Some recent movies I've seen

Man, my blog titles are really dull these days, aren't they? Anyway... as long as we're in awards season I guess it's my duty to see as many of the contenders as possible. So here they are. Apologies if you surfed in expecting me to talk about some film you've never heard of - I know, I'm such a populist sell-out. Never mind, I'll go back to obscurities soon - I recently watched a spaghetti western based on Hamlet, how great is that? - but for the meantime, here's some stuff that's currently showing at your local cinema. Or should be, unless your local cinema is as pish as mine.

When director Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu first teamed up with screenwriter Guillermo Arriaga, the result was AMORES PERROS. This Mexican film took a bunch of different characters and different stories set around the same few incidents, telling different stories that gradually all folded in on themselves, interconnecting in subtle ways while being told through a chronologically chopped up narrative that all makes sense in the end. The film was a breakthrough triumph and launched Gael Garcia Bernal on the road to stardom.

Their second collaboration, 21 GRAMS, took a bunch of different characters and different stories set around the same few incidents, telling different stories that gradually all folded in on themselves, interconnecting in subtle ways while being told through a chronologically chopped up narrative that all makes sense in the end. There was no shortage of praise for the performances of the cast (including Benicio Del Toro, Sean Penn and Naomi Watts).

Their third collaboration is BABEL - can you guess what format it follows?

Yep, that's correct. This time, the token stars are Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett and neither of them turns in their best work. When 21 GRAMS was released, opinion was divided over whether the screenplay was a work of genius or just a fairly average story that was told out of sequence for no other reason than to be clever. Unfortunately, BABEL falls into the same trap and begins to point to the Arriaga/Inarritu partnership as a one-trick pony.

I've no qualms about Inarritu picking up nominations for his directing, as he's proven to be very adept at it, including his work on BABEL. I'm a little more cynical however when it comes to the screenplay since, as mentioned above, it once more follows the how-clever-am-I approach employed in both their previous collaborations and I think it's time they got a new gimmick.

I was also pleased that neither Pitt nor Blanchett were nominated for their acting because to be totally honest it just looked like the parts had been engineered for a couple of stars to try their hand at earnest, worthy movies in a bid for Oscar glory. The real acting talent on display comes from the minor characters of varying nationalities (an incident involving Pitt and Blanchett kicks off three related stories in Morocco, Japan and Mexico) so I'm pleased that a couple of them have been nominated.

My cynicism is not meant to suggest it's not a good film. Actually, it is. It's just a bit pretentious in places and feels like it's been made with Academy voters in mind rather than paying audiences. Once more it's a case of taking an average story and chopping it into pieces and scattering them about until it all comes together and the audience declares it a masterpiece. But a masterpiece it certainly isn't, and the main reason is that the story involving the two big-name stars detracts from the other stories, where the real talent shines through.

VENUS on the other hand may be a lesser film but offers up a master class in acting from the legendary Peter O'Toole, securing him a Best Actor nomination (to go with the several others he's received without winning). He is ably supported by the likes of Leslie Phillips, Vanessa Redgrave, Richard Griffiths and newcomer Jodie Whittaker.

The story is a small scale, intimate affair, in which O'Toole and Phillips spend their days going to the theatre, drinking and doing stuff that old people do. When Phillips has his niece's daughter (Whittaker) arrive to look after him, there follows a touching tale of posh old actor falling for a rough northern lass young enough to be his grandchild, each of whom introduces the other one to strange new joys. He takes her to the theatre and to art galleries; she introduces him to nightclubs and Bacardi Breezers. It's chav meets dirty old man, and it's both romantic and funny.

O'Toole steals the show with his performance (though the rest of the cast are all very good) and in my humble opinion truly deserves a win for this. I don't expect him to beat Forest Whitaker, but if there's any justice he will. It's not that I don't think Whitaker's performance is good, but it's very showy and once again panders to the Academy's love of a good impersonation - O'Toole's on the other hand offers far more emotional depth, while still managing the odd bit of physical slapstick in a manner more suited to someone half his age.

BORAT has managed to secure itself a nomination for adapted screenplay. I won't go into the details of the story, such as it is, because you've probably already heard about this movie anyway, but I'm amazed at its nomination. For one thing, the Academy doesn't generally like comedies and for another, it's not as hilarious as I'd been lead to believe.

It's true that there is some hilarious humour in it; but the problem is that with some of it being staged and some of it more natural there are moments where you find yourself wondering which is which. Some scenes would be hilarious if they'd occurred naturally, but don't seem so special if they've been scripted - so how do you know when to laugh?

The other problem is the humour itself. Infamously controversial, the humour has been accused of being in bad taste, while the standard response is that it's not racist or bigoted but makes fun of those who are. That defence stands firm for some moments, as Borat (Sacha Baron Cohen) invites various Americans to air their ridiculous beliefs on screen but one problem with this approach is that you can tell some scenes have been selectively edited to make it look more incriminating, while there are other incidents in the film that are clearly put in for a cheap laugh with no intention of exploiting other people's prejudices - that's fine if like me you laugh at all manner of offensive things, but if you actually have morals then it could be more a problem... unless of course they're saying that if we, the audience, laugh at it then we're all racists and bigots. And accusations like that are not what I go to the cinema for.

Just time to mention a couple that weren't nominated...

INFAMOUS really missed the boat, thanks to last year's CAPOTE beating it to the cinemas. Toby Jones turns in a performance that is the equal of Hoffman's award winner from last year, but the starry cast are mainly given nothing to do, and those who are given more do nothing with it. It also suffers from an uneven tone, with more emphasis on the camp nature of Capote's character and a tired interview format framing the story. What's strangest of all is that the poster, knowing full well that we've all seen the story of "In Cold Blood" already thanks to last year's film, has the tagline "There's more to the story than you know." If that's the case, this film doesn't tell us it.

More impressive is Paul Verhoeven's return to his native Dutch language and his tale of the Dutch resistance in World War II, BLACK BOOK. Carice Van Houten deserves praise for a superb performance that anchors the film (indeed, she appears to be almost permanently on screen) and an Oscar nomination wouldn't have been unmerited. If there was one drawback, it's that once she dyes her hair blonde to disguise her Jewish roots (and I mean all her hair - this is a Paul Verhoeven film after all) she bears an uncanny resemblance to one of Christina Aguilera's recent incarnations.

It's astounding that this film hasn't been nominated in the foreign language category - it's worthy and serious enough to be a contender and yet, at the same time, it's full of the bombastic spectacle we've come to expect from the man who gave us ROBOCOP, STARSHIP TROOPERS and TOTAL RECALL. There's all the blood and nudity, sex and violence, debauchery and gore that you'd expect, while still being a solid thriller and an intriguing look at a dark period of recent history. Maybe not enough of the Academy had seen it; or maybe they were just wary about giving an Oscar to a guy who gave us SHOWGIRLS. Whatever their reasons, they're wrong.

Next week I should be looking at a few more acting nominations as I intend to check out BLOOD DIAMOND and NOTES ON A SCANDAL. Oh yeah, and BOBBY as well, though that one doesn't seem to have impressed the Academy as it has the various other award nominations.

Come back soon!