63 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(02/22/01 5:00am)
While winning a Golden Globe is indeed a huge honor, there is no question that when it comes to awards for achievement in film, the Oscars are the grand daddy of them all. While you do have to slosh through People magazine's fashion reports and Joan Rivers' annoyingly comical laugh to get to the meat of the night, this annual flashy event is without question film's biggest showcase. Like any award show, the nominations, announced Feb. 13 in Los Angeles, bring about as much question as clarity, and many questions are left to be answered. \n \n1. When is two less than one? \nYou're a Hollywood director who, during the past 12 months, captured the imaginations of audiences across America with two films on opposite ends of the spectrum: one a biographical tale of a single mother's conflict between maternal responsibilities and her duties to her community, the other a multilayered look at the war on drugs at home and in Mexico. Is your double nomination for best picture and best director a blessing or a curse? This is what Steven Soderbergh asked himself after his two 2000 films, "Erin Brockovich" and "Traffic," made Oscar history. He also received a double direction nomination for the Golden Globes but lost to "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" director Ang Lee, whom he again is up against. Many think although this double nomination is a testament to his hard work, his films will cancel each other out, making room for Lee's gravity-defying martial arts film or Ridley Scott's "Braveheart"-esque Roman epic "Gladiator."\n \n2. Will Miramax's efforts be rewarded? \nThe indie film company headed up by Bob and Harvey Weinstein made another serious Oscar push, this time thrusting "Chocolat" into the last slot for best picture. This marks the studio's ninth consecutive best picture candidate, starting in 1992 with "The Crying Game" and picking up best picture wins for "The English Patient" and "Shakespeare in Love" (1996 and 1998 respectively). In "Chocolat," the Weinsteins probably have their weakest candidate since 1995's "Il Postino" ("The Postman"), but they have shown once again just how much of a force Miramax is and will continue to be in the film industry.\n \n3. Will the academy ever recognize comedies as real films?\nWhile the Golden Globes breaks down major awards into drama and comedy, you're more likely to see Steven Spielberg go home empty handed than a comedy win best picture. I know "Shakespeare in Love" and "As Good As it Gets" were well represented in their respective years, but these were "heartwarming comedies" with two of the strongest foundations in film: William Shakespeare and Jack Nicholson. Unfortunately, the Coen brothers' "O Brother Where Art Thou" was virtually ignored, even though it was one of the top films of the year. Cameron Crowe's "Almost Famous" certainly was a heartwarming comedy and was the brainchild of the creator of "Jerry Maguire." But it's the voice of the Baby Boomer generation, and the gray hairs of the academy don't exactly relate. The prejudice against comedies does not end with the films but extends to the actors as proved by back-to-back snubs of Jim Carrey for "The Truman Show" and "Man On the Moon." \n \n4. Will you be watching when Steve Martin says "good night"? \nMaybe not. The show has become frustratingly long, forcing its viewer to wade through tribute after tribute, some good and some not. Without Oscar stalwart Billy Crystal, the show will have a different feel, but with Martin at the helm, we're sure to be in for some good laughs. One of the ways the show could easily be shortened would be to eliminate the best song category, or at least the performances. The category was appropriate in the days when lavish musicals owned the screen as well as the stage, but now it's hard to find five good songs and even harder to sit through them. Taking out the song award and adding a category for best comedy would make the presentation more watchable and allow the viewers to be more excited for "And the Oscar goes to" than \n"Good night everybody"
(02/15/01 5:00am)
Director Ridley Scott has bitten off more than he can chew in this less-than-stellar sequel to the 1991 Oscar-winning thriller, "Silence of the Lambs." \nEven with Anthony Hopkins back in top form as Dr. Hannibal Lecter, "Hannibal" falls well short of any expectations audiences might have. While "Lambs"' plot was driven by the relationship of Lecter and then FBI-trainee Clarice Starling, "Hannibal"'s characters are about as filling as a couple of Twinkies.\nTaking place a decade after "Lambs," "Hannibal" finds Starling an FBI veteran, disgraced after a botched drug raid. And Lecter is alive and well in Florence, Italy, keeping tabs on her through the Internet. \n"Lambs"' biggest strength was the contrast between Lecter's subdued genius and Starling's confident yet vulnerable facade. "Hannibal" relies heavily on inside jokes from "Lambs" as well as enough changes in Starling's character to force Jodie Foster to turn down reprising the role that won her a best actress Oscar. Julianne Moore does a great job imitating Foster's Starling, but without a good script to work with, she flounders helplessly like one of Lecter's victims. \nThe script also gives Hopkins and Moore precious few scenes together, the best of which is a cat-and-mouse carousel sequence, an obvious rip-off of Hitchcock's "Strangers on a Train." "Hannibal" also suffers in Scott's direction. \nFresh off his best drama Golden Globe for "Gladiator," Scott's direction constantly gets in the way of the plot as he takes painfully obvious steps to glorify Lecter. \nThe film will also turn stomachs with some particularly gruesome scenes, including one that gives new meaning to the phrase "brain candy." \nPerhaps the film's most unsettling aspect is the introduction of Lecter's only surviving victim, a decaying, faceless cripple (an unrecognizable Gary Oldman) who wants to catch Lecter and feed him alive to a pack of wild boars. \nAlthough he didn't have much script to work with, Scott did little to improve its quality and fell well short of the bar that Jonathan Demme set in 1991. The director's influence is noticeable throughout the entire film, and whether that is good is up to the viewer. \nWith a repulsive autopsy and the murders of Buffalo Bill, "Lambs" certainly shocked its audience. Hannibal succeeds at surpassing its predecessor in blood and guts (literally), but there is little substance to the style. \nThe film builds to a shocking yet illogical conclusion and shows that Scott really had nothing new to say about these characters. If you never saw "Lambs," don't bother seeing "Hannibal." But if you do see it, go on an empty stomach.
(02/01/01 5:00am)
While most DVDs have special features that allow the viewer access into the minds of the filmmakers, the new "Se7en" (or "Seven") DVD allows the viewer access into the mind of its most frightening character, John Doe (Kevin Spacey). The film follows two detectives (Morgan Freeman and Brad Pitt) as they hunt for Doe, a maniacal serial killer "punishing" those who have broken one of the seven deadly sins. While the film's graphic images are unsettling enough, the supplemental material on Disc Two of the recently released DVD explores the psychological side of the murders and the murderer in a way the actual film would never be able to.\nWe are introduced to Doe's demented mindset when the two detectives break into his apartment. Dark and dreary like the killer himself, the room is home to a wall full of Mead Composition notebooks, filled with Doe's writing. The bathroom acts as a darkroom, where Doe has made and kept hundreds of pictures of his victims. In the most alarming and terrifying feature on the DVD, detail after grotesque detail of the notebooks and photos are revealed, as the viewer delves deeper into the mind of Doe than one would ever care to. The words and images are absolutely repellent by nature; but if you can stand them, the features are worth watching, if only to see the degree to which director David Fincher went to fully create his killer's character and habits.\nThe rest of Disc Two is filled with less disgusting bonus material, namely extended scenes and a look at the making of the film. All of the alternate scenes, including an alternate opening, can be watched with commentary from Fincher. Of course, at the heart of any DVD is the film itself, and regardless of how many special features a DVD has, they will be worthless if not complimenting a great film. Well acted and well written, this psychological thriller unfolds at a steady pace, allowing its viewer enough time to put together each clue, but not enough to get bored. If you can stand the horrific images that drive the plot, this nail-biting mystery should not be missed.