Richard Fleischer (1916-2006)

Hollywood director Richard Fleischer died yesterday, aged 89. The casual moviegoer may not immediately recognise the name but the chances are you're familiar with his work.

Fleischer was not some flashy auteur who had shelves full of books devoted to his work; nor was he a director who was content to stick to one genre and make a career out of it. Fleischer's diversity was, to me, his finest attribute and is reflected in his filmography.

Just some of his many films: FANTASTIC VOYAGE; 20,000 LEAGUES UNDER THE SEA; BANDIDO; THE VIKINGS; THE BOSTON STRANGLER; RED SONJA; CONAN THE DESTROYER; CHE!; DR DOLITTLE; THE JAZZ SINGER; MANDINGO; THE LAST RUN; MR MAJESTYK; TORA! TORA! TORA!... there were some smashes, some flops and some that were just plain different.

His greatest contribution to my experience of the movies was undoubtedly his 1973 dystopian sci-fi tale SOYLENT GREEN. Had it not been for my unhealthy obsession with the PLANET OF THE APES series of films, SOYLENT GREEN would definitely place in my top three films.

I can't begin to tell of how many times I watched this movie in my teenage years (and beyond) - first through a copy I'd taped off the TV, which was then replaced by an official video release from the early 90s, and that of course gave way to the eventual DVD release a couple of years ago (not to mention one occasion on the big screen when I managed to find a local festival that had dug up an old print for a one-off screening). Yet despite all this, every time I catch it while channel surfing I invariably end up sticking with it until the very end anyway.

It's a film that has always been tinged with a little sadness, featuring as it does Edward G Robinson as a saddened elderly man who takes his own life (albeit assisted by a futuristic variation on euthanasia), in what was to be his final movie role. But this doesn't mean that it will be any sadder for Fleischer's loss - I prefer to think of this as a celebration of the director at his very best.

I noted tonight that by sheer coincidence Fleischer's 1950s crime thriller VIOLENT SATURDAY is on TV later tonight. I think I'll go and set my video just now, so I have another chance to salute a master craftsman.

I'll probably watch SOYLENT GREEN again, too.

Arthouse zombies and the pensions crisis

Britain, as you may have heard in the news recently, is facing a pensions crisis (and we're certainly not alone). The main reason for this is that with people living longer now, we have far too many people of retirement age who need to be supported by the (not enough) people who are working. Sweeping legislation is due in April (and probably for a good while after that too), and a kind of "National Pensions Day" was held in the UK recently (it was Saturday just passed - what do you mean you missed it?) so that people could debate the problem.

"Talking about pensions?" you all cry. But wait, stay with me, I've not gone mental. I am still going to talk movies. Here's why.

Just the other day I went to see a film entitled LES REVENANTS (it's been given the English title THEY CAME BACK), which is currently touring the country as part of the Renault French Film Festival. It's an excellent and intriguing film in which one day, for no apparent reason, every person who has died in the last ten years suddenly returns to the land of the living.

The film works in a lot of ways - it's an emotional drama about the effects of people being reunited with long dead loved ones; it's a suspenseful thriller that poses an interesting "what if?" question; it's a moody science fiction piece; it's even what I might very loosely term an "arthouse zombie movie". (Have I just coined a new term there? I hope so.)

You see, people are returning from the dead, making life rather difficult for the already living. Being an "arthouse zombie movie" there are some differences between this and the likes of ZOMBIE FLESH EATERS though. Walking corpses with decaying flesh are replaced by miserable looking French people philosophising; and any potential for eating of raw flesh has been replaced by scenes of earnest-looking people staring at each other a lot. But while faced with such staples of the stereotypical arthouse flick, you can't look at the slow-witted returnees shuffling in slow-motion along the street in their packs without thinking of films like DAWN OF THE DEAD (the original obviously - the zombies were a bit faster in the remake) and ZOMBIE FLESH EATERS. So you see, it's both arthouse and zombie movie. Kind of.

But there's one other side to it too.

Faced with the problem of how you get this many people back into employment, one person points out that thankfully it's not an issue since most of them (the majority of the returning dead being over 65) are retired anyway. But of course one smart cookie has their finger on the pulse and points out that this will have a huge detrimental impact on pensions...

So not only is it all of the above things, it's also topical and relevant to today's big issues. And inspired by this thought, I've done a bit of research during my day job (because, incredibly, I'm not being paid to haver a load of pish about weird movies) and have turned up a rather worrying discovery.

Did you know that throughout all the legislation, the new proposals and the countless debates on the subject, not one solitary person or political party has put forward a single suggestion as to how the new pension reforms will cope in the event of seventy million people suddenly returning from the dead?

When our politicians show such an unforgivable lack of foresight, it's hardly surprising that we're facing a crisis.

Musicians at the movies

From the days of Frankie Avalon and Cliff Richard (in a hot rod and a bus respectively) to the modern day naughty gun-waving antics of 50 Cent, cinema has always enjoyed a curious relationship with the world of popular music. I don't exactly know how or when (or even why), but once upon a time someone decided that since the public were willing to part with their cash every time Cliff and the Shadows brought out a record, they'd be equally willing to throw their money away for a couple of hours of them arsing around on a bus with Melvyn Hayes and Una Stubbs. And what do you know, they were right.

Yep, today's incessant rambling is about pop stars entering the movies (and I promise not to use it as an excuse to rant about Marky Mark and PLANET OF THE APES again, honest). It's a lot easier for such people to break into the business than it is for struggling actors, on the grounds that they have a ready-made fanbase willing to cough up the dough to see them. But some pop stars are in it for entirely different reasons - reasons like, dare I say it, doing it for the art - and decide that they are going to take their place behind the camera instead.

The film that got me thinking about this is THE PROPOSITION, in your local cinema as I type. This film was scripted by Aussie songsmith Nick Cave and also happens to be extremely good. Just as ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST showed the age of the cowboy drawing to a close as the railroads emerged and just as TWILIGHT SAMURAI (and the non-sequel follow-up THE HIDDEN BLADE) used the end of a swordwielding era to tell of love and honour in a changing Japan, so Cave's screenplay uses the backdrop of Australia's emergence from bushranging to "civilisation".

The story concerns three Irish brothers in Australia, all of whom are wanted for their part in the massacre of a local family. The middle brother of three, played by Guy Pearce, is captured together with his younger brother and given a simple choice by policeman Ray Winstone. His younger brother will be spared the death penalty if he agrees to capture and kill his far more dangerous elder brother (Danny Huston).

And it's on this simple premise that Cave, and director John Hillcoat, base a thrilling tale of family ties, revenge and the concept of civilisation. Though set in Australia, the film feels very much like a modern-day spaghetti western, albeit with an Aussie tinge, sharing the cynicism, the violence and the visual look. The violence will probably be the most difficult part for mainstream audiences - although it's not sustained, when it does happen it's very bloody. It's equally unafraid to show the barbaric attitude that settlers showed towards Aussie natives too, so much so that the film carries an appropriate warning before the titles.

What's this got to do with SUMMER HOLIDAY and all that? Well, I was thinking of the mixed reception that musician-related movies have received over the years and trying to determine, not entirely seriously, if there was a common factor behind what makes a good one. THE PROPOSITION made me wonder if maybe the secret was something to do with their creative energies and staying behind the camera instead of in front of it. Then, however, I remembered Rob Zombie's first writing/directing attempt, HOUSE OF 1000 CORPSES. It might have a truly wonderful name, but it's also a very bad movie.

That's not it then. So, back to the movies starring pop stars. What's the secret? Maybe it's musical talent. The Beatles for example were one of the greatest bands ever (if not the greatest) and certainly a couple of their films are still highly though of; Frank Sinatra was always a big seller and made some decent films (the original versions of THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE and OCEAN'S ELEVEN spring to mind); Elvis was a great singer and his films are... um... okay, so it's not all to do with musical talent then.

Maybe it's about popularity then. That would seem to work - The Monkees weren't the most musically gifted people on the planet but were really popular and I've always loved their totally bonkers film, HEAD. Then again, that doesn't work for Madonna. The undisputed queen of the pop charts for many years, she continued to churn out the biggest load of dross when she appeared on screen - yet when her popularity was just beginning to fade, up she pops in EVITA and gets the best film reviews of her career.

And hammering the nails in the coffin of the popularity theory, I give you exhibits A, B and C: SPICE WORLD featuring the five Spice Girls (Annoying, Ugly, Skeletal, Mental and Porky), Britney Spears' CROSSROADS, and Mariah Carey's GLITTER. Granted, SPICE WORLD is the only one I've seen but in the case of CROSSROADS I'm prepared to accept that a film being unanimously panned across the globe isn't likely to be much cop. And as for GLITTER - she might well have a remarkable talent for singing notes that only dogs can hear, but is that any basis for a movie? Even for a trash addict like me the concept of a Mariah Carey movie is too much.

The answer then must lie in a combination of the two. Musical talent is helpful, but so is popularity. A balance must be achieved - you can't be inconceivably brilliant but you have to be very good; equally you should be popular but not constantly scoring number one records all the time.

Evidence? Well, Mick Jagger, David Bowie and Art Garfunkel all managed to make decent movies with filmmaker Nicholas Roeg (PERFORMANCE, THE MAN WHO FELL TO EARTH and BAD TIMING respectively), though it's fair to say that the reviews of BAD TIMING tend to be a lot kinder today than they were at the time. And sure, the Stones were massive but they weren't the Beatles - and maybe taking just one of the Stones had the necessary effect on the popularity part of the equation.

Another good example would be TOMMY, the rock opera by The Who. I can't say I've ever been a fan of them myself, but they are popular (without reaching Beatles levels of popularity) and have a reasonable amount of musical talent. The result? TOMMY is completely mental but also totally brilliant.

But then TOMMY also featured a number of other music stars, which begs the question... what happens when you throw together a bunch of people of varying levels of popularity and talent? The brilliant and the dreadful, the loved and the despised? Well obviously the balance is upset and the resultant film is a mess that is just so bizarre you can't even decide if it's good or bad. Yes, I am of course talking about THE WIZ, the black remake of THE WIZARD OF OZ, which featured Michael Jackson and a whole host of other stars of black music in a film that pretty much defies description.

And after that seemingly endless bout of nonsense, I'm not even sure if I've reached any kind of logical conclusion. I guess if nothing else I've managed to piece together enough information that I can put forward a couple of solid observations:

1. If The Flaming Lips ever release their movie, CHRISTMAS ON MARS, it will be brilliant.

2. If you're a movie producer and Christina Aguilera ever approaches you, telling you how much she'd really love to do Shakespeare then for the good of all humanity, please just smile politely and put the cheque book back in your pocket. Thanks for listening.

Up from the depths... Gojira!

What do you think of when you hear the name Godzilla?

Some may instantly think of the 1998 American remake - not me, for I've never seen it and have no intention of rectifying that any time soon. For those of a certain age, it may be an old cartoon with a memorable theme tune. For those of an even older certain age, you might even remember a rock song dedicated to the big green guy courtesy of the Blue Oyster Cult. Though probably not.

A lot of people, however, will almost certainly picture badly-dubbed movies starring men in monster costumes stomping about on top of cardboard cities. There's nothing wrong with that either. It's certainly what I always think of and it's what I've always loved about them. A great part of my childhood was spent enjoying these movies - I didn't care whether he was wrestling giant moths, spiders, dinosaurs or even good old Mechagodzilla (the robotic replica of Godzilla for those who've never properly been introduced). As long as there was bad dubbing and men in costumes wrestling each other over replicas of Tokyo I was happy.

Of course that's not necessarily everyone's cup of tea. Certainly I may have been emotionally scarred by the taunting I took at school on one occasion when I loaned a film to someone and they discovered that the same tape also contained the joys of GODZILLA VS MEGALON. Then again, now that I think about it, spending a childhood enjoying the sight of grown men in rubber costumes wrestling with each other should probably have scarred me more than it did.

Anyway, the reason why I've brought this up is that yesterday I finally saw the original Japanese movie that started it all, GOJIRA (1954). Forget about the countless increasingly silly sequels, or indeed the various imitators (check out GORGO if you want to see a British take on it) - this is the one that matters, but it's the one that is most rarely seen.

In many cases, even people who claim to have seen the original version haven't really seen it at all. The reason for this is that when the film first appeared in front of western audiences it was dubbed, chopped up, re-edited and, most cheekily of all, Americanised with newly-shot footage starring Raymond Burr. Yep, that's right, it was very nearly GODZILLA VS PERRY MASON.

Thanks to the British Film Institute, the original Japanese unbastardized version is now available on DVD and has also been doing the rounds at selected cinemas so you can view it for yourself - here in the UK this is the first time that most people, myself included, will have seen it in its intended form. I think you'll find that, no matter what category you fell into when answering my opening question, this is not the Godzilla you remember.

When reappraising this gem, it's important to remember that this film was conceived less than a decade after the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as it is the shadows of these events that loom over the film. In addition to explicit references to the evacuation of Tokyo and to the H-bomb (one of the main characters is even revealed to be a Nagasaki survivor) there are powerful visual references in the wake of Godzilla's destruction.

Following the trail of Godzilla's rampage across Tokyo, there are countless images of the city in flames (accompanied by a rather melancholic score by Akira Ifukube, who gave the series of films their musical identity with his memorable title march) that call to mind the US bombings of Tokyo during the war. On top of this is the aftermath of the havok wreaked by Godzilla; it's impossible to see the carefully staged ruins of Tokyo and not think of the numerous pictures taken in the wake of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. It's a comparison that is hammered home by the sight, in an overcrowded hospital full of victims of Godzilla's radiation, of traumatized children being tested with geiger counters.

Against the background of the attacks, one scientist who has found what might be the only way to defeat Godzilla wrestles with his own feelings. On one hand he knows that only he has the power to defeat the monster; on the other hand, he is sure that once the world knows of this device it will be put to evil uses by the world's leaders. This crisis of conscience over making a monumental scientific advancement but knowing it will end up in the wrong hands mirrors the feelings of those scientists who proudly unleashed the power of the atom only to watch in horror when they realised how it would be used.

The message behind the film is capped off by a closing monologue from one of the lead characters about the dangers of developing increasingly powerful weapons, warning that it will only lead to another Godzilla. Make no mistake, this film is very definitely about a nuclear menace; but it's not the big, scaly, radioactive guy setting fire to Tokyo that they're talking about.

If all this seems a bit heavy, don't worry. There is still plenty of action to be had courtesy of a man in a rubber suit stomping all over a cardboard city. And what's not to love about that?

Some ape movies are more equal than others

Tim Burton's 2001 remake of PLANET OF THE APES was aired on TV again at the weekend. If you watched it, I probably owe you an apology.

First of all, the fact that there are so many people out there like me who love the original movie (aka THE GREATEST FILM EVER MADE) and the franchise it spawned probably convinced Twentieth Century Fox that there was some kind of demand for a remake, while forgetting everything that made the original special. I can just about buy into an argument for remaking rubbish films but it's a mystery to me why anyone thinks that undisputed classics need to be "reimagined" for a new generation.

Secondly, I knew in advance that it was going to be screening and yet I didn't warn you off it, so again I apologise. There is very little I can say to comfort you or to erode the feelings of disappointment and anger that you are probably still feeling if you wasted a couple of valuable hours of your life on this steaming puddle of rancid pish.

There are so many things wrong with this picture it's difficult to know where to begin. Let's start at the conception. Even assuming there was a legitimate reason to remake it (there wasn't, but let's just go with it), Fox went about it all wrong from the start. After several scripts were penned and rejected over many, many years what eventually got the greenlight doesn't appear to have been any better. It's difficult to tell though, since it apparently went through a hefty rewrite on its way to the screen.

While I've admired several of Tim Burton's films, there is no escaping the fact that he is more at home with visuals than a decent script. He was hampered further by various inspired choices by the studio, not least of which was adhering to the ever more popular policy of fixing a release date and working towards it rather than making a good film and then releasing it. Fox even retained Dick Zanuck as producer (one of the many links to the original film) but as the documentary BEHIND THE PLANET OF THE APES revealed, he was just about the only person involved who didn't realise what the original film was about.

Small wonder then that we ended up with such an embarrassing mess. Burton's film couldn't be considered good by any means, but when compared to the original film that inspired it its shortfalls become painfully obvious.

The original film's lead was Charlton Heston, a respected actor who had already appeared in the likes of BEN-HUR, THE TEN COMMANDMENTS, EL CID and numerous other classics. The remake gave us the two-dimensional Mark Wahlberg, who was famous for fronting a tripe 80s pop group and sporting a prosthetic knob in BOOGIE NIGHTS.

The original had specially-devised make-up effects that earned John Chambers an honorary Oscar. Despite the assumed leaps forward in technology, the remake gave us appliances that hindered the actors' abilities to speak properly or to express themselves. They even managed to make Helena Bonham-Carter's chimp look like Michael Jackson.

The original had support from the likes of Roddy McDowall, Maurice Evans and Kim Hunter. The remake gave us Paul Giamatti clowning around as some kind of comic relief slave trader, Tim Roth trying his best not to look like he was in a pantomime and a cringeworthy cameo by Heston.

The original made full use of the desert locations and the Fox ranch to create an alien world and an exotic looking ape city. The ape city in the remake never resembled anything other than a soundstage, and a cramped one at that.

The humour in the original was, for the most part, perfectly judged. The attempts at humour in the remake were embarrassing to a whole new degree.

The original had an incredibly innovative score by Jerry Goldsmith that used things like mixing bowls and brass instruments with inverted mouthpieces in order to create an alien world. For the remake, Danny Elfman managed a half decent main title followed by a lot of by-the-numbers music that he himself has frequently done better than.

The original had a superb script by Rod Serling (creator of THE TWILIGHT ZONE) and Michael Wilson, which actually brought some social commentary to the table (try watching the trial scene in the original movie knowing that Wilson had run afoul of McCarthy's witchhunts in the 1950s). The remake gave us Marky Mark fighting monkeys and, er, I can't actually remember him doing much else.

The original benefited from expert pacing by director Franklin Schaeffner, with the slow build up used to introduce us to the strange new world and establish the character of Taylor. Burton's effort has an idiotic astronaut chase a monkey (sorry, ape) into space and within a few minutes is fighting with apes. And after that opening act of folly on the part of whatever Wahlberg's character was called I really wanted the apes to win.

The original gave us numerous quotes that have lived on long after the film disappeared from theatres. The remake was so barren of anything memorable that the things one remembers most are the numerous occasions it references the original movie - unfortunately, rather than demonstrating a smug but fond feeling for the original, it only serves to remind you how much better the original was.

The original gave us the single greatest ending in the history of movies. For the remake, Burton decided to film an ending that was far closer to Pierre Boulle's original novel - alas, he failed to realise that it actually had sod all to do with the film that had preceded it, leaving everyone walking out the cinema wondering what the hell happened. Imagine if you were watching CITIZEN KANE and were just about to discover what "Rosebud" meant... and then suddenly someone switches the film and you get the last five minutes of BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN. That's the feeling you get watching the conclusion to Burton's nadir.

I imagine this must be what die hard STAR WARS fans felt like when George Lucas finally unveiled his second trilogy, in particular the first two parts. Thrilled to finally see the films you love continuing on the big screen after so long, you approach the cinema in an optimistic mood and leave with a smile on your face, kidding yourself on that what you just witnessed actually delivered the goods. It's only once the smell of popcorn has left your nostrils and you've grown accustomed to daylight once more that you begin to get a nagging feeling at the back of your mind. That feeling grows until sometime later - maybe hours, maybe days, maybe even a couple of weeks - you begin to be honest with yourself and admit that what you saw was really not very good at all. All the wishing in the world will not make an awful film suddenly turn good.

I could go on forever talking about the ways in which the original movie far outshines its modern usurper, but I won't. I'll just finish by apologising again and offering you one piece of advice to get over it.

Nowadays whenever I tell anyone that my favourite film is PLANET OF THE APES, there's an uncomfortable few seconds where I have to explain that I'm talking about the original and, if necessary, instruct them to watch it, just in case they're basing their opinion on the more recent turkey.

So that's the advice I offer you. Go and watch the original again. Even better, maybe you're lucky enough to have never seen the original, in which case don't let the "reimagining" monstrosity put you off - you're in for a treat. Just as wishing won't make an awful film turn good, even Burton's cinematic equivalent of electrodes to the testicles can't change the fact that the original is THE GREATEST FILM EVER MADE. EVER.

And the Oscars went to...

The show may not have been quite as predictable as was, er, predicted but last night's Oscars didn't exactly throw up many memorable moments either. My random observations follow.

• I'd no idea who Jon Stewart was, but he did a very good job as host. My previous favourite was Steve Martin and he was never invited back, so don't expect to see Mr Stewart again.
• What was the story with Lauren Bacall? Either she can't read or the teleprompter was rubbish. Either way it was embarrassing.
• There has to be a better way of dealing with groups of people winning awards. Every year the first person to the mic makes a speech and then the rest of them get to say nothing as the music swells and the spotlight goes out. Would it really be that bad if the show overran by half an hour?
• Salma Hayek, Zhang Ziyi, Jessica Alba... YES.
• With every passing year, Mickey Rooney comes to look more and more like a potato.
• Nice to see George Clooney winning his award since he was always likely to be snubbed for GOOD NIGHT, AND GOOD LUCK. Decent speech too.
• The "in memoriam" section made no mention of cinematographer Tonino Delli Colli, who died in August last year. His last film was the Oscar-winning LIFE IS BEAUTIFUL but for me his crowning achievement was the work he did for Sergio Leone. ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST and THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY in particular are two films that any cinematographer would kill to have on their CV.
• Sky's coverage was rank. Presumably they spent so much money prying the rights off the BBC they didn't have enough left to spend on a decent presentation or a presenter who knew what she was talking about. And wasn't it great to have the first several visits to the studio consist of Mariella Frostrup and some fashion woman talk solely about women's dresses. After all, that's what it's all about - imagine the outcry if someone had attempted to start talking about movies.
• Talking of which, Charlize Theron's dress looked like a big pile of cloth was trying to eat her.
• Well done to TSOTSI on winning the Foreign Language Oscar. I mentioned that I'd been at the premiere of this movie last year at Edinburgh, where the director Gavin Hood gave an informative and heartfelt Q&A afterwards. Nice to see him collect an award for it. It opens here next week - go and see it.
  

As for my predictions, I did not too bad in only getting three of them wrong. And managing to spell "Reese" incorrectly.

The documentary going to MARCH OF THE PENGUINS wasn't a surprise and I thought it would probably happen. However, given that the film was extensively altered for its English language release (silly voices of the penguins replaced with a serious narration by Morgan Freeman), there's something a little dodgy about it winning. Which version of the film was being recognised?

Best Song going to Three Six Mafia ("It's hard out here for a pimp") was a bit of a surprise. I know that this is traditionally the category in which mindnumbingly awful efforts (occasionally rising to mediocre) tend to be rewarded but this was by far the worst winner I can remember. This cacophonous racket was truly awful and I feel guilty about even referring to it as a song. I churned out more melodious noises the last time I had diarrhoea.

The final prediction I got wrong was the big one, the Best Film award. Given that the majority of voters are actors and CRASH is a film that showcases the talents of a whole heap of them, perhaps it shouldn't have been such a shock that it won. It certainly didn't appear to be a shock to the bookies who evidently knew something we didn't and slashed the odds in the weeks beforehand. There's no such thing as a poor bookmaker (mine is certainly a bit richer after last night) and they're not daft either.

The only annoying thing about this is that if CRASH (or indeed Mr Clooney) had provided an upset in the Director category instead of Best Film, I'd have gone soaring into profit instead of crashing (pun intended) into the red. Yeah, I know yesterday's predictions were mostly pretty accurate but if you honestly thought I'd ever be boring enough put my money on who I thought would win... you've really not been paying attention.

And the Oscars will go to...

Just hours to go until the winners are unveiled, so it's only right that I now put forth my own thoughts on who will win in the big categories. In the event that I get these spectacularly wrong, you can expect another post tomorrow listing all my excuses. Or alternatively I'll just go back and edit this post to make it look like I had them right all along and hope that nobody looked at it first.

BEST FILM: A while back I'd have said that the most likely to cause an upset would be GOOD NIGHT, AND GOOD LUCK. Now, however, it seems that CRASH is enjoying a last minute burst of popularity so that could be the place to put your money if you fancy a flutter. However, the winner will be BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN.

BEST DIRECTOR: The late surge from CRASH will not, I believe, be enough to see Paul Haggis scoop the award so the most likely contender for an upset here would be George Clooney. Aside from the fact that he's made a cracking job of it, he does have a lot of friends in the Academy which could swing the vote in his favour. I think it's not outwith the realms of possibility that he could win this award, maybe even splitting the top two awards between two different films (this last happened in 2002). But I don't think this will happen and Ang Lee will walk off with this one.

BEST ACTOR: Heath Ledger has the BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN popularity on his side but given that he didn't pick up anything at the other major ceremonies it seems unlikely that he'll cause an upset here either. Joaquin Phoenix received many plaudits and a Golden Globe but I don't think he'll be following in Jamie Foxx's footsteps - this award will go to Philip Seymour Hoffman.

BEST ACTRESS: No point in even discussing this one. Reece Witherspoon wins.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS: This one's a little tougher. Will it be a consolation prize to a film that isn't going to win much else, or will it go to the big film that's going to scoop everything? If it's the latter then Michelle Williams , like Heath Ledger, has the BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN phenomenon on her side. The former, however, could well see Catherine Keener scoop one for CAPOTE - but I'm shirking them both. Rachel Weisz is my tip in this category.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR: This is a three-horse race. Gyllenhaal could be a contender for the very reasons I mentioned in the Supporting Actress category; Giamatti is a favourite not just as a consolation prize for CINDERELLA MAN but also due to his being snubbed for SIDEWAYS and AMERICAN SPLENDOUR; and Clooney has a variety of reasons on his side. For one, SYRIANA isn't nominated for much else; secondly, as mentioned already, he's popular within the community; and finally, he's looking unlikely to get either of the big awards for GOOD NIGHT, AND GOOD LUCK so this could be the Academy's consolation prize. On top of all that, he put on a lot of weight for the role and Hollywood loves people making themselves ugly. Charlize Theron was made when she turned herself from a stunning beauty to a pasty-faced boiler for MONSTER; Nicole Kidman had amassed a respectable body of work but it wasn't until someone slapped a prosthetic conk on her that she found herself on stage at the Kodak, weeping her ginger head off. So I think I'm going to go for George Clooney.

That's all the major categories but here's a few other predictions that I'll throw out anyway.

BEST FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM: After the fuss over which country it was from (Palestine or the Palestinian territories) I don't think we'll be seeing PARADISE NOW winning. Since I enjoyed it when it screened at Edinburgh last summer and it's picked up a lot of good reviews, I'm going to suggest South Africa's TSOTSI for this one.

BEST ANIMATED FEATURE: Britain's turn to win something. With the other two being too weird for the Academy, stand up WALLACE AND GROMIT: CURSE OF THE WERERABBIT.

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY: This one could be a consolation prize for any of four nominations, so I'm going to say none of them. Let's just include this one with the predicted BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN triumph.

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY: I think this would be nice if it went to SYRIANA or perhaps, as might well happen due to the success in the big categories of BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN, it will be Clooney's consolation prize for GOOD NIGHT, AND GOOD LUCK. I think it will be neither and Paul Haggis will collect it for CRASH.

BEST MUSIC (SCORE): Outside bet is John Williams for MEMOIRS OF A GEISHA, but I'm thinking more along the lines of BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN again.

BEST MUSIC (SONG): I don't know any of these songs. Let's just take a guess and say "In the Deep" from CRASH.

BEST DOCUMENTARY FEATURE: It looks like MARCH OF THE PENGUINS is as certain to win this one as BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN is to win Best Film. So I'm going to be different just for the sake of it and predict a win for the well-received MURDERBALL.

There are plenty of other more technical categories but I can't be bothered writing about them.

My final prediction is that the Lifetime Achievement Award will go to Robert Altman. Yes, I know it's already announced. I just wanted to include it anyway so that my ratio for successful predictions is slightly increased.

The Last of the Oscar Hopefuls

With the ceremony almost upon us I'd better throw out my thoughts on the remaining Oscar-nominated films I've checked out recently.

Despite the money THE CONSTANT GARDENER lost me (see my blog entry about the BAFTAs), I cast my bitterness aside and shelled out some more cash, this time to actually go and see the film. It's actually an entertaining thriller with a distinctive visual look, using a lot of saturated and bleached colours during the African-shot scenes and getting noticably darker as Ralph Fiennes descends deeper into grief and anger following the murder of his wife (Rachel Weisz - and no, I've not spoiled it for you, she's killed in the opening few minutes then appears through flashbacks for the rest of the film).

This look is not surprising since the director, Fernando Meirelles, already employed it on his breakthrough South American hit CITY OF GOD. Unfortunately the handheld camera and hyperactive editing that worked so well on that street gang drama gets quite annoying in places on THE CONSTANT GARDENER, whose slow-burning script required a more restrained visual approach.

As well as being a murder thriller, the film is also an indictment of the dodgy practices of big business. In that respect however, it can't hold a candle to SYRIANA.

Although most of the publicity for SYRIANA stems from George Clooney's Supporting Actor nomination, I personally thought this film merited an appearance on the shortlist for Best Film - of the five nominees in this category I'd say SYRIANA is better than at least two of them.

The script is a sharp and insightful look at everything from the oil crisis to the Middle East situation, from corruption and corporations to dodgy US foreign policy. It might not make for comfortable viewing in some of the upper echelons of US society but it's a gripping and intelligent thriller of the kind that is all too rare these days.

Clooney's nomination might seem odd in that he gets a nod in a support category despite being the main name in the movie but this is a reflection of the film's ensemble approach. Several different stories are being told using several different actors (all of whom do a fine job), with no one character taking the spotlight. It is not until about halfway through that the various plots begin to thread together and weave into some kind of payoff.

CAPOTE, for me, is the weakest of the five Best Picture nominees. That's not to say it isn't a good film (it is) but I don't think it's as special as the hype would have us believe and I had a great deal of difficulty in feeling sympathy for anyone in the film. Truman Capote appears to be a man willing to lie to and manipulate an emotionally vulnerable person (a death row inmate) in order to write a good book and indeed seems almost desperate for the man to be executed so that his book will have an ending. Catherine Keener received an Oscar nomination for her role as Harper Lee in the movie but she has very little material to work with and the nomination comes as a surprise to me. Philip Seymour Hoffman on the other hand does put in a performance every bit as strong as has been reported and is favourite to lift the award.

Finally, the Johnny Cash biopic WALK THE LINE. This is similar in many ways to last year's RAY - they are similar in tone, both concern a musical legend, both feature fine performances from their leading men and even some of the story elements are similar (musical breakthrough, brushes with the law, drug addiction, marital strife, "the devil's music", etc.). This is the superior film of the two, but ironically the lead, Joaquin Phoenix, is a lot less likely to receive the Best Actor award than last year's dead cert Jamie Foxx. Nevertheless he and Reece Witherspoon both put in star turns that include remarkable musical performances as well as the emotional baggage.

The recognition for the cast of CAPOTE and WALK THE LINE among others does continue the trend in recent years of the Academy blurring the line between a good performance and a good impersonation. I'm not suggesting that Phoenix, Witherspoon, Hoffman or any previous recipients are not worthy of awards - but it does make me think that if the UK industry is determined to achieve big success at the Oscars then they should stop supporting films like THE CONSTANT GARDENER and instead pour their money into financing big screen outings for people like Alistair McGowan and Rory Bremner. Sure, the films would be crap, but just watch them clean up in the acting categories.

Final Destination 3: Return of the Lazy Screenwriting

I'm beginning to get sick of the internet.

Before you point out the hilarious irony of me voicing this online, let me assure you this is not a blanket hatred of all the internet stands for - I, as much as anyone, fully appreciate that it brings people closer together, provides a means of picking up cheap consumer goods and of course gives us the means to see all the naked people we could ever want to see. My rant, you'll not be surprised to learn, is purely film-related.

A few days ago I saw FINAL DESTINATION 3, which (with the exception of one World Trade Centre reference that I found to be in poor taste) I enjoyed a lot. Sure, it sticks rigidly to an established formula but that's not a problem to me - after all, I love watching Italian westerns from the 60s and 70s despite the fact that in over 500 films they only came up with about three different storylines. Basically, if you didn't like the first two, you'll not like this one; if you did like the first two then you've already seen this one (it really is that similar) but at least you can go along and have a laugh at all the OTT gruesome deaths. A very enjoyable hour and half despite its flaws.

The reason the worldwide web is feeling my wrath is down to teen horror films like this. After the opening scenes in which our hapless youngsters escape a terror crash on a rollercoaster, one young chap has barely watched the dust settle before he's telling another youngster that he looked up the internet and found out about similar incidents before, in which youngsters escaped death only to be picked off one by one, blah blah blah, recap of the first two films, etc. This is before any of the survivors have even been killed.

Am I the only one who thinks this is odd? Imagine for a second you're a teenager and you've just witnessed several of your friends die in a hideous rollercoaster accident. Answer me this: how do you react?

(A) Get very upset but eventually accept that it was a horrible tragedy.
(B) Go home and look up the internet for any other incidents where groups of schoolkids have died just in case the Grim Reaper is going to take revenge.

If you answered (A), well done, you're quite normal and are probably as baffled as me by this character's actions. If you answered (B) you're a complete mental-case and I question how you've gained access to a computer since you should clearly be living in a room made of rubber.

That little outburst aside, my real justification for WWW-bashing is this. Have you ever tried searching the web for some obscure piece of information? You'll find a few pages of advertisers selling something vaguely related; probably several dodgy "adult" sites; a bunch of links that are long out of date and don't work anymore; and maybe a page that might help you, but probably not.

This law of surfing doesn't apply in the land of the modern horror film though. Now, apparently, you can type in two words and the very first link you receive will immediately take you to a site that tells you every single detail you need to know about whatever you're investigating. If this is taking place in a horror movie sequel, you've probably just found a site that conveniently recaps the previous movies - "Hey, it says here that ten years ago this very night a serial killer escaped from blah blah blah, only one survivor and they're in an institution, etc."

This just seems like laziness on the part of the screenwriter and robs us of any need for the characters to actually do any work, or for us to receive any dramatic revelations from that dodgy old guy who's been lurking around in the background for most of the film waiting to take centre stage.

And that's why I'm getting sick of the internet. I'm just thankful that not every horror film takes this approach or we'd get some movies that would fall on their arse very quickly. Presenting, for example, THE SIXTH SENSE as a "teen horror" screenwriter would present it:

THE SIXTH SENSE

DR CROWE: "Hey Cole, what's wrong?"

COLE: "I see dead people."

COLE'S MUM: "Hey, I just looked you up on the internet and apparently you got shot and killed ages ago."

DR CROWE: "Oh, bollocks." [disappears]

THE END