Best Actor, 2003

When Sean Penn won Best Actor in 2003, it was the first and, to my memory, the only time I’d ever seen the host himself apologize to one of the other nominees. That’s because while Penn’s victory wasn’t a total shock - there was a late surge of support for him and the film - conventional wisdom at the time had Bill Murray as the inevitable winner. Both Penn and Murray won Golden Globes, but Murray had also been crowned by the New York critics, the LA critics, the Indie Spirits, and BAFTA, an actual industry group! The only other nominee to be honored by people who’d actually vote for the Oscars was Johnny Depp at the SAG Awards, and many felt the nomination was the win for him. Murray was a beloved comedy icon who many agreed probably just missed on a Supporting Actor nomination for Rushmore, it seemed inevitable that the Academy would reward him and his career. For once, the inevitable did not occur:

Here are the performances, ranked from 5th to 1st:

It Came True: Murder on the Orient Express, 2017

The day has finally come! I have seen a brand new Agatha Christie movie in the theater! Did it do the Queen of Crime justice? How did it compare to the many other versions we've watched and discussed? Was it any good? My dears, it's the exciting conclusion of Murder on the Orient Express week!

Murder on the Orient Express (2017)

dir: Kenneth Branagh

Briefly

The Tourist is well-made. It is also instantly forgettable. Meh.

Burton's Blunderland

As far as movie go, the new Alice in Wonderland is about as lifeless as the decapitated heads in the Red Queen's moat.

Now, I'm sorry that I had to spoil that visual, because it's one of the only truly remarkable things about this lazy adaptation of/sequel to Lewis Carroll's popular children's books. While I understand that the source material is but a series of vignettes, this didn't stop Disney from making two -- TWO -- remarkable adaptations. One is the famous cartoon, of course, while the other is the made-for-TV movie with Tina Majorino and Martin Short. I guess the third time is not the charm.

Tim Burton is one of my favorite directors. From "Vincent" to Sleepy Hollow, and everything in between, I thought he could do no wrong. Then of course came Planet of the Apes, which I realized wasn't very good, but which kept me entertained throughout most of it. (Tim Roth's performance helped, of course, and I still feel that he was snubbed for a Supporting Actor nod) But next was Big Fish, which I think is only second to Edward Scissorhands in the director's oeuvre. It wasn't until the beautiful but clearly rushed Corpse Bride that I began to worry. I loved it, but I wished the movie had been fleshed out some more. Then came Sweeney Todd, an adaptation of one of my favorite musicals. Perhaps my expectations were too high, but I couldn't help but feel a little let down. Depp and Bonham-Carter were great, and the material is perfect for Burton...but I couldn't help being a little disappointed. Maybe if he had gotten, you know, singers...

And now there's Alice, which is the last straw. Paycheck grabs are all well and good, but shouldn't this, too, be in Burton's territory? Isn't he the obvious choice for an adaptation of Alice? Why is this so lifeless?

Perhaps the obviousness of the choice is part of the problem. I've seen the lawn figures, the creepy trees, the Colleen Atwood costumes, the Depp/Bonham-Carter pairing...been there, done that. But it really seems to be the only thing Burton wants. Every scene seems like it's just marking time until we can get back to The Red Queen or The Mad Hatter. The worst offense comes at the beginning, before Wonderland, when Alice is at a garden party outside London and meets all these characters who she'll have to FINALLY CONFRONT in the end. Yet these characters remain ciphers. I have no idea who Alice's sister Margaret is until she speaks to her at the end, yet she is constantly referenced. Actually, I don't even care.

The reviews I've been reading seem to praise Mia Wasikowska's performance as Alice. What what WHAAAAT? She's got a pretty face and a nice smile, but Mia's Alice is so apathetic and lifeless, it's no wonder I can't get into the story. I find her Alice obnoxious and difficult to identify with. Her line readings are insincere, though the script certainly doesn't help by flatlining her character arc. I mean, if one is going to make the Alice story into an actual story, shouldn't they try some dramatic tension, character development, a sequence of events that makes sense? Why, when the Mad Hatter starts a rebellion in the middle of the Red Queen's court, do the Queen, her knight, and the soldier cards just sit there, watching. It's like they're just waiting for their next line.

Which is odd, because generally speaking, Helena Bonham-Carter and Crispin Glover are the only things of note in this film. Certainly not Depp, whose "madness" amounts to sometimes doing a Scottish accent. Why? Because it's mad! Or...maybe it's because Johnny likes to do accents and his bff Tim doesn't know how to say no? That seems more likely. And after the haunting John Dillinger in Public Enemies, which is my favorite Depp performance, this same "bag of tricks" approach to the Mad Hatter is more than irritating, it's disappointing. Meanwhile, Bonham-Carter and Glover are actually playing mad characters, and doing so in such a natural manner that you completely buy into it. It's a shame we're supposed to root against the Red Queen, because Bonham-Carter actually brings some depth and sympathy to the role.

It reminds me of The Devil Wears Prada. Meryl's got all her people in the conference room, and the chick from Lost mentions doing something about flowers for the Spring issue. Meryl says dismissively, "Florals? For spring? Ground breaking." Then in comes Stanley Tucci, and he's already done the work he should do, to which she replies, "Thank God somebody came to work today." That's what this is like. We've seen these parlor tricks before, but it means nothing, it's unoriginal, it's dull. Christopher Lee cameo? In a Tim Burton film? Groundbreaking. Thank God Helena Bonham-Carter came to work today.

Public Enemies

I can no longer keep silent about it. I was waiting for a third go-round before I wrote about it, but alas, that will probably never happen (in theatres, I mean). So, while I still have the desire, it is time to finally tell the world what I think.

Public Enemies effing rocks.

You probably figured that my sentiments were somewhere along those lines when you saw my Current Top Ten on the sidebar (updated monthly). But I cannot even stress to you how in love with this movie I am. Perhaps the evidence of my two ticket purchases within three days will be enough to convince you that this is a true must-see, a theatrical event that deserves to be known as one of the best films from the first half of 2009.

But people! Good people of the Silver Screening Room, let me warn you in advance that this is no popcorn movie. This is no shoot 'em up, close-calls, cat-and-mouse thriller. This is a deliberately-paced character study centering around John Dillinger.

It's a difficult role to pull of, certainly -- a sociopath that offers his coat to a bank clerk, a killer who sheds tears over his lady love. Johnny Depp's portrayal of this most infamous of criminals reminds me of a line from Jesus Christ Superstar: "He had that look you very rarely find/The haunting, hunted kind." And you can see it in Depp's eyes, even when Dillinger is reassuring Billie Frechette that no one can catch him. It's astounding what a mere tilt of the mouth or shift of the eyes can accomplish. And many will cry foul when I say this (most of my friends already have), but I think Dillinger is perhaps Depp's most accomplished role to date. It's certainly my favorite so far.

Of course, Depp has an astounding supporting cast to work with. Marion Cotillard is tops as Billie Frechette, Dillinger's main squeeze. Her accent only gets dicey in one scene, but as it's an absorbing interrogation scene that is at once appalling and masterfully done, it can be forgiven. Stephen Graham's Baby Face Nelson is a true force of nature -- he literally breezes in, fucks shit up, and is out before you know what hit you -- while Stephen Lang's veteran lawman-turned-FBI agent is awesome. If you want a match for Dillinger, look no further. Forget Christian Bale's stiff, embarrassing, forgettable Melvin Purvis (the film's only stumbling point, a disappointment from an actor I've long admired but seems determined this year to be unlikable); Lang's Charles Winstead is the real hero. Billy Crudup (J. Edgar Hoover), Jason Clarke (Dillinger's right-hand man), Branka Katic (the madam/Judas), and Peter Gerety (Dillinger's lawyer) all give brief but memorable turns (Katic and Clarke in particular).

Technically, I like it. The production design avoids gaudiness. Dante Spinotti's cinematography feels lived-in, real, has a "you're there" quality to it. Academy Award Winner Colleen Atwood strikes another homerun with the costumes, and for the first time I felt myself being more impressed with the men's clothes than with the women's 9surely that's how most people judge these, right?). And the sound, though muffled, worked for me. I liked how imperfect it was -- it gave a more documentary feel to the proceedings. And Elliot Goldenthal's score is perfect, appropriately reminiscent of the films of the time. Such a style should be more intrusive and bombastic, one would think, but damn if he doesn't make it work.

What Michael Mann has accomplished here is beauty. It does for gangster films what The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford did for Westerns, what Zodiac did for procedural thrillers. It takes an established genre and makes an elegiac, meditative masterpiece out of the conventions. Inspired.