jeff.hume.ca

Well, I didn't watch the Oscars tonight, but a somewhat related article caught my eye.

The Razzie awards, held the night before the Oscars honor the worst in movies over the year. In this case Halle Berry 'won' for her apparently awful performance in Catwoman. For obvious reasons, people don't really show up to accept these awards, but in this case Halle Berry did, showing a great sense of humor.

She thanked everyone involved in "Catwoman," a film she said took her from the top of her profession to the bottom.

"I want to thank Warner Brothers for casting me in this piece of shit," she said as she dragged her agent on stage and warned him "next time read the script first."

It is rare for a Razzie winner to show up at the spoof awards held on the night before Oscars -- but Berry did, saying her mother taught her that to be "a good winner you had to be a good loser first." She received a standing ovation.

In our society we have become so accustomed to silly and frivilous lawsuits that we seem to sometimes just accept them. It seems that these days, the first response is to sue over anything. Whether it is an appropriate lawsuit doesn't seem to be a question. This time around, a group of 25 Greek Lawyers, (yes, Lawyers) are suing Warner Brothers over their portrayal of Alexander the Great in their recent critically panned movie Alexander as bisexual.

Yes, you heard me right, lawyers are suing over the portrayal of a character in a movie.

The lawyer leading the campaign, Yannis Varnakos, said the impending suit is not an attack against gays, but rather a demand to make the film historically accurate.

"We cannot come out and say that President John F. Kennedy was a shooting guard for the Los Angeles Lakers basketball team and so Warner cannot come out and say Alexander was gay," Varnakos told Reuters.

Although Varnakos had not yet seen the film, he claimed there was enough evidence to point to the film's inaccurate references.

There are so many things wrong here. First of all, why are they demanding that the film be made historically accurate? Since when are films based on a historical premise required to be historically accurate? Most, if not all, historical movies take many liberties with the plot and characterizations to adapt a historical story into a film context or even add things to it. People are allowed to adapt history in whatever way they want to make a film. People may not like the film because of it, but filmmakers are allowed to do whatever they want regardless of historical accuracy. Of course, this argument is even more ridiculous because they ignore the fact that many historians and scholars do think that Alexander the Great was indeed bisexual. Will they also sue any other historians who disagree with them

As to their point that people couldn't come out and say that JFK was a player for the Lakers, I have one thing to say - bullshit. I have a reality check for these lawyers - in our society there is a thing called free speech which allows people to say whatever they want, regardless of what others think. (I am not sure what exactly the specifics are on speech laws in Greece, but I'm pretty sure that it would be similar.) I could write a book which claims that JFK played for the Lakers and claim that it's true and nobody could justifiably sue me over it. People would just think that I'm full of it. Nobody can stop me from claiming whatever I want; they can only disagree.

As an aside, I think a movie about JFK being a pro basketball player would be a cool concept. Somebody should make it just to piss these Greek lawyers off.

Lastly, this whole thing is taken to an even higher level of ridiculous irrelevance because they haven't even seen the movie they are complaining about.

So, to the twenty-five Greek lawyers I say this - do your homework on Alexander and more importantly on free speech.

[Thanks to Posté for the link]

Rarely do sequels live up to their predecessors. Shrek 2 is a remarkable example of one that does not only live up to the original, but surpasses it. The comedy this time around is even better and with such great new voice talent such as John Cleese and Antonio Banderas playing the ferocious, adorable, hilarious and a little disgusting Puss in Boots.

Along with the effects Shrek 2's humor is sharper this time around. With references and parodies hitting you in the face all over the place, there is something in almost every scene that will make you laugh. It seems that this time around Shrek is simply a comedy hiding in the cloak of a kids movie. Some of the jokes in the second installment are bordering on innappropriate for kids, yet will probably go over their heads. (Although these kinds of jokes were also in the first movie, notably "Shrek thinks he's overcompensating for something".)

There is one short spoof that had me almost in tears it was so funny. Although I read a little bit about it in a review and it was still hilarious, I wont give any of it away here.

Overall, this movie is better and funnier than the first and I would highly recommend it. It is a real treat. And don't feel bad going because it's a "kids movie." I went with a group of my friends to a later showing so as to escape the young crowd and found that there is probably more in this movie for older people than for kids.

A couple nights ago I went to see Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind with some friends. I had heard good things about the film, and I was not disappointed. The concept, writing and editing were superb. The concept of losing your memories was conveyed excellently through simple but elegant visual cues and effects.

The actors, however, were the heart of the movie - Jim Carrey and Kate Winslet especially. They seem like an unlikely pair, but the chemistry actually works. Their interactions and conversations together were believable and seemed real , even if they were odd. Surprisingly Carrey performes remarkably well in a serious and subdued role. This movie made me think that Carrey might actually be better playing serious characters instead of performing over-the-top comedy.

Elijah Wood also had a minor role in the film. The row of people behind us who provided such enlightening and thoughtful comments such as "that was a stupid movie" and "what the fuck?" also snickered saying "Frodo Baggins!" when he first came on screen. Unfortunately, Wood probably will never be able to escape Frodo as long as he keeps his big blue eyes. Even I found it strange seeing him playing such a different kind of role. Despite these unavoidable connections to his excellent portrayal of Frodo, Wood played this character quite well.

Overall Eternal Sunshine is a very well crafted film which makes you think (as the row behind me was clearly unable to do.) There is no doubt in my mind that it is worth your time to watch and enjoy it.

I have one word for this movie - awesome. Although I thought Return Of the King deserved the Best Picture Oscar hands down, this film would have been my second choice. It is just brilliant and incredibly enjoyable for many reasons. It is romantic without being cheesy, funny without being stupid and serious without being melodramatic. The whole film just feels right and it leaves you quite satisfied. Both Bill Murray and Scarlett Johansson are wonderful and have great chemistry together.

I feel sorry for Bill Murray for not getting the Best Actor Oscar. His performance in Lost In Translation was subtle and quite enjoyable. It is also worth noting that Scarlett is incredibly cute throughout. In my opinion, Her appearance at the Oscars wasn't all that dazzling. She looks much better as a regular person as in the film without layers of unneeded makeup and artificial looking blonde hair.

Watch this movie and enjoy it. It reminds me how great and comforting another understanding person can be.

Well, I actually watched the Oscars last night. Billy Crystal was funny as usual, but the main reason for watching was to have my inner Tolkien Geek feel validated. And, indeed, the validation felt good. Eleven awards ties Return Of The King with Titanic and Ben-Hur for the most awards ever. I'm impressed with the ability of the Acadamy to finally look past the Hobbits, Trolls, Nazgûl and Dark Lords and see the movie for what it really is - a damn good story made into an amazing film. Congrats to Peter Jackson et al, the actors and production staff for making such an incredible piece of work.

Last night, much to my delight, The Return Of The King won four Golden Globe awards - Best Picture Drama, Best Director, Best Score and Best Song. I only watched the end of the boring show to see it win Best Picture, but this morning I read a few articles about the show. In these articles the very high profile awards given to ROTK were not even mentioned until a few paragraphs in at least. None of the articles featured pictures or headlines regarding the film taking about the film receiving the top award for Best Picture and another high profile award for Peter Jackson for Best Director.

It's great to see them finally get recognition for the amazing job they have done on all three films, but I hope that if they win Best Picture at the Oscars they get a bit more press than this. I guess it is because putting a picture of Renée Zellweger in a revealing dress on your front page is more appealing that putting a picture of a large, short, hairy guy from New Zealand who gave us the year's best film.

Now that I've seen The Matrix Revolutions twice, I feel I can pass judgement on it. The special effects were great, and the fight between Neo and Smith takes hand-to-hand combat essentially to its peak. However, the story and execution of the film were somewhat lacking. It was better than Reloaded story wise, but not as good as the original. It seems that they get so caught up in finishing the film that we don't care about the characters and what happens to them. The cliche ending was a little off-putting, however.

Many critics are saying that this is a horrible movie and it "sucks". I wouldn't go that far. If you find yourself saying that then you should lower your expectations and just look at it as your everyday action movie. It wasn't as good as the first, but saying that it sucked goes too far.