on the screen. This is the most fun you will have in a movie, ever, in your lifetime. I have seen it four times and will probably see once or twice more. I will give this movie a great big B because it is so bad, it is good!!!!!!

[Loomis]

This is my favorite movie of the summer.

Indeed, my favourite movie of the year!

Snakes on a Plane (2006 - USA) (Viewed 26 August 2006): Absolutely loved this movie. I'll make no excuses about it. It delivers what it promises, and it delivers them in spades. Long-term fans of genre pictures will love absolutely everything about this: the jumps; the gory make-up effects and the genuine clap-your-hands-because-that-was-too-cool moments. As junkie rightly points out, the film makes no bones about what it is going to do, and it has a lot of fun - and in turn, gives the audience a lot of pleasure - in doing it. I'm giving this an A!

[castleinthesky]

Monster House
Sometimes you may be wrong about something. Computer Animated Films are not all bad (aside from the Pixar films). Monster House proves that the creators of the Polar Express are serious about animation, and will be a major playor in the CGI world, along with Pixar, in terms of quality; and in the animation world, alongside Pixar, Studio Ghibli (Spirited Away, Princess Mononoke), and Aardman Animation (Wallace and Gromit, Chicken Run). The film was the second best animated film this year, trailing slightly behind Cars. The animation, while not gorgeous, was still sharp. The story was captivating, in a childish sense. The film should have been released around Haloween time. Grade: A-

Inside Man
Inside Man was one of the films I had wanted to see in theatres, yet I was unable. Good thing I wasn't able. The film was not bad, but it didn't give me any emotion afterwards. It was a "blah" film. The acting was even sub-par, by both Washington and Foster, two multiple Academy Award winners. Either they were sub-par or the dialougue was very off par, but then again, what else would you expect from Spike Lee, except trying to put as many vulgar words in as possible, especially when they don't seem natural. The plot is a redeeming factor of the film. Grade: C

World Trade Center
What a great film. This film will probably finish in my top ten of 2006. The performances by the police officers (Cage and another actor) arn't the best, but still worthy. The best performance comes from Maggie Gyllenhall, who looks more an more as she will be nominated for Best Supporting Actress. Mario Bello goes forgotten with Maggie Gyllenhall on the other side of the film. The cinematorgraphy is also noteworthy in most of the film, however at times it lacks. The emotional impact of this film was high, as it was more sad for the character's families, than the characters that get trapped under the rubble. I had lost faith in Oliver Stone, after the disastorous film Alexander, but he redeems himself here. Grade: A

Gangs of New York
Yes, I know, I have just now seen the film completely, and won't write a big review, because I saw it on t.v, so missed the nuance of the film, when you watch it whole, without commercials. The acting was the best by Cameron Diaz, while DiCaprio, Gleeson, Reiley, Nesson, Broadbant, and Daniel Day-Lewis were all strong. The plot kept me interested the whole film, and the settings/costumes were very good. This got nominated for Best picture for a reason. Grade A-

Coming Soon: Snakes on a Plane (may have to wait till rental), The Illusionist, V for Vendetta, United 93, Hollywoodland

[castleinthesky]

The Illusionist

The Illusionist has been one of the best films of 2006, so far. The plot to the film is truly unique and spellbinding. The cinematography further qualifies the film as a masterpiece. Edward Norton and Paul Giamatti give great bits of acting, and surprising Jessica Biel rips off her scenes of terrible attrocities of 7th Heaven and recent films for some real acting. She does rather well. The Illusionist was the best live-action film of the summer, and deservedly so. This film should be nominated for Oscars, however I don't see them in it's future. Grade: A

Hollywoodland

You may ask, "Do we really need another Superman film?". I cannot answer this, but I can say that Hollywoodland enhanced the franchise. Hollywoodland was about George Reeves, the former Superman star, who killed himself. The film debates that matter, if he killed himself, or other possibilities. The plot is intriguing, and leaves the story open-ended, for the viewer to decide. Ben Affleck has one of his best acting bits of his career, while Diane Lane put herself into Oscar contention. Adrien Brody would have to be the week link in this cast. He really didn't seem to fit. Also a small sub-plot didn't seem right, however my liking of this film remains. Grade: A-

Little Miss Sunshine

Over and over again, all I heard was how fantastic this film was. Maybe it is really that good, or maybe it isn't. The film about a family, is 2006's "indie film gone big" (however my vote goes towards the Illusionist). The film is great the first 2/3rds, however the last third kills the film. The plot wraps too quickly, and the characterization gets muddled. However, on an overall scale, Little Miss Sunshine was fun. Steve Carell and Toni Collete steal the show, with their acting fantastic. Carell (imo) is the best supporting actor of 2006 (yet still many films to go). Grade: B+

Piglet's Big Movie

I finally got around to watching this movie. It was on the same level as the Tigger Movie, but more basic. I plan to watch Pooh's Hephalump Movie in the next few days, and I'll be finished my theatrical Pooh trek.

Coming Soon: United 93 and The Departed

[castleinthesky]

Oscar Season is now on. It offically began with Hollywoodland, in September, but has been weak up until now. Sure, Hollywoodland had great performances, but other supposed Oscar films "Black Dahlia", "All the King's Men", and "The Last Kiss" critically bombed. Until 3 weeks ago, Oscar season had lain dormant. Now, I don't even have time to see all the movies, seeing I'm two weeks behind.

Also, I will be introducing my gold star of reccomendation, which will go to films I recommend.

Flags of Our Fathers


Who can pass up a Clint Eastwood film? This film shows the story of a group of soldiers who raise the flag at Iwo Jima. I was highly anticipating this film, which may have led me to have a sour feeling towards this movie. The narration is given by the actual people who were in the battle, which throws the plot off. Instead of having this narration, the film would have been much better off with the narration actually coming from the soldiers in the battle, not as a flashback. That killed the film. The Battle of Iwo Jima, and the raising of the flag was the best part of the film. The acting, by Adam Beach and Ryan Phillippe was strong. Philippe was definately the standout of all. The visuals would have to be the other strong point of this film. Overall, the film does well, but it is not Best Picture worthy, and may possibly get a nomination, because it is a Eastwood film. Hopefully Letters from Iwo Jima will be better. Grade B+ (the more I think about it, I want to give it a B.)

Marie Antoinette


This was my most anticipated film in 2006. One of my favorite parts of history is learning the stupidity of the French Revolution. This film isn't however about the French Revolution, but about the life of Marie Antoinette, until the royal family is forced to move to Paris. The film is "eye candy", with beautiful costumes, settings, and scenes. Kirsten Dunst also does a great job, and deserves a Best Actress nomination. Sofia Coppola does a great job directing the film. The score stands out in the film, using many modern songs to make Marie Antoinette more likeable. I put my gold star of recommendation on this film. Up to this point, this had been my #1 film of 2006, but below, a certain film guillotines Marie. Grade: A

The Prestige


Right on the feet of The Illusionist we have another "magician" film. These two films are very different, and both great in their own ways. The Prestige is a film about two competing magicians, played by Bale and Jackman. The costume design and scene design are the two major things that make this film so good. The acting and directing help too. Chrisopher Nolan makes another worthy film. However, the "trick" of the film is fairly easy to spot, which does not let this film become as good as The Illusionist, but I also give The Prestige, my gold star of reccomendation. Grade A-

Catch a Fire


Wow, another film about Africa, that fails at the box office. What a shame. This film should have made more than its 4 million. This goes to show you how lame many movie-goers are. The film details a terrorists life in South Africa, during the aparteid. Derek Luke plays this African man who works at a major power plant? who undergoes change, and fights against the aparteid. Tim Robbins plays a white detective who terroirizes many of the Africans. The film has a message, which dosn't come across, however. Derek Luke's character is more of a terrorist, imo. However the acting by Luke, and especially Robbins and Bonnie Mbuli are very strong. The cinematography may just make this film, which is turning out to be a tough race this year. Grade B-

The Departed

Talk about a good film. I really don't want to give away the plot right now, but that is the best part of the film. The acting is superb by everyone. Mark Wahlberg was the strongest, and should receive the Oscar for best supporting actor, however unlikely. Jack Nicholson, Leonardo DiCaprio, Matt Damon, Martin Sheen, Vera Farmiga, and all the others deserve awards for their roles. The movie is so great! I give this my gold star of reccomendation. Everyone that hasn't seen this film, go see it right now. This is the best film since Return of the King, and only the 5th film of the 2000s I am giving a Grade of A+, (the others being Fellowship of the Ring, Spirited Away, Return of the King, and the Incredibles). This fim needs to and should win Best Picture. If it dosn't, the Academy will have committed another crime.

Coming Soon: Nightmare (3-d), Borat, Flushed Away, Stranger than Fiction, Babel, Casino Royale

[dvdjunkie]

castleinthesky wrote:

Kate Winselt also does a great job, and deserves a Best Actress nomination.

Funny, I saw "Marie Antoinette" and never did see 'Kate Winslett' in the film. The one I saw starred Kirsten Dunst.

This leads me all the more to believe that you don't go the movies much and rely on what you read or what you hear about the movies.

Your review of "Flags of Our Fathers" was so far off base, I am still laughing. I think you better stick to watching movies on DVD or television, at least by the time they get there you will have your information correct.

While you make some good points about best pictures of the year so far, it is my opinion that "The Departed", "Flags of Our Fathers", "The Science of Sleep", "Marie Antoinette", and "The Prestige" have the best chances for nominations for Best Picture. We still have a few weeks left in the year for some other good ones to come. My favorite, so far, is "The Queen" with Helen Mirren, whom I think will WIN Best Actress in the next Oscars.

[castleinthesky]

castleinthesky wrote:

Kate Winselt also does a great job, and deserves a Best Actress nomination.

Funny, I saw "Marie Antoinette" and never did see 'Kate Winslett' in the film. The one I saw starred Kirsten Dunst.

This leads me all the more to believe that you don't go the movies much and rely on what you read or what you hear about the movies.

Your review of "Flags of Our Fathers" was so far off base, I am still laughing. I think you better stick to watching movies on DVD or television, at least by the time they get there you will have your information correct.
:

Please. I made a typo. I fully knew that Kirsten Dunst was the actress of Marie Antoinette, but I apparently typed Kate Winslet when I made the post. For some reason you are being And my review of "Flags of Our Fathers" was not off base. Your the only one off base. Every single movie I review I watch at a movie theatre (or at home). I judge every movie off of my own personal opinion, using standards after I view the film. If I judged movies, just based off what I read, I would have given Sideways, Crash, and Ray all A's, but guess what, they got C's and D's from me. You make no sense, and you're the only one off base, here.

[dvdjunkie]

Your rating system is totally out of date............and if you view movies at home, then they are too late to be used here in the 2006 viewing log. Movies in this log should only be movies released in the year that the log is posted.

And your own personal dislikes and likes should never enter into a review of a movie.

[Disney-Fan]

God junkie, you can be so rude and arrogant sometimes. Sheesh, enough already.

[dvdjunkie]

Since when is speaking the truth rude?