The Hot Blog

Heat; your Atonement review may have opened you up for some consternation come Award season. Primal forces, man. Primal forces.

In reference to the tracking shot Dave, according to an interview Joe Wright did a month ago, the original script had much more extensive Dunkirk scenes (as does the book) but Working Title would not pay for them, so Wright had one opportunity to condense that in a more cost effective way. Given those constraints, it is a pretty marvellous shot. Otherwise, I feel much more passionate about the film then you do. I think it definitly has the makings for a big Oscar run and Wright has officially become one of the best young directors working today

DP - I'm only mentioning this because we were sitting right behind you and Rex at the LARS screening and I was going to introduce myself after the film ended. But then you up and bail on the sweet little flick after 42m. I do hope this is not standard practice for all the films you 'see' at Toronto.

Leaving a movie earlier is nothing new for Dave, but he has paid a dreadful emotional price: for years he thought ET was really dead.

"Elizabeth" sucked. Why anyone would be surprised the sequel does is beyond me. The surprise would be if it were any good.

I don't Juno will get in for everything more than Screenplay and perhaps supporting actress for Garner or Allison, but who knows. Does this mean a bunch of Joggers in sweats are going to be jogging around Santa Monica?

Interesting. "not a borderline call." It's funny because both Poland and Wells are trashing Elizabeth - I will be curious to see if they are right or wrong. I didn't think the original Elizabeth sucked at all. All this movie had to do was be that and one louder. It's sounding like a Marie Antoinette type situation, though. Wow, I really hope you're wrong, DP. :-(

Is the fake girl in Lars and the Real Girl supposed to be a sex doll or a standard mannequin? Because it sure just looks like a mannequin.

I don't understand. If the film was really that bad you would not see reviews like this one, from screendaily:

Dir: Shekhar Kapur UK, 2007. 114 mins
It seemed an impossible hope that The Golden Age could match the achievements of its illustrious predecessor. Elizabeth (1998) was a huge international success that earned 7 Oscar nominations, including Best Picture, and confirmed the radiant star-quality of Cate Blanchett. That's a tough act to follow. Against the odds, The Golden Age is a sequel and an equal that delivers another stirring historical drama, exploring key moments that defined the life of a nation and the reign of an extraordinary monarch. It should easily repeat the international box-office performance of Elizabeth .

It may not match the tally of Oscar nominations but it can hope for recognition in several categories including screenplay and Best Actress. Blanchett's performance is truly majestic and the Academy might wish to make amends for not giving her the award ten years ago, assuming they can be persuaded to reward an English monarch called Elizabeth for the second year in a row.

Tradition would suggest that only a Die Hard or a Rush Hour can provide the basis of a lucrative franchise but there has always been an insatiable fascination with the life of Elizabeth 1. Bette Davis played the character in two films (The Private Lives Of Elizabeth And Essex (1939) and The Virgin Queen (1955)) and Glenda Jackson played the monarch in both the BBC television series Elizabeth R (1971) and the theatrical feature Mary, Queen Of Scots (1972). Blanchett's performance certainly deserved an encore even if she is still too young to play a monarch who would be entering her fifties at the time of the events portrayed in The Golden Age.

The new film is set in 1585 with Elizabeth a confident ruler of independent mind and resolute spirit. She has never married and the matter of an heir has become pressing. She acknowledges that the demands of duty take precedence over all other considerations. The threat to her rule now comes from the Catholic King Philip 11 of Spain who hungers for the kind of regime change that would replace the Protestant Elizabeth with the Catholic Mary, Queen of Scots (Morton). The challenge to her heart comes from the dashing explorer Walter Raleigh (Owen) who beguiles her with his tales of the New World and adventure on the high seas, offering a glimpse of a life and a soulmate that she will never allow herself to experience. Personal and political matters intertwine as Spain declares a holy war and sends an Armada to defeat the English.

Similar in many respects to its predecessor, The Golden Age continues to explore the cost of power and the sacrifices made for the good of a nation. Political intrigue and international affairs dominate but the film's best moments come as the cautious Elizabeth finds herself in danger of losing her heart to Raleigh. Blanchett and Owen have a terrific chemistry together that gives full credence to the notion that Elizabeth has finally met a man she considers an equal.

Reuniting several of the creative team behind Elizabeth, the film is beautifully photographed by Remi Adefarasin in the manner of paintings from the period with dark, treacly interiors illuminated by the glow of candle flames or the play of sunlight on glass. The intelligent script manages to compress complex events into an accessible, well-paced narrative peppered with memorable characters and quotable lines. Only a few instances of obvious CGI effects reveal the relatively modest resources spent on such a lavish endeavour. The score also tends towards the bombastic in its more stirring passages.

A return to form for director Shekhar Kapur after the commercial disappointment of The Four Feathers (2002), The Golden Age is extremely well-cast with Geoffrey Rush returning in his role as watchful protector Sir Francis Walsingham and Abbie Cornish giving an impressive supporting performance as court favourite Bess. Owen invests Raleigh with the kind of charm and rugged masculinity that can easily withstand comparisons with Errol Flynn's Essex and has enough telling moments to make him a viable Best Supporting Actor Oscar candidate.

Blanchett continues to astonish, creating a monarch who is wise and witty, haughty and hurt - but above all human. It is a luminous, multi-faceted performance that merely confirms that we are experiencing a performer in her prime. The greatest obstacle to Oscar glory for The Golden Age might be her own virtuoso performance in I'm Not There which has already won her the Best Actress prize from Venice.

I think perhaps one of the reasons why Atonement has been so (over) praised is because for the first time in a long, long time, British critics have a film to champion that is not a) written by Ricahrd Curtis b) involve a woman called Bridget Jones/boy called Harry Potter c) IS based on a book (so many critics love to show that they read as well as watch ... although an alarming amount of them only read the press release). So, Atonement, good as it is, is not going to go all the way. It is however, another step on the ladder for so many concerned (Wright, McAvoy, Seamus McGarvey DoP, Dario Marianelli's score, Paul Tothill's editing). On another thread I suggested it would get six nominations, and Kamikaze wondered why I was going for so few. I would limit it to that because I sincerely doubt the film will hit the Academy on the gut level where so many multi-nominees need to. I just think that sometimes for material like this to connect with the Academy, it needs to really pack an emotional wallop like The English Patient, Saving Private Ryan, Schindler's List...

Both David Poland and Jeff Wells share one thing in common - absolutely eccentric picks for Best Picture. From DP claiming Phantom of the Opera would win to Jeff Wells saying Return of the King wouldn't, they are often bellwethers for what the Academy WON'T do or like. With regard to ELIZABETH, with the trades now 2-1 raves in its favour and an extremely popular public screening in Toronto last night, DP and Jeff Wells's opinions can, as usual be ignored, until very, very late in the season when they join the consenus. All Elizabeth has to do now is to be a popular hit to safely stake its claim in the top five.

The best position a film can be in coming out of festival season is in the underdog slot. Frontrunner is usually bad (Walk the Line) and the kiss of death (Dreamgirls). When the film's climax is happening three months before ballots are in mailboxes, well, you can bet they aren't going to follow suit. Little movie that could is probably going to be Once... the little movie that could, the daring indie, the crowdpleaser weepy -- all benefit if they are considered underdogs going into the race. Frontrunner out of the gate is almost always the fall guy. So it seems to go anyway.

Roger Friedman of FOX NEWS with another rave:

"Australian actress Cate Blanchett already has one Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress in “The Aviator.” But come next February, she may complete a hat trick.

After seeing “Elizabeth: The Golden Age” last night in Toronto, it’s pretty clear that Blanchett will be nominated for Best Actress this winter and will likely win.

But wait: Blanchett also just won Best Actress in Venice for “I’m Not There,” in which she plays a version of Bob Dylan. Now I’m told that the plan is to put her up for Best Supporting Actress for the Dylan role at the Oscars. Don’t be surprised if she wins both awards. It’s completely within the realm of possibility.

“Golden Age” picks up the life of Elizabeth I several years after director Shekhar Kapur’s first movie — released in 1998 — ends.

Elizabeth — who was known as the Virgin Queen — is facing war with Spain and an assassination attempt sponsored by her cousin, Mary, Queen of Scots (Samantha Morton).

In her court, she’s still supported by Francis Walsingham (Geoffrey Rush) and a new lady in waiting, Bess (Abbie Cornish). She also has a new love interest, Sir Walter Raleigh (Clive Owen).

Everything about Kapur’s “Golden Age” screams Best Picture, from all the magnificent performances to the costumes, lighting, makeup and battles.

Variety calls the movie “bombastic,” but they miss the point: “The Golden Age” is the kind of classy big studio blockbuster Hollywood has needed to put it back on track.

Universal Pictures can only be happy to take “The Golden Age” to audiences thirsty for an Oscar spectacle that recalls Hollywood’s golden era.

Each of the actors is at his or her best, too, thanks to a script that clearly delineates their places in Elizabeth’s world.

****

Yeah, but Roger Friedman is a moron.

So Ian, obviously you've seen this movie. Favor us with a review, would you?

I don't think Once is going to be big enough to get anything more than an Independent Spirit Award and a nomination or two for music, maybe screenplay. It's just too small of a movie for Oscar radar, it seems to me.

Jeff, you could be right. I'm watching the Once screener right a we speak and it is SMALL small. But sometimes the excitement of finding a new brilliant director on the scene is enough. And this film is original, that's one thing you can say about it. Besides, it opens with the singer singing Van Morrison's And the Healing Has Begun, how bad can it be. But there are so many more movies coming it could get blown out. Once I see how it ends I'll have a better idea. Oscar movies touch the heart above all other things. And if this one does, well...

p.s. should have said, "oscar movies touch the heart above all other things...except when they don't." LOL.

Golden Age cannot be released soon enough. Elizabeth was a rightful surprise for movie viewers, and if Universal taps into the collective love for the original, then a success is on the horizon.

Watching pedigree films bestowed with sequels is actually quite an uncharted frontier.

I feel like this year could be different at the Oscars, since there are no typical Oscar films. But, what's really important to me is that we see some good films. It's unfortunate that every good movie we see now, we have to try to put it into a box or try to find some reason why the Academy won't like it. I think the bottom line is that the majority of voters will vote for the movie they feel is best. I don't think any rules apply across the board anymore, like "the members are too old to vote for a violent film like The Departed" or "the members won't vote for a fantasy film like Return of the King."

Perhaps the voters will pick a film that for Best Picture that we won't agree with, but I have a feeling they will pick it because they actually liked it, whatever that film might be. But, maybe I'm too idealistic...

Noah, if you ask them they will always say that they're voting for the film they like best, going back decades, much to the horror of film geeks and critics. What has happened in recent years, though, is that the minute people start saying they won't do something they go ahead and do it. It's funny and kind of cool. After seeing Once though there is no way it will be nommed for best pic.

If they see it. It's sad but true, BiP, that due to the average age of Academy members husbands, Once a night is asking a lot.

The ending of ONCE is probably the best part. Were the songs in the film written for the film? I thought they were all covers or songs by the Frames. Doesn't the song have to have been made for the movie in order to get Oscar consideration?

Yeah, the ending is what I think will keep it from being an awards contender. I thought it was a great movie, totally dogme 95, but for it to have mass appeal maybe they needed something less resigned, more feelgood. But the music is fab.

Ian, remember "Once is not enough"?

Yes, BiP. A wonderful picture, now ripe for a remake in the world of movie blogging! (With apologies to Julis J Epstein and Jacqueline Susann)

Kris Tapley (Jon Heder): David, I can't write!

David Poland (James Gandolfini): Neither can I! All you do is research. We have an entire staff of underpaid schmucks who do the writing. Oh, my dear, it's so lucky for you you've fallen into my hands. I'll teach you everything: writing, screwing, everything! Do you know what a man said to me last night? He said, "David, you have a ten fingers like a mouth and a mouth like ten fingers!" Now, you couldn't ask for a better reference than that, could you?

OMG.

I thought the original Elizabeth was okay but vastly over-rated. Far too concerned with being modern and relevant than historically accurate.

I have not seen the sequel, but based on my reading of the initial reviews it seems exactly like I expected. A very B & W view of history which has no bearing to reality.

Two summers ago I spent a month in England and I was amazed at the things I learned from touring, talking to people and reading much about their history from them.

To be blunt, when Cate Blanchett gave an interview saying modern political leaders should be more tolerant of religious freedom like Elizabeth...I thought..you flake.

Elizabeth was - brutal - on the common Catholics in Britain at the time. She employed everything from torture of innocent clergy to the taking away of land and ability to earn a living of commoners. I am not saying the Spanish were saints, but her comments seemed so flakey and ignorant.

I wish she had taken a pro-Protestant view and justified the violence as opposed to saying it never happened. At least I coul ddisagree but respect her.

Again I have not seen the Golden Age, but I suspect the Helen Mirren version would end up being a far more accurate portrayal.

Wow.

Last we saw BiPed, she was wondering whether I would ever be free of the monkey on my back... and then she posted, connecting me and the monkey yet again. Must be something I did.

Ian Sinclair goes wacky.

And Once as the Oscar killer? Sweet baby Jesus. A brilliant director? Oy.

J-Mc... there is a thing called a "real doll" that is not a traditional sex doll, but meant to simulate a woman in all physical ways.

I guess all this is my fault for writing about movies you haven't seen.

JBD - I was at Lars so I could do interviews today, knowing that the late press screening of Atonement was my last chance to see it during the fest. Not happy, but it happens. And it was more like 52 minutes.

Well... Heat... maybe you should have checked out Atonement in LA like you stated you could, and stayed in theatre so Jeffery didnt rat you out ;). Yes; I need an emoticon there. I was being silly. Nevertheless; there is a REAL DOLL documentary out there. It involves guys discussing their real dolls and the abject horrour of the women in their lives discovering that they are with guys who have sex with silicon love dolls. Or the women take part in the sex with their guys and the dolls... but that's not exactly COMMON practice.

The doc is called "Guys And Dolls" and it is available on Google Video.

And I got a blow by blow on the closing act of Lars by multiple trusted viewers (not Rex) and will see the film in full again before I leave Toronto.

Nicol D - Back during the Tudor era, religion was a big deal. I find the idea hard to understand, condemning people because of their religions, but it was 'normal' back then. Taking land from the church was started by Henry VIII and continued through out his children's reigns. It was political because the nobles, not just the crown, profited from the act too. If Elizabeth had stopped that, she would have lost their support and possibly her throne. Remember, Mary of Scots was ready to replace her. And the prosecution of the Catholics was meant to safeguard her crown from supporters of the Catholic Mary.

Movies are movies. The first Elizabeth never claimed to be historically accurate. I don't expect this one to be either.

Nicol, please don't take this the wrong way, but your interest in history seems to be very tightly focussed on history's great persecutors of Catholics.

"Elizabeth" was regurgitated ass. The only saving grace was the perf of Blanchett...truly a star making role if I've ever seen one.

You couldn't pay me to see Elizabeth Part 2.

Polyp: I refer you to Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation.

Good lord, I was nudged by Jeffmcm's comment to read Nicol's woefully ill-informed post. I had forgotten that Americans are not taught European history. Such a shame, as it's much more interesting than their own, and there is so much more of it.

I think I speak for all Americans when I say that we are glad you are not one of us.

There's too much of it! You can spend a lifetime trying to learn the intricasies of the English Civil War and the restoration and all that jazz...and that's only 20 years. European history is so rich and complicated, it's a lot easier to stick with the 250 years of U.S. mischief.

Jeffmcm simpered: "I think I speak for all Americans when I say that we are glad you are not one of us."

You do not speak for all Americans, jeff, though you are certainly eminently qualified to speak as a representative nonpareil for those particular Americans who enjoy masturbating to movie images of women being tortured to death.

Nonpareil, was that one on your douchebag-of-the-day desk calendar?

I eat nonpareils at the movies. I don't eat jeffmcms. I eat m&m's though.

At least jeffmcm doesn't jerk off to hobbits, Ian (to the best of my knowledge).

I jer off to hobbit women eating M&Ms.

Or jerk, as the case may be.

Either way is pretty hot.

You know what Ian? WE HAVE A HISTORY CHANNEL! The whole world shares HISTORY INTERNATIONAL! So there... YEAH! Silliness aside; this continent has some of the more interesting history on the planet earth. Please; do not be hating on the Americas.

"Polyp: I refer you to Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation."

I thought we were talking about the religious reformation begun by Henry VIII partly to divorced Katherine of Aragorn to marry Anne Boleyn in England.

By the way, my name is actually Ploy. The last 'p' stands for my surname as someone else has already registered as ploy. It's a common name in Thailand.

I think the reason people were excited about Atonement and Elizabeth 2 in regards to the films themselves and in terms of Oscar is that they seem like OSCAR films. Big historic films with attractive stars and big sets and costumes.

That's why so many are interested in Luhrmann's Australia with it's return to epic romance and such.

"Katherine of Aragorn"

Is that the name of Viggo Mortensen and Liv Tyler's kid in the unfilmed epilogue to ROTK?

My recollection is that the filmmakers the first time around did make some pretensions to historical accuracy, which then blew up in their faces when people pointed out how very wrong and misleading everything in the movie was.

Persecuting "heretics" was par for the course for most of the early modern period, and Elizabeth I was just as zealous in doing so as her notorious sister. She probably killed more people since she was on the throne far longer. But she gets better press for a variety of reasons, not least of which is the venerable anti-Catholicism in anglophone historiography, written, wouldn't you know, by Protestants. The formula is simple: Spain = Catholic = bad. England = Protestant = godly. From there it pretty much writes itself.

"Elizabeth 2" is guaranteed to tank. Take a look at the trailer.

Start with that old standby Name-Checking -- "From the director of Elizabeth".

Add in the recent Hollywood trend of Oscar-whoring -- "Acacdemy Award Nominee Cate Blanchett".

Stir well and it screams FLOP! Not to mention it's a sequel to a 9-year-old movie.

Jeff,

"Nicol, please don't take this the wrong way, but your interest in history seems to be very tightly focussed on history's great persecutors of Catholics."

Not at all, Jeff. It is just that at this point in cinema history, there is a great deal of preoccupation with Catholic history that is woefully misinformed. No more, no less.

As a student of history I would correct the record as best I could on any demographic that was currently as equally misrepresented.

You just know I can't wait for Bill Maher's 'doc'!

Blackcloud,

Thanks for the backup.

Surely there has never been a more appalling religion in the history of the world than Catholocism. Currupt for over a thousand years, promising immortality for murder, forgiving the worst crimes for cash, torturing thousands of innocent women in the Inquisition, from promoting and endorsing the genocide of the Crusades to through Holocaust denial and abetting the current horrors of AIDS and starvation in Africa due to its stance on abortion, almost its entire history is a stain upon Mankind. If England under Elizabeth had not stood up to its terror we would not now have democracy, emancipation from slavery, education for all and religious freedom.

I rest my case.

Oh and Ian, it really would help you if you could at least learn to spell it properly.

But then again, bigotry is usually rooted in stupidity and ignorance.

Catholicism. Happy now? And kindly cease name-calling; one would have to be involved in another religion to be a religious bigot. I do not believe in invisible, supernatural creatures or virgin births, Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy nor the Easter Bunny.

A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own. - wikipedia

you don't have to believe in another religion to be a bigot. even a lack of belief is a belief

Oh Ian, Ian, Ian... we Catholics may be immoral hypocrites, but you have to admit, behind the Jews, we're also the best filmmakers around.

Welles, Fellini, Hitchcock, Bunuel, Coppola, Truffaut, Scorsese... there must be something about getting hit by a nun with a ruler that gives birth to genius.

Protestants? What's the best you guys can do? Ordinary People?

Who said I was intolerant? You can believe in an ostrich with pink spots if that's what you want to do. ans lonk as you don't force that crap on my kids. I was stating some historical facts about catholicism after some people were posting pro-Catholic revisionist claptrap as if it were the truth. Reading that sort of ill-informed tosh makes my blood boil. As Harlan Ellison once said: people are not entitled to their opinion, only to their informed opinion.

"ans lonk" is sanskrit for "As long"

thanks for the translation. my sanskrit's rusty

At the risking of having a lot of shit flung my way, I actually have to agree with Sinclair here. I can't think of any organized group that has done more damage than the Catholic Church. I know more people who are ex-Catholics than practising ones, almost all of them remembering their religious upbringing with bitterness.

And while I understand Nicol's explanation of animosity towards the Spanish for the war against Catholicism, what of it? Has any other country raped and pillaged on the level of the Spanish? They wiped out some pretty noteworthy civilizations during their conquest of the Americas, all in the name of Jesus and the glory of Spain. You look at things like this and the Inqisition and ask, how far away from the teachings of Jesus do you have to get before you're really not even Christian anymore? Have these teachings been twisted (or ignored) more by any other denomination?

Thanks to the modern Catholic church, we have continents of people who have no sexual education, are forbidden to use birth control, and overpopulation gets worse and worse. We couldn't even begin to discuss all the art that has been the victim of the church's censorship over the years. So I wonder, exactly what good has the Catholic church done since its inception? If you're going to talk about clothing and feeding the poor, these are things that easily could have been done out from under the umbrella of dogma and spreading the gospel as they saw it.

You want to talk about persecution? I'd say Catholicism has to endure a couple more hundred years of it to settle the score.

Is it my birthday?

In 1994, Pope John Paul II wrote the following in a confidential letter to cardinals leaked to the Italian press, where he urged the Roman Catholic Church to recognize "the dark side of its history" :

"How can one remain silent about the many forms of violence perpetrated in the name of the faith - wars of religion, tribunals of the Inquisition and other forms of violations of the rights of persons?" (as reported in the Chicago Tribune)

Which caused his cardinals to respond, "Is the Pope Catholic?"

(sorry, couldn't help adding that last part)

-------------------------

Seriously, I was impressed that the guy even had that perspective and tried to correct the situation.

Gotta figure most factions of Christianity have a history of violence and intolerance.

Interesting what they say - there's never been a Buddhist war.

(no, i'm not buddhist)

Ian,

I called you a bigot because you are one. A bigot is someone who takes the worst example of one demographic of people, amplifies it by ten, throws in a steamy spoonful of gross exaggerations and lies, then calls it the truth.

And yes, if you can't spell the name of the people you hate, it doesn't exactly bolster your argument.

Lazarus,

Oh look, another one!

You obviously understand nothing on the issues of either history, art or HIV/AIDS in Africa. Funny how people like Bob Geldof or Bono (who I will guess know more than you on this cause) lauded the church for their various stances on this issue. It was the Vatican under PJPII who lobbied the UN for drugs for Africa. Look at Uganda as an example if you want a more thorough understanding of this issue. Oh, you thought we should listen to Gisele Bundchen instead.

PJP II was perhaps the first world leader to comprehend the horrors of communism.

As for art? My God, do you know how many great artists and entertainers you would - not - have if it weren't for the Catholic Church.

Dali, Andy Warhol, Michelangelo Buonarotti,Titian, Da Vinci, Paolo Veronese, Alfred Hitchcock, Jack White, Sandro Botticelli, Caravaggio, Stephen Colbert, Frank Capra, Martin Scorsese, Tolkien, Shakespeare, John Wayne, Bill Murray etc.

I could go on for days. The prominence of RC artists in history is one of the things they are known for.

Have you ever read any art history? No, because as I said before, bigotry is born of stupidity and ignorance. Is that name calling?

Sorry, I was taught that if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, sounds like a duck...

there has been a buddhist war, it's just not recognizable. it's kinda like christmas. constantly giving gifts to their enemies. the one with the least wins!

Nicol... are you suggesting that if an artist belongs to the Catholic Church, the Catholic Church somehow gets credit for producing that artist?

I'm sure it can shape their perspective and inform their art (for better and worse) but it's silly to suggest these people wouldn't have been great artists otherwise.

yes, they could have been great artists, but would we know about them? especially in the case of the renaissance painters, without the church no one would have financed their art.

i am no great supporter of organized religion, but to seriously focus on only the negative side of religion is vastly underrating it.

Nicol D, I am not going to get involved in a slanging match with a religious nutjob. You obviously think calling people names wins arguments. All i will say is that everything I said was true and is a matter of historical record. There is much foul stuff I did not even mention, like the mass sexual abuse of minors by priests, the Magdalene Sisters, the torturing of scientists, the suppression of knowledge, the repression of liberty by terror and their refusal to educate the common man. But don't listen to me. Don't listen to anyone else. Don't read any books. Don't educate yourself. Just get yourself a nice stretch of sand, stick your head into it and pretend none of this really happened, just like the Vatican did when they found out Hitler was gassing to death millions of jews.

re buddhist war: good one, hendhogan. true, but sad. they may win in the bigger picture, but they get crushed in the meantime. Tibet, Chinese monasteries, case in point. The yin of omission.

Yawn.

Don't you guys have real life friends to argue or side with rather than waste all our time? I mean...come on.

WE do, but i can see why you don't.

"there has been a buddhist war, it's just not recognizable. it's kinda like christmas. constantly giving gifts to their enemies. the one with the least wins!"

??? Which war was that?

Back to Elizath II, it has so far recieved an 8.8 rating at IMdB from 51 users.

sorry, ploy, it's just a joke.

Ah, Buddhist jokes!

Buddhist hands ten dollars to a Hot Dog Vendor and says "Make me one with everything." The Vendor gives the Buddhist his hot dog and the Buddhist says "Hey, what about my change?" The Vendor replies "Change only comes from within."

Ian,

I called you a bigot. Why? Re-read your hateful vitriolic posts.

If you disagree with Catholics. Cool.

Think they should be questioned. Okay by me.

Wanna tastefully point out inconsistencies in doctrine. Not a problem.

Things they have done that are wrong. Go for it.

But when you go to the extremes that you have, without backing anything up and write a disgusting phrase like saying Catholics are a 'stain on mankind', I call you a hateful bigot.

The fact that you couldn't even spell the target of your hate sealed your fate as an uneducated bigot. But then again, that probably reflects the level and quality of B & W 'history' you read.

Perhaps if you cut the eye holes a little bigger out around the white sheet on your head you'll be able to see a better selection of books at your local library. That would be the place with lots of books you obviously haven't read.

Melquiades,

On a lighter note, yes, I am definitely suggesting ones faith, world view and beliefs not only influences their art but become part and parcel with it.

To say they would still be great artists without it is to not fully comprehend the art.

I say this about all artists of all experiences and faiths mind you, whether they be Jewish, secular, Buddhist etc.

What would Martin Scorsese be without his Catholic background? Woody Allen without his Jewish background? Stanley Kubrick without his cynical, secular agnosticism?

All are veritably defined by these facets. The same goes with painters, philosophers etc. Without that life experience or belief system they would have been different people and gone down different paths. Maybe art...maybe not.

Nicol D, where do I start, you saucy little scamp?

1. I said the history of catholicism, not the beliefs of individual Catholics, was a stain upon the history of mankind.

2. Misspelling "catholicism" once is called a typo. I refuse to burn in Hell for it.

3. Thirdly, I can back up everything I wrote, but I do not need to, as the facts are available in any good encyclopedia. Most educated people know these things, darling, and the fact, for example, that you are apparently unaware of the Vatican turning a blind eye to the Holocaust during Wworld war II is deeply disturbing.

4. I never used the word "hate." I do not hate anyone.

5. I have a degreee in psychology. Getting one of those buggers takes an education, believe me. On the bright side, along the way I became an M.D., which I have found it best never to reveal at parties.

6. Even if they accepted Englishman who long demonstrated in London for the release of Nelson Mandela, I am not now, nor have I ever been a member of the Ku Klux Klan.

8. I have over eighty books on comparative religion, many of which cover catholicism. My local library is the New York Public Library. It is quite large and does not need the limted vision offered by a hooded robe to see it.

9. What would Scorsese, Allen and Kubrick be? Less fucked up.

Would you guys just tell Ian he's smart so he'll stop reminding everyone all the time?

ian, you had me til the last line. because it falls short. maybe less fucked up, but then we wouldn't have the films. you take any part of them away and the desire to make the work of art evaporates, or at least changes dramatically.

p.s. liked your buddhist joke

There are plenty of people who are outrageously fucked up who don't have religion to blame on their problems.

"Start with that old standby Name-Checking -- "From the director of Elizabeth"."

That is actually pretty funny.

Caught 'Atonement' yesterday morning at the VIFF.

Dave, it's the first film that I can say I loved through and through.

Sure I enjoyed Ratatouille, The Ultimatum and The Host, but Atonement just worked from start to finish for me.

If they were handing out Oscars today, it'd win in a heartbeat I think. This year has been pretty disappointing though so far...and I have yet to see a lot of the films you've undoubtedly had the chance to see by now. Anyhow, for the time being, ATONEMENT is my favourite film of the year.

I, too, saw "Atonement" at the VIFF on Saturday morning and this was one of those rare occasions where I went into a film knowing almost nothing about it (I had only heard it was a popular novel). I saw it near or on top of the Oscar watch chart.

If this movie wins Best Picture I will eat my...well, I don't know.

SPOILER ALERT!

The people I went with had read the book, loved how the adaptation reflected that the story took place inside a novel and the clackity-clack of the typewriter on the soundtrack. But to the uninformed it just comes across as pure pretension.

The opening minutes were very promising, although I knew I'd hate the writer character given enough time (and sure enough...)

I felt no chemistry between Knightly and the male lead, no shock at the false accusation that the plot revolves around, bewilderment at the reunion and rage scene between the sisters and the soldier.

The war scenes were cluttered and unconvincing (the dead school girls in the forest place just so and their carefully applied gunshot wounds -- maybe it's because I've been engrossed by Ken Burns' "The War" that I have no use for these cosmetically false casualties). The long tracking shot on the beach at Dunkirk was one huge wank.

And the ending just came out of nowhere! Again, if you're unfamiliar with the novel, the modern day Redgrave cameo felt tacked on and a useful (useless?) explanation for the scattered events we'd just witnessed.

I've seen plenty of films where the adaptation wasn't faithful to the book, but in this case it was TOO faithful -- robbing the viewer of a strong central narrative that you could invest yourself in by story's end.

Yes, the photography was lovely, but I couldn't help but think, throughout the film, that "Atonement" was the name of a new Calvin Klein perfume, as realized by Saturday Night Live.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)