In which the Lord of the Rings doesn't win twice

Captain's log: 17 February
Last movie watched: Sleeping With the Enemy (never has tinned food been so creepy)
Song currently stuck in head: An awesome reggae version of "Knocking on Heaven's Door"

Currently plastered, barnacle-like, in front of the heater and thinking healthy, healthy thoughts. All I want to do when I'm feeling like this is drink hot chocolate and sit in front of some source of heat.

But I'm here now, and it's time to talk about the awards for Best Actor and Best Actress. Quite often given not given to the person I think should win, and so shall it be this year, when I'm dying for Frank Langella to pull off a coup for Frost/Nixon, and they'll give it to Mickey Rourke, probably. (He does give a good speech, though, if his BAFTA one is anything to go by.) As for Best Actress, I suspect Winslet will get it for The Reader, which I'm ok with, because I love Kate Winslet, and although I haven't seen this one, she's usually pretty awesome. Also, I kind of want to see if she mentions Ricky Gervais. (See season 1 of extras)

Now it's sort of timely that the first movie up is Gladiator, winner 2000. Timely because here is the best case you're going to come across of the Best Actor award being given to someone who really has done better (see how polite I'm being?). It's Russell Crowe, whose off-screen antics make it difficult to see as a decent actor, but he is. But clearly the Oscars are not consulting me on matters like this, so all I can do is complain on blogs like this. Now what about this movie. It's ok, I guess, but in my opinion it was a pretty thin-on-the-ground year. Although I can't vouch for Quills, since I left part-way through it (let's just say it is not a film to see with your grandmother). Anyway, back to Gladiator. This might explain a lot of what I just don't warm to about this film:

"Nicholson, the third and final screenwriter, says Crowe told him, “Your lines are garbage but I’m the greatest actor in the world, and I can make even garbage sound good.” "

It's Ridley Scott, too, because I've never really felt he was a "heart" director. But for those of you who have missed this one, it's about a Roman general who royally pisses off the crazy son of emperor, and then pays the price by getting captured into slavery and eventually drafted into "working" as a Gladiator in the Colosseum. Battles ensue, with a musical cue which would later become the theme to Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl. Although it never seems to be acknowledged formally. But as they're both done by Hans Zimmer, I suppose he has the right to plagiarise his own stuff.


Crowe (sorry, The Greatest Actor In The World) was back the next year in 2001's A Beautiful Mind. There's a lot I like about this film, but I would've given the award to one of two others: Gosford Park, or Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring. Yeah, I said it! But the movie. It's about mathematician John Nash, who developed highly influential works in game theory. It's about his descent into mental illness, and his struggle to re-enter the world of mathematics. It's about his wife and how she stood by him. (This, incidentally, is pretty fictitious, since they divorced in 1963, but remained friends from 1970 onwards.) It's a nice take on the theme of courage and love, and Ron Howard has always seemed to me to be a person interested in theme and heart than harsh reality. As for trivia, there are a lot of things I could comment on here. Like the fact that Paul Bettany (who I actually quite like) was cast solely due to his performance in A Knight's Tale. I'm sorry, but formation boy-band dancing in vaguely medieval dress is not what I call a great feat of artistry. The best things about this film are the lead performances, from Crowe and Jennifer Connelly. Connelly won the Supporting Actress Oscar, Crowe, who shouldn't have won the year before, lost this year to Denzel Washington. Swings and roundabouts.

The year 2002, Lord of the Rings Doesn't Win Again. I can let this go a little easier, I suppose, because Chicago, 2002's winner, is a lot of fun. Renee Zellweger and her disappearing eyes notwithstanding (seriously: look at her in Jerry Maguire and then look at her now). And I've got nothing against giving awards to films that are fun. It's certainly the polar opposite of The Pianist. So what's it about? It's based on the musical, about two murderesses trying to play the publicity game to get themselves out of a death sentence. Catherine Zeta-Jones's performance is best described by the words "brassy" and "awesome", and she and Richard Gere (who knew he could sing and dance?) steal the show, and Gere's tap-dance is my favourite part of it. Unless it's the touching rendition of "Mr Cellophane" by John C. Reilly. It's got so much vigour and so many great sets and ideas for choreography. It's just really good fun.

Oh yes, boys and girls. Today's lesson is: "Fun is good."

Only a couple more oblogs to go!

"They'd love you a lot more if you were hanged. You know why? Because it would sell more papers. That's Chicago."
--- Richard Gere - Chicago ---