Will someone please save these people from themselves!

Contrary to many initial impressions, including mine, The Queen isn't yet another Victorian costume drama. The subject matter is British royalty, but of a modern variety, focusing on the reactions of the the monarchy and newly elected Prime Minister Tony Blair to the death of erstwhile princess Diana.

Though perhaps even more intriguing to the British, or at least to those with a better understanding of British politics, Queen will be of at least passing interest to most anyone, even Americans who don't have a true understanding of Britain's long-standing concept of royalty. This is due to such a wide chasm in reality between the monarchy and the public, so vast that one can't help being fascinated by people who share the same planet but live in a different world.

For her portrayal of Queen Elizabeth II, Helen Mirren is deservedly a virtual lock to take home the Best Actress Oscar this year. After she has been on screen for only a few seconds, one already has a good sense of the queen's character. With an icy phrase, an incisive glance, or a dismissive smirk she evokes a precise persona of entitlement, which serves as a primary point of the entire film. Her foil, Tony Blair, is played with appropriate aplomb by Michael Sheen. As a fresh-faced idealist, Sheen quietly provides an exasperated combination of politician and subject that was desperately needed during that time of strife.

Though up for Best Picture because it's the stiff and pretentious sort of movie to which the Academy always gives a nod (see: The Hours, Elizabeth, etc.), The Queen has no chance to win (nor should it) because almost nothing about it is great in any way. There is very little noteworthy from a technical standpoint, whether it be the cinematography, editing, or music. (How it was nominated for Best Original Score I have no idea.) The psychological aspects of the script are the quite interesting, but outside of the performances of Mirren and Sheen, everything could be replicated fairly easily in a moderately well made television movie. Check out the DVD (April 24th) if you're interested, because this Queen needn't be seen on the big screen.

Bottom Line: Mirren and Sheen are really good. The movie is just okay. 7 of 10.

Super Bowl, Super Bears...or not.

A few random Super Bowl thoughts...

--Devin Hester returning the opening kickoff was as electrifying a sports moment as I remember in a long time.

--Not a bad game overall. It's a shame that Grossman couldn't make the one big play he needed to in order to win.

--My favorite ad was the Budweiser ad with the crabs worshipping the cooler. Since it played in the fourth quarter, it caught me off guard, but was start-to-finish the best commercial of the day.

--Runners-up: The Blockbuster commercial with the real mouse; Are you sure clicking this thing will get us online? The GM spot with the fired robot was clever, as was the Taco Bell lions ad in which one couldn't trill "carne" correctly. The Budweiser dalmatian one was good too, but a bit too drawn out.

--The NFL promo with all the fans reluctantly wrapping up their season was perfect, nailing the sentiments any real NFL fan experiences after another year of football.

--Worst ad: The Snickers commercial with the kissing mechanics who then proceed to rip off their own chest hair. That was repulsive on several levels.

--Here is USA Today's annual AdMeter, where the test panel actually got it right for once.

--Let's face it, the glory days of Super Bowl commericals are past. Just generating a grin or a chuckle is considered a success now.

--Next year is the Dolphins' year.

Too early for flapjacks?

Not much substantive here. On this February 2nd, I just wanted to point out that I have a picture of myself with a stuffed groundhog.

And remember, I've only read the first four Harry Potter books. I'll read #5 shortly before the movie comes out, and I may read #6 between the movie and the next week's release of book #7. I think it may be too difficult to remain ignorant of what happens until the sixth and seventh movies are finally made. As I think about it, I'm surprised I've made it this far without having anything spoiled. I'd like to thank all those I've annoyed for abetting and enduring my willing ignorance.

And the winner is...

The 2006 Oscar nominations were announced today, at the usual ridiculous hour of 5:30 AM Pacific time. Unfortunately the Academy forgot to announce that they were switching hosts, so we're still stuck with Ellen Degenerate for the show on Sunday, February 25th. Here's the complete list of nominations, and here are a few initial reactions...

--I'm fairly shocked (SHOCKED, I say!) that Dreamgirls wasn't nominated for Best Picture. Not that I've seen it, but it seemed to be one of the favorites to win, and not even a chance, even though it had the most nods overall. Wow.

--Even though I haven't seen it yet (stupid Topeka), I'm rooting for Letters from Iwo Jima to win everything it can. I also hope to see The Queen before the ceremony, but probably won't make it to Babel. There always seems to be one Best Picture nominee that I don't see and/or am not interested in.

--Cheers for Alan Arkin and Abigail Breslin getting supporting nominations from Little Miss Sunshine. Just about any member of the movie's family was worthy of such an honor.

--Disappointed that United 93 (editing and directing) and Flags of Our Fathers (sound editing and sound mixing) didn't get more nominations.

--No big noms (film, director, actor) for Children of Men. BOOOOOOOOOOO!

--Pirates 2 got four nominations, all technical of course. It would be worthy of the Visual Effects award, but if it wins any, would it be the worst movie ever to win an Oscar?

--Click was nominated for Best Makeup? Admittedly I haven't seen it, but HUH?

--That's weird. Randy Newman was nominated for Best Song. I think that's nod number thirteen, with one win.

--In case you're wondering (and I'm sure you are), I'll post my Best of 2006 awards the week after the Oscars.

Maybe more later...

Wake me up when there's a fight.

I don't have much to say about Curse of the Golden Flower, the latest Chinese movie to be widely released (inflicted?) upon American moviegoers. It's directed by Yimou Zhang, the same guy who helmed Hero (good) and House of Flying Daggers (or as I like to call it, House of Flying Melodrama), so I wasn't expecting much from it. I probably could have written my six word review without even seeing it: Pretty colors; cool fights; lame script. Maybe thirty minutes of the nearly two hours are worth seeing. Most of that is a few fights; the rest is mere soap operatic filler. Meh.

I fully admit to not knowing much about Chinese cinema, and I don't have much of a desire to learn more. But I do wonder what the bad movies over there are like considering that the "good ones" like this are what gets imported. Perhaps something gets lost in the translated subtitles, because the lines in most all Chinese movies seem rather cheesy. Perhaps there are vast cultural differences in how China and the USA produce and/or approach movies. Maybe one needs a better understanding of Chinese history to appreciate them. Whatever it may be, the imported films always seem to be pounding on the grand themes they possess, but rarely do they actually deliver. Even Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon wasn't that great; it just rode a well-timed wave of momentum to four Oscars.

Bottom Line: I wasn't expecting much, and that's what I got. 4 of 10.

On a more positive note, I'm juiced that Clint Eastwood's Golden Globe-winning Letters from Iwo Jima comes to town this weekend. BUT THERE'S NO LATE SHOW. Topeka blows.

What a day.

Occasionally a film comes along that is so good and so well done that one scarcely appreciates it. All aspects are virtually flawless, to the point that the lack of negatives almost detracts from the positives because of the abscence of contrast. Last year, Capote and Downfall fit that bill as good movies that got even better the more you thought about them. 2006's winner in that category is Alfonso Cuaron's Children of Men. (Go ahead; someone mention The Prestige.)

Though it has a old-fashioned, almost primal feel, Children of Men occurs in a not unfamiliar future. The year is 2027, almost two decades after two things have swept the planet: infertility and violence. Because of the latter, Britain is now isolating itself to the extreme, forcing all immigrants out of the country or into refugee camps. Amidst this chaos resides Clive Owen in his mundane existence as a typical office worker at the Ministry of Energy. Of course his life soon takes a drastic turn, which leads to the intriguing main thrust of the film.

Cuaron's future is not awash in technology like Minority Report. Nor is it as desolate as Mad Max. The best comparison is probably something in between such as Blade Runner, which portrays a world as more advanced in a technical manner, but one that has harshly regressed emotionally, socially, and politically. Cuaron's work is much more plausible though; one intentionally unexplained leap aside, the movie is much more grounded and less farfetched. As he did with Prisoner of Azkaban, Cuaron establishes the mentality of the film with remarkable efficiency. Scant seconds into the film, one has a solid grasp of his future's funereal nature, due to key opening shots, glances, and words. This deft ability to create mood is part of what makes Children is the most impressively crafted picture of last year.

While the bleak art design contributes heavily to the film's success, the lengthy single-take shots are what make Children unique. M. Night Shyamalan uses one-take scenes better and more consistently than any other director I know, but at least for this movie, Cuaron usurps his throne. The difference is that the camera in most of Night's shots is largely static during quieter, simple scenes; Cuaron does the same, but also moves his lens over miles of turf during complex action sequences, creating relatively eternal shots that literally caused my head to shake and jaw to drop in stunned disbelief. In a lesser movie, the extreme continuity might be a stunt, but the timing and pace of the (apparently) unbroken shots are executed so immaculately that any other possible way of making the movie seems amateurishly subpar.

As the plot veers through its series of chaotic events, Clive Owen's grim determination holds the film together with help of a strong supporting cast. He is the everyman the viewer latches onto as both proceed through parts unknown. Appreciably understated as he often is, Owen allows the intensity of rest of the cast, including Julianne Moore, Michael Caine, and Chiwetel Ejiofore, to shine while he and his character subtly ease through the movie. Owen's steady drive is what propels the film even though his Theo doesn't always possess the necessary motivation. Political overtones aside, if Children has a weakness, that is where it lies: a few points of plot and character are underdeveloped or ignored. Most are MacGuffin-esque enough that they don't truly matter, but the handful of unexplored plot devices do distract a wee bit from an otherwise fantastic film.

Children of Men is the polar opposite of so much depressing, minimalist art house fare. Instead the end result is a superb and brilliantly executed blend of drama and action, with plenty of emotional moral issues mixed in to attract the mind and heart as well. Recommended to anyone who appreciates quality cinema, even if you're not one who often sees independent films of this ilk.

Bottom Line: One of the best movies of 2006. 9 of 10. I'm going there, hesitantly.

(Side note: if you're planning to see the film, but haven't viewed the trailer, then don't watch the trailer.)

The world ain't all sunshine and rainbows.

Did you ever wonder what happens to cinematic heroes when they grow old? When exactly does Superman hang up his cape? What does Indiana Jones do when there are no more historical artifacts to retrieve? How does Luke Skywalker live out his last days? Those questions may never be answered on screen, but thanks to Rocky Balboa, everyone can know (for better and worse) what happens to the titular superstar boxer during the tail end of his life. (Audio review here.)

This sixth Rocky movie no doubt intentionally avoided the label Rocky 6 after the disastrous last chapter, which never really happened in the mind of any true Rocky fan. Balboa picks up about two decades later, as Rocky is struggling with life after boxing and after Adrian, his now deceased wife. In his attempt to fill the void in his life, he eventually of course he gets the urge to step back into the ring.

The build to that inevitable showdown doesn't make for a very good movie on its own merits. The first hour is often slow and borderline uninteresting, and would have been worse were it not for the various references to previous installments via familiar music cues, returning characters, and flashbacks. If you haven't seen the first four, you might lose interest because you'll be oblivious to many decent minutia. In fact to someone who knew only the mystique of Rocky, this movie could almost serve as a self-parody. Would-be motivational speeches barely carry a pulse; tender relational moments are just awkward; and supposedly sensitive interactions merely induce shrugs.

The final portion of the movie though is by far the best. A few minutes of introduction followed by the mandatory training montage and fight are all that is really necessary for the whole picture, which serves as an epilogue (eulogy?) for the rest of the series. These good parts induce smiles and cheers because they call to mind great scenes from past Rockys and remain faithful to the determined underdog spirit of the original. With a more melancholy score that sets the tone for the rest of the movie, Balboa isn't as emotionally charged as Remember the Titans, or as dramatic as Hoosiers, but it's still decent fun because it puts the finishing touches on the greatest cinematic sports series ever.

Bottom Line: This isn't a great movie by any stretch, but Rocky is still a movie icon, and if you're a fan, you won't regret seeing Rocky Balboa. 6 of 10 for Rocky fans; 5 of 10 or less for anyone else.