Ranking Steven Soderbergh

So according to Steven Soderbergh, after Side Effects, to be released this Friday, and his HBO biopic of Liberace, Behind the Candelabra, to be released later this year, he will retire. I don’t quite know if I believe that – Side Effects will be his fourth film released since my daughter was born – and she’ll be 18 months old a week after it opens. So here’s hoping it’s not a retirement but a break, because Soderbergh is one of the best genre filmmakers working right now. Not including his TV work (on one series, and one miniseries) or his two Spalding Gray docs, or various shorts (and one unreleased film), Soderbergh has made 23 films – and I’ve seen 22 of them (sorry 1995’s Underneath). I figured since Side Effects may just be his last theatrical film, it was time to go back and look and his work up until now. So below are the 22 Soderbergh films I have seen – from worst to best.

22. The Good German (2006)

I hate The Good German. The Joseph Kanon book on which the movie is based is brilliant – a novel about moral relativism, that calls into question the actions of everyone in the novel. Soderbergh treated the novel as an excuse to indulge his technical fantasies. And make no mistake about it – Soderbergh’s black and white photography is exquisite – and Thomas Newman’s score is one of the best in recent memory. But The Good German is supposed to be about weighty moral questions – questions the novel takes seriously, and Soderbergh casts aside because he’s more interested in making his film look good than he is considering what his changes to the story (which seem to be motivated solely on the basis of how much he make the film resemble Casablanca, even if it doesn’t fit) than about what it all actually means. The Good German was a rare miss for Soderbergh – but damn it if it didn’t miss it by a mile.

21. Ocean’s 12 (2004)

With Ocean’s 12, Soderbergh and company jumped the shark. Getting together a large cast of movie stars to pull off a casino heist worked the first time, so why not add even more movie stars and try to do it all over again. It may well have worked, except for one thing – there’s no actual plot to Ocean’s 12. The movie is solely about watching movie stars sit around, look pretty and exchange charming, witty banter for two hours. When they finally decide to throw in a heist (I assume because the screenplay was getting long, and they felt they had to squeeze one in), its stupid and silly. The original film worked because of the charm of the cast yes, but also because it was tightly plotted. This one wasn’t plotted at all.

20. Full Frontal (2002)

Soderbergh was one of the earliest adopters of digital technology, and if you watch Full Frontal today (and there’s little reason to), you will just how amazingly far the technology has come in 11 years. This is the ugliest film that Soderbergh has ever made, although perhaps that was the intent. I do not think however the intent was to have this seemingly improvised film feel so amateurish throughout. There are parts of the movie to admire – Nicky Katt as an actor playing Hitler in a new play is hilarious – and Mary McCormack (why she never really broke out, I’m not sure) as a masseuse are wonderful. And Brad Pitt’s cameo as Brad Pitt, horrible actor, is among the funniest things I can recall seeing in a Soderbergh film. But overall this film, with its film within a film, within a documentary structure, and the assortment of strange characters, played by talented actors making fools of themselves is just plain bad.

19. Eros (2004)

There is a reason to see Eros – a trio of short films made by three different directors about the subject of sex. And that reason is to see Wong Kar Wai’s brilliant segment The Hand, with a never sexier Gong Li (and that’s saying something) as a prostitute who has uses her sexual prowess to control a tailor. That segment is a small masterwork in a brilliant career. The reason NOT to see Eros would be to avoid Michelangelo Antonioni’s horrible segment – The Dangerous Thread of Things, where the old Italian master embarrasses himself. Somewhere in between those two segments is Soderbergh’s Equilibrium. It’s odd in that it stars Robert Downey Jr. and Alan Arkin, who unlike the principles in the other two segments, are not sleeping with each other. Instead, Downey does what Downey does best – verbally riff, as he tells Arkin, his shrink, about a sexual dream he cannot get out of his head, and Arkin stops listens when through a window, he sees someone he knows, and tries to mime that they meet up later (Downey, of course, cannot see this). As a sketch, it’s funny, and of course both Downey and Arkin are immensely talented, and they carry the segment. What the hell it’s doing sandwiched between the other two segments, I have no fricking idea. But what the film for Wong’s segment – it’s masterful – and stick around to be amused by Soderbergh’s. Than for God’s sake, turn the TV off. It’s better to remember Antonioni for Red Desert and L’Aventurra,  L’Eclisse and Blowup and The Passenger, and probably many of his other films that I have not seen, but I have a hard time imagining the could possibly be worse than what he made here (sadly, his last directorial credit).

18. Ocean’s 13 (2007)

While Ocean’s 13 is a definite step-up from Ocean’s 12 – which essentially had no plot – it does go the other way too much, by having way too much plot, all of it preposterous, and none of it as entertaining as when these people first got together and made Ocean’s 11. Once again, the same ragtag group of movie stars come together to plot an elaborate casino heist, and once again, it is fun to see this actors who are quite clearly having a blast (although it wears a little thin when you realize they had more fun making the movie than you are watching it). Al Pacino is a great addition as the bad guy this time around, and the movie is an entertaining way to waste two hours if you don’t want to think. But the bottom line is simple – they should have stopped at 11.

17. Kafka (1991)

Kafka suffers from the same thing that many sophomore films by filmmakers whose first film were huge hits do – over ambition. The film stars Jeremy Irons as the famed Czech writer, lost in a black and white cinemascape that is brilliantly well designed, as the writer goes searching for his missing friend. The film is partly inspired by Kafka and his work, but also inspired by a lot of film noir, and for the color climax – science fiction. It is a confusing film, and in no way an altogether successful one, as the elements of the plot don’t really seem to fit together in any meaningful way. And yet, the film is quite something to simply sit back and look at. As complex as his breakthrough, sex lies and videotape, was simple, Kafka doesn’t really work, but it’s interesting to watch.

16. Erin Brockovich (2000)

It’s hard to dislike Erin Brockovich – it is a quality, mainstream legal drama, with a fine, Oscar winning performance by Julia Roberts as the crusading, single mother who spearheads a lawsuit that ends up with a huge settlement. The movie gives Roberts the type of sassy, spunky dialogue that she delivers best, and also gives her an opportunity to cry at the victim’s pain – oh and shows off her breasts in pretty much every scene in the film. The film is never less than engaging and entertaining. Yet, it also feels somewhat hollow – a little too simplistic for such an inspiring true story. Roberts so dominates the film that no one else really registers. It’s a fine movie, but as one of only two Soderbergh films ever to received a Best Picture and Best Director nomination, it seems like an odd choice.

15. Schizopolis (1996)

I’m not going to try to explain Schizopolis, nor am I’m going to try and convince someone who hates it that they are wrong. This is the strangest film of Soderbergh’s career by far. The film starts out with Soderbergh, presumably playing himself (although he’ll play so many characters throughout the film, perhaps not) coming up to a lectern and announcing that Schizopolis is the most important film of our time, and if you don’t get it, that’s your fault. And it ends with Soderbergh getting back up and answering questions from the audience – questions that we do not hear, and Soderbergh’s answers do not let us in on what was asked. In between, Soderbergh will play Fletcher, a man whose wife is cheating on him with a dentist, the dentist himself, and another lover of his wife’s, who speaks Italian, French and Japanese, and whose dialogue is subtitled (and who, by the way, I don’t think can speak Italian, French or Japanese). Oh, and there’s a Scientology like religious movement/cult called Eventualism that Soderbergh is also the L. Ron Hubbard like creator of. The film is absurd in the extreme, and overall adds up to absolutely nothing. But the individual moments in the film are sometimes hilarious and brilliant. Soderbergh has often said making this film recharged his batteries after the bad experience he had making Underneath, and allowed him to regain his passion for filmmaking. So, good for him. And he’s also right about something else – if you don’t understand Schizopolis, it is your fault, because there is nothing here to understand. The film is exactly what it appears to be – whatever the hell that is.

14. King of the Hill (1993)

When you look at Sodebergh’s filmography, King of the Hill stands out as something completely different than anything else he has ever made. I mean that in mainly a good way. I still don’t know why, 19 years later, he decided to make this his third film, but the result is a fascinating film. It stars young Jesse Bradford as a 12-year old boy in the great depression, who is left to fend for himself – and does so amazingly well. It is the story of how this boy thrives when he’s left by himself – how he uses his charm and intelligence to get what he needs. It is an odd film for Sodebergh to make – nothing he did before or since really fits with it – but for whatever reason, he seems to have connected with this material, and made an very good little film out of it.

13. Contagion (2011)

Contagion is a scarily plausible thriller about a global epidemic that ends up killing millions. It is bound to happen sooner or later – we hear constantly about new superbugs, but for the most part, they end fizzling out without much impact. But Contagion is about the superbug that doesn’t. It tells multiple storylines – about Patient Zero (Gwyneth Paltrow) and her husband (Matt Damon), who grows increasingly paranoid, about the CDC people trying to contain it (including a poignant subplot with Kate Winslet), a profiteering blogger (Jude Law) who exploits everyone’s fears, and other subplot, as it shows the disease spreading, and with it the fear. This is straight ahead genre filmmaking of the highest order for Soderbergh. Not all the subplots are necessary (sorry Marion Cotlliard, I love you, but your subplot doesn’t need to be here), but mainly plausibly, realistically terrifying.

12. The Girlfriend Experience (2009)

Soderbergh excels at finding actors who may never again be great in a movie, but are perfect for his. For The Girlfriend Experience, he cast Sasha Grey, whose day job is as a porn star. He didn’t cast her because he wanted an actress that was willing to have sex on screen – because she doesn’t in this movie. He cast her, because she is smart, she is sexy and she is a businesswoman in real life, just like her character in the movie. In the film, she plays Chelsea, a high end prostitute, who specializes in providing “the girlfriend experience” – that is on her “dates” with her clients, she doesn’t act like a prostitute, but as their girlfriend. Her clients are all rich, and all work in the stock market (like her “real” boyfriend), and all like to talk to her – reveal themselves to her, and tell her how to invest her money. What they don’t expect is that perhaps she is a better businessperson than they are – she makes money off something that will never crash – sex. Soderbergh set the film in the lead up to the 2008 Financial meltdown, and the basic point of the movie is this – that there is no difference between what Grey’s character in the does, and what her clients do every day – they lie about who they are, what they want, what they know, all to make their client feel better. At least her clients know they are being fucked.

11. Haywire (2012)

I still do not understand why audiences pretty roundly rejected Soderbergh’s action movie from last January. He is an expertly crafted action film, with great, bone crunching, jaw dropping fight sequences that are actually REAL and not just CGI, a woman can kicks all the men’s ass’s (and for once, you actually believe she can, because while Gina Carano may not be Meryl Streep, she certainly can kick ass) and has an excellent supporting cast of slimy men – Michael Fassbender, Ewan McGregor, Michael Douglas, Antonio Banderas and Channing Tatum (who isn’t quite so slimy). Haywire is a classic, old school, kick ass action film – and one of 2012’s great entertainments. Why didn’t audiences notice? I don’t know, but Haywire is excellent.

10. sex, lies and videotape (1989)

Soderbergh’s debut film earns a place in his top 10 because it is undeniably one of the most influential American indie films ever. Soderbergh became the face of the Sundance generation with this film – that went on to win the Palme D’Or at Cannes – and helped to usher in a new era of American indies. Yes, the film has undeniably aged in the two decades since it was released – and because there have been so many copies of it over the years, the impact has dimmed at least a little bit. Yet, mainly the film still works. James Spader is still at his creepy best as the strange old friend who shows up one day, moves in, and soon throws everything into tumult – not that it wasn’t already, but he brings it out into the open. The rest of the cast – Andie McDowell, Peter Gallagher and especially Laura San Giacomo are also excellent. Yes, the film has aged. But that doesn’t mean it still isn’t an important film – or an excellent one.

9. Magic Mike (2012)

Who would have guess that a movie about male strippers would be one of Soderbergh’s best films? Yet it is, because Soderbergh has an intelligent screenplay, that sees this world for all the fun it can be, and also it’s sleazy underbelly. It is basically structured like an old fashioned Hollywood story – with a young kid (Channing Tatum) becoming a star in his limited world, and then falling in love with the picture of female perfection (Cody Horn), and deciding to leave it all behind for love. Tatum and Horn are excellent in the movie, but the supporting cast is even better. Olivia Munn is wonderful in a small role that shows that women can be just as shallow and superficial as men can, and best of all is Matthew McConaghey, all Southern charm, until you test him, and he gets all vicious pimp on you. Magic Mike is fun to be sure, but is also well made, well-acted and surprisingly touching. A wonderful little film.

8. Bubble (2005)

Of all Soderbergh’s low budget experiments, Bubble is the most successful – the most complete film. It stars three non-professional actors, who play workers at a doll factory in Ohio. Martha (Debbie Doebereiner) is overweight, lonely and taking care of her elderly father. Kyle (Dustin James Ashley) is passive, shy, beaten down by life who spends much of his home life in a pot fuelled haze. Martha and Kyle are friends – he depends on her for rides, and in return supplies friendship, and that seems to be it. But when Rose (Misty Dawn Wilkins), a young single mother shows up, and may have designs on Kyle (perhaps because he’s the only male option), things go downhill. Bubble is a quiet film, attuned to the beats of everyday life. It is a murder mystery only nominally – it doesn’t take much to figure it out, and when the police show up, played by real police officers, the outcome is never in doubt. The film is about the quiet, sad, lonely lives of these three people. Soderbergh, who often uses style over substance, does the opposite here. Bubble is a one of a kind film of Soderbergh’s resume – and one that deserves to be seen by more people.

7. Ocean’s 11 (2001)

I was hard on both Ocean’s 12 and 13, because, well, they deserved it – and also because Ocean’s 11 is one of the great entertainments on Soderbergh’s resume. No, the film is no more realistic or plausible than the other two, but damn it all if isn’t a hell of a lot more entertaining. George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Matt Damon, Julia Roberts and Andy Garcia are all at the top of their games – and are surrounded by a cast having a blast – Casey Affleck, Scotty Caan, Don Cheadle, Bernie Mac, Elliot Gould, Carl Reiner, etc. The plan is elaborate, and really did have me guessing the first time through, and still manages to entertain me to no end whenever the film comes on TV (which is often). I’m certainly not going to argue that Ocean’s 11 is some sort of masterpiece, but as pure movie entertainment, it is tough to beat.

6. The Limey (1999)

The Limey is perhaps the simplest film of Soderbergh’s resume – a straight ahead revenge story – but one told with wit and style to spare. It stars Terrence Stamp as a just released British criminal who comes to L.A. to get revenge for the murder of his daughter. He knows Peter Fonda is responsible for it, and he comes at him straight on – no mincing words with him. Stamp is great in the movie – all action, few words, and he just keeps coming. Soderbergh’s style elevates the movie – the unforgettable scene where, in the background, we see Stamp throw a bodyguard over a railing to his death below is the best single shot of Soderbergh’s career. Yet as stripped down as The Limey is, there is also an air of regret to the film – we see clips of Stamp as a young man (from the movie Poor Cow), and we get Fonda talking about his past. Both of these men are well past the point where they are any use to anyone – but that doesn’t stop them from trying. A great little genre film.

5. The Informant (2009)
The Informant tells the improbably but true story of Mark Whitacre, an executive with Archer Daniels Midland, who is questioned by the FBI as part of a potential corporate espionage case, is cleared, and then, for no reason, confesses to them that ADM is involved in price fixing, becomes a FBI informant to help them gather the necessary evidence, and while working with them, proceeds to embezzle $9 million from the company, all the while thinking that once the truth comes out, he’ll be seen as a hero, and can take over the company. Matt Damon plays Whitacre in one of his best performances – as a man who seems utterly without guile or cunning, completely naïve as to how things are going to work out, and yet somewhat intelligent to keep all the balls in the air. The Informant is not quite a comedy, not quite a corporate thriller, and yet somehow both. It is one of the odder films on Soderbergh’s resume – and one of the best.

4. Solaris (2002)

With Solaris, Soderbergh went out a remade an acknowledged masterpiece by an acknowledged cinema genius – Andrei Tarkovsky. I hadn’t seen Tarkovsky’s film when I saw Soderbergh’s remake – but once I finally did see the film, I went back and watched Soderbergh’s film again – and was amazed that I was still intrigued and fascinated by it. No, it is not the masterpiece that Tarkovsky’s film is – few are – but I do think that perhaps watching Soderbergh’s version first – and then Tarkovsky’s may be the way to go. Soderbergh’s film is more than an hour shorter than Tarkovsky’s – the characters and themes clearer, the pacing while slow, less ponderous. This is all part and parcel with how Tarkovsky works, and part of what makes Solaris a masterpiece. But Soderbergh’s film also works. It stars George Clooney in one of his best performances as Kelvin, a shrink who heads up to a space station after a death to “council” the survivors – and wakes up to find his wife, who recently killed herself, there with him. The space station is orbiting a strange planet – Solaris – who can read minds, and create people out of their memories, which is what has happened. But therein lies the catch – because the version of Clooney’s wife that the planet creates is not the “real” woman – because no one knows everything about another person, so this “replicate” is only part a person – with a huge hole in the center – the part of ourselves we keep to ourselves. Audiences hated the film – probably because it was marketed as a sexy George Clooney sci-fi film instead of a ponderous film about the nature of death and human relationship. It probably would have done better marketed as an art-house movie. But here’s hoping in that now that we’re 10 years removed from its release, that Soderbergh’s Solaris can get the praise is deserves.

3. Che (2008)

Soderbergh’s epic, two part, 258 minute biopic of Che Guevera is a masterpiece for precisely the reason why it didn’t satisfy many people in the audience – it doesn’t portray Che either as a romantic hero, as some see him, or as a ruthless murderer, as others do. The film doesn’t take sides. What it does do is show Che, moment to moment, day to day, in combat as he fights and wins a revolution in Cuba, and then fights and loses a revolution in Bolivia. The first part – The Argentine – is a more conventional biopic (not conventional mind you, just more conventional than the second) – as it does show Che as he comes to Cuba, and intercuts scenes of the revolution with his speech to the U.N. This is probably what people were expecting. The second part, Guerilla, is completely self-contained – has Che in the jungles of Bolivia, fighting a losing battle, because while the people rose up and supported them in Cuba, they don’t in Bolivia. What the film really does is show Che as doggedly, stubbornly persistent – unwilling and unable to compromise his own sense of right and wrong, or give up even when he knows he is defeated. The film is epic in length, but needs to be. It is also one of Soderbergh’s masterpieces – sadly, audiences didn’t care, but you should.

2. Out of Sight (1998)

For some reason, it took a long time to properly do an Elmore Leonard crime movie. Barry Sonnefeld’s 1995 Get Shorty was the first to get it right, and then in 1997 and 1998 there were twin masterworks – Quentin Tarantino’s Jackie Brown, and Steven Soderbergh’s Out of Sight. This was the film that start Soderbergh’s fruitful collaboration with George Clooney – and proved there would be life after ER for him. It is also the best work Jennifer Lopez has ever done. The supporting cast – Ving Rhames, Don Cheadle, Michael Keaton (playing the same role he did in Jackie Brown) and especially Albert Brooks are all great. But it is Soderbergh’s direction that is the true star here – from the now infamous barroom/bed room flirtation and sex scene, to the handling of all the action sequences, and Scott Frank’s brilliant screenplay (containing much of Leonard’s original dialogue), Out of Sight is one the best crime movies of the 1990s – and one of Soderbergh’s very best films.

1. Traffic (2000)

When Soderbergh won the Oscar for Best Director for Traffic he did a very rare thing – winning an Oscar for the Best work of his career. That hardly ever happens, but it did for Soderbergh. Traffic is his masterpiece – an epic crime film about the futile drug war America is engaged in, following three different stories. In DC, the newly appointed drug czar (Michael Douglas) struggles with his new job, as his daughter (Erika Christensen) sinks into addiction. In California, a rich housewife (Catherine Zeta-Jones) finds out what her husband really does, and proves she can be just as ruthless when she needs to take over. And in the best, Benicio Del Toro’s Oscar winning performance as perhaps the only honest cop in Mexico, trying to fight the cartels. Working as his own cinematographer (as we would from here on out), Soderbergh gives us segment its own distinct look and color palette. The movie comes together, looking at both the large scale impact of drug and the war against them, and the personal level as well. Soderbergh has made a lot of great films in his career – none better than Traffic.

A Look Back at the 1992 Oscars: 20 Years Later

Last time, we revisited 2002, and this time it’s 1992’s turn. Same rules apply – I rank Picture, Director and all four Acting categories from best to worst, and add in an overlooked film/director/actor for each one (limit of one mention per film there). Note, unlike 2002, I have not seen all the nominated performances from 1992 – so I cannot readily analyze them, so I don’t rank them and highlight them by putting them in italics – but I’ll offer a few thoughts (mainly excuses for not seeing them). Enjoy.

Best Picture

1.    Unforgiven (Winner)
One of the few years the Academy got it right. Clint Eastwood’s masterpiece Unforgiven was the best film of the year, and simultaneously redefined and pretty much killed the Western genre. After Unforgiven, there was pretty much nothing left to say – the move towards darker Western, started some 40 years before, was complete. Yes, there have been some fine Westerns since (Tombstone, Open Range, 3:10 to Yuma, The Applaloosa), and even some masterworks (The Proposition, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford), but Eastwood pretty much issued the last statement the genre had to make – and did so brilliantly.

2.    The Crying Game

By the time I saw The Crying Game – a few years after it was released (give me a freaking break, I was 11 when it came out), the “secret” of the film was well known to everyone, including myself. And yet, knowing the twist did not dim the impact of this fascinating IRA thriller, with more depth to it that most. Jordan’s screenplay and direction are masterful, the performance by Steven Rea excellent, and everything else in the movie quite simply works. In short, The Crying Game is much more than just a twist.

3.    Howards End 

Howard’s End is not my favorite Merchant-Ivory film – that is 1993’s The Remains of the Day – but it’s a close second. This is a film about the difference between the classes – how the upper class gets away with things they would never let the lower classes do. It contains some great performances – Emma Thompson, Anthony Hopkins, Vanessa Redgrave and Helena Bonham Carter chief among them – and is the type of film that gives this kind of period piece a good name.

4.    A Few Good Men

I have to admit it – other than Unforgiven, I’ve seen A Few Good Men more times than any other movie nominated this year. Which is odd because other than the first time I watched it, I have never once sat down with the intention of watching it. But the damn thing comes on TV all the time, and just like The American President (another Rob Reiner-Aaron Sorkin collaboration), I cannot help myself from stopping whenever I see it on TV. The film is far from a great film – it is clichéd in the extreme – but it has so much great dialogue, and a few excellent performances, and I cannot help being swept up in it every time. Perhaps a guilty pleasure, but a pleasure nonetheless.

5.    Scent of a Woman

Sorry, I just do not understand the appeal of this movie. Sure, I get why the Academy felt the need to correct a decades long injustice of Al Pacino NOT having an Oscar, but why the hell did they have to go so overboard with love of the film itself? Because other than Pacino’s wildly enteraining, but completely over the top and unbelievable performance, there really is not a lot else here. This plays on TV a lot as well, and yet unlike A Few Good Men, I can never make it past a few minutes without an overwhelming urge to change the channel.

Overlooked: Spike Lee’s Malcolm X is one of the great screen biopics of all time – easily better than anything nominated other than Unforgiven. It has all the ingredients that usually spell Oscar nominations – a real life subject, an epic scope, great performances, meticulous attention to detail, a tragic ending, and yet for whatever reason, the Academy didn’t bite. I’d hate to think it was racism, but I do think that the mainly white Academy just didn’t have enough appreciation for this important historical figure. Nothing else makes sense.

Best Director

1.    Unforgiven  - Clint Eastwood (Winner)
Eastwood certainly had his supporter before Unforgiven, but this really was the film that kickstarted his now 2 decade long stint as one of the most acclaimed American directors working. This feels like a film that Eastwood felt he had to make, and the result is what I still think is his best film ever. Eastwood has never been the most daring director- his decisions are usually down the middle – but in a film like Unforgiven, that’s a good thing, not a bad one. A very deserving winner.

2.    The Player - Robert Altman 

Altman’s name certainly ranks up there with the likes of Kubrick and Hitchcock among the best directors to work primarily in America never to win an competitive Oscar. Sure, they gave him a lifetime achievement award a few years before his death (and it was richly deserved), but it’s a shame the Academy never honored him with a Best Director Oscar for his masterworks like MASH, McCabe and Mrs. Miller, The Long Goodbye, Nashville, Three Women (my personal favorite), Secret Honor, Short Cuts, Gosford Park, or this film, The Player. Ironically, Altman was pretty much blacklisted from Hollywood throughout the 1980s, and saw The Player as his personal fuck you to Hollywood – and it ended up being the film that got him back in their good graces. The Player is one of the best Hollywood comedies of all time – and a great achievement for Altman.

3.    The Crying Game - Neil Jordan 

I mentioned that I think this film is much more than the twist – which is what everyone talks about – and I think that is very true. One of the great things about Jordan’s direction however, is how he manages to keep that secret in the film’s first half – and how he reveals it. It is one thing to write a twist like that, and another to keep it a secret during the movie itself, which Jordan carries off wonderfully well.

4.    Howard’s End  - James Ivory

James Ivory has never been the flasiest of directors – he prefers to set the scene, and let the actors dig into their dialogue written by Ruth Prawer Jhabvala. But his direction is subtle and effective in a film like Howard’s End – it may not draw attention to itself, but that doesn’t diminish just how good it is.

5.    Scent of a Woman  - Martin Brest

I cannot understand why the director’s followed suit along with the rest of the Academy and gave Martin Brest an Oscar nomination. A movie like Scent of a Woman is the kind of film that often gets into the Oscar race – but that the director’s have the good sense to nominate something else in its place. I guess we should feel lucky that they did recognize Altman’s brilliance, but I would look much more kindly had they nominated Rob Reiner for A Few Good Men instead of Brest, who has only made two films since – one of them being the god-awful Gigli.

Overlooked: Carl Franklin may not have had the career he wanted, but his debut film One False Move is a masterful crime drama. A great neo-noir about a trio of fugitives on the run from L.A. after some drug related murders, who end up in small town Arkansas – where they find a Sheriff with delusions of grandeur (Bill Paxton) and two LA cops waiting for them. The movie sounds like a typical crime movie, but is anything but – as it twists and turns along the way. Franklin’s direction is excellent throughout. He has not made a film as good since (his follow-up Devil in a Blue Dress comes closest), and mainly works in TV now, but for his first film, he hit a home run – and deserved a nomination.

Best Actor

1.    Malcolm X  - Denzel Washington
Denzel Washington has any number of great performances on his resume – not least of which is his nominated turn from Flight up this year – but no matter how great he is in everything else, he will never top his performance in Spike Lee’s Malcolm X. It is a masterful performance taking the famed Nation of Islam leader from his days as a low level criminal, to his gradual religious awakening, to his time as the spokesperson of the Nation of Islam, and another awakening as he splits with the group. Washington nails the vocal inflections of Malcom X, but this performance goes well beyond impersonation into something altogether deeper – he makes this man human, and that’s tricky in biopics. This is perhaps the best lead actor performance of the entire 1990s – and should have won this award in a cakewalk.

2.    Unforgiven  - Clint Eastwood

Eastwood reportedly sat on the script for Unforgiven for a number of years until he felt he was old enough to play William Munny – a role he felt he had to play. And the decision paid off, because it is the best work Eastwood has ever done in front of the camera. His Munny is the de facto “hero” of Unforgiven, but Eastwood sees him with his eyes wide open – Munny is no hero, he’s not even better than the “bad” guys he kills. A great Eastwood performance.

3.    Chaplin  - Robert Downey Jr.

I don’t think that Richard Attenborough’s Chaplin is a great movie – I barely think it is a good movie – yet I do think that Robert Downey Jr’s performance in the title role is brilliant. Downey looks enough like Chaplin to pass for him, and is an extremely gifted physical comedian, so he can convincingly play the Chaplin from the movies we all know and love. But Downey goes beyond these two things – which would have made it a very good performance – by capturing Chaplin’s spirit. Despite the fact that I know Chaplin’s films inside and out, I never doubted for a moment that Downey’s Chaplin was the real Chaplin. Yes, the movie gets bogged down by cramming Chaplin into a traditional biopic, which misses much of what made Chaplin great, but Downey’s performance of the man is never less than brilliant. Too bad the movie didn’t live up to its central performance.

4.    The Crying Game - Stephen Rea 

Steven Rea is a great character actor, who too often has made bad films, because, well, he looks like Steven Rea, and men who do don’t get to play the leading man too often. But Rea makes the most of his opportunity in The Crying Game, where he plays an IRA man, who becomes too close to the man he has to kill, and then goes looking for the man’s girlfriend. He is essentially a good man, who got in over his head, and is struggling to get back on the right path. Rea excels at playing this type of everyman – and does so brilliantly here.

5.    Scent of a Woman  - Al Pacino (Winner)

Be honest, other than Oh-wa, do you remember anything else about Pacino’s performance in Scent of a Woman? Didn’t think so. This was clearly a makeup award – and no actor has ever deserved one more – but isn’t it a shame the Academy didn’t give him the Oscar for any of his previously nominated performances – The Godfather, The Godfather Part II, Serpico, Dog Day Afternoon, And Justice for All (at least a little better than this) or Dick Tracy? Or hell, even his supporting turn this year in Glenngarry Glen Ross? Or have waited five years to give him an Oscar for his brilliant work in Donnie Brasco (oh, yeah, they didn’t even nominate that one). Pacino should arguably have a few Oscars at home – and none of them are for Scent of a Woman.

Overlooked: Jack Lemmon had a terrific career, where he won Two Oscars , and was nominated for 6 more, but one of his very best performances, in Glengarry Glen Ross, was overlooked. As Shelley “The Machine” Levine (the inspiration for Gil on The Simpsons), Lemmon is perfect as an aging real estate salesman, who was once the hotshot at the office, and can now no longer sell anything to anyone. He is desperate – with a sick wife at home, and his job on the line, to close a deal – any deal – and there is a scene where he tries desperately to sell to a man who has no interest – and everyone, including Shelley knows it – but he keeps pushing and pushing. The rest of the cast of Glenngarry Glen Ross is all brilliant swagger, but Lemmon’s performance is the movie’s heart and soul – a pathetic man just trying to keep doing the only thing he knows.

Best Actress

1.    Howards End  - Emma Thompson (Winner)
It’s hard to argue with Emma Thompson’s win for Howard’s End. She is the calm, rational center of the movie, who tries very hard to get her stubborn husband (Anthony Hopkins) to see reason, but never can quite do it – so she has to watch her sister’s life pretty much destroyed. Thompson was a rising star at the time, and she is put through her paces – by both Hopkins and vet Vanessa Redgrave – and is more than up to the challenge. Once again, the Academy made the right call.

2.    Lorenzo's Oil  - Susan Sarandon

Susan Sarandon’s performance in Lorenzo’s Oil may not represent her best work, but it is still fine work indeed. She plays the mother of a child stricken by ADL, and while her husband (Nick Nolte) goes to research libraries to try and find a cure, she reads to him constantly, convinced that her son is still in there somewhere, although he shows no signs of it. It is a gutsy performance, and Sarandon quite a lot with it. The movie isn’t quite great, but it’s close, and Sarandon is excellent in it.

Indochine  - Catherine Deneuve
I love Catherine Deneuve, but despite that, and the fact the film won the Best Foreign Language Film Oscar that year, I don’t think I’ve ever seriously considering watching Indochine – said to be a “French Gone with the Wind” about their time in Vietnam. Perhaps its because Roger Ebert’s review makes the film sound boring and dull – or the film’s long running time. I do think it’s a shame that this is Deneuve’s only Oscar nomination – she should have been nominated any number of time – The Umbrellas of Cherbourg, Repulsion, Belle de Jour, Tristana, Dancer in the Dark, Kings and Queen and A Christmas Tale for example.

Love Field  - Michelle Pfeiffer
From what I’ve read, the only reason to see Love Field – where Pfeiffer plays a woman obsessed with the Kennedys who goes on a cross country trip to attend JFK’s funeral – would be to satisfy the Oscar completest in me and so far, that hasn’t happened.

Passion Fish  - Mary McDonnell
I find it odd that I haven’t seen Passion Fish – it is one of only a few films directed by John Sayles that I have not seen. And the movie sounds interesting to boot – about a soap opera star who after being paralyzed comes home to Louisana, and develops a difficult relationship with her live in help (Alfre Woodard). More than the other two nominated performances, this is one I should see.

Overlooked: Apologies to any Love Field fans out there, but the general consensus now seems to be that the Academy would have been better served nominating Michelle Pfeiffer for Batman Returns rather than the melodrama that did earn her an Oscar nomination. And I must say, Pfeiffer’s performance in the film is my favorite thing about the film – and the best thing Pfieffer has ever done. Genre performances rarely get nominated, but Pfieffer’s sexy villainous should have been an exception to the rule.

Best Supporting Actor
1.    Unforgiven  - Gene Hackman  (Winner)
Another good choice by the Academy! Hackman already had an Oscar at home – for 1971’s The French Connection, but the Academy couldn’t resist giving him another one for his great performance as Little Bill in Clint Eastwood’s Western. He is the “bad guy” of the movie, but Hackman gives him human shading – his attempts to build his house for example – although when he gets bad, he’s scary (whipping Morgan Freeman, beating up Richard Harris), and his last scene is a great one. Hackman is one of the best actors of his generation, and it’s sad to me that he has pretty much retired (he hasn’t made a film since 2004’s Welcome to Mooseport). But he deserved this one.

2.    Glengarry Glen Ross  - Al Pacino

If the Academy was insistant on their need to award Al Pacino this year, couldn’t they have gone with his excellent work in Glengarry Glen Ross instead of Scent of a Woman? As Ricky Roma, the hotshot salesman, Pacino is at his charming best. He’s the only one who doesn’t really care about the new leads, because he’s killing it anyway. The great thing about the movie is that Pacino arguably doesn’t even have the best supporting role – that would Alec Baldwin’s one scene addition (it’s not in Mamet’s play) as the guy from head office sent to “inspire” the salesmen. But Pacino is great – and if they had to award this year, this was the performance to do it for.

3.    A Few Good Men - Jack Nicholson

Nicholson’s performance in A Few Good Men will remain one his best remembered simply because of his “You can’t handle the truth!” – but as great as Nicholson is in that scene, I prefer his earlier standoff with Tom Cruise on the base in Cuba, where he is all smug confidence and bravado (“You see Danny, I can deal with the bullets, and the bombs, and the blood. I don't want money, and I don't want medals. What I do want is for you to stand there in that faggoty white uniform and with your Harvard mouth extend me some fucking courtesy. You gotta ask me nicely.”) Brilliant.

4.    The Crying Game - Jaye Davidson

Jaye Davidson pretty only has four acting credits on his resume – only two of them features. The first was The Crying Game, where it was essential that Neil Jordan have an unknown so people wouldn’t see the surprise coming. Davidson is great in the movie – not just the shocking scene – but everything in it. After this, he did Stargate, and then returned to his normal life as a fashion assistant. It’s too bad, because he has real talent.

5.    Mr. Saturday Night  - David Paymer

Just because I put David Paymer last on this list, doesn’t mean I don’t quite like his performance in Mr. Saturday Night. He is the best part of the movie, about a standup comedian (Billy Crystal, who co-wrote and directed as well as stars) who always seems to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. He’s an asshole, and Paymer’s performance is heartbreaking, because he isn’t. He is the main character’s brother and agent, is smarter, kinder and perhaps even funnier, but allows himself to be steamrolled, because he doesn’t really have another choice. It is the best role this good character actor has ever been given – and he makes the most of it.

Overlooked: 1992 was the year Quentin Tarantino burst onto the American indie scene. His film should have been nominated in several categories, but no one was more deserving than Steve Buscemi in Tarantino’s debut Reservoir Dogs.  His Mr. Pink is, of course, the showpiece role – from his monologue about tips, to his arguments at the warehouse. This is the film that really made Buscemi a star – at least in the indie world. It is sad that this great character actor has never been nominated for an Oscar – not for this or Fargo or Ghost World or any of his other great performances.

Best Supporting Actress

1.    Husbands and Wives  - Judy Davis
Judy Davis is a favorite of Woody Allen’s – who has cast her five times over the years (most recently in the abysmal To Rome With Love) – but none of those roles is greater than her role in Husbands and Wives. Released around the time Allen’s relationship with Mia Farrow hit the skids, the film is about two couples – one who divorces so they can both “grow” and one who sticks it out. Clearly, Allen was working through his own issues here (although, tellingly his character makes the opposite decision he made in real life). But Davis as the angry, bitter woman who divorces her husband, and just gets angrier and more bitter, delivers the best performance in the film (until, of course, things come full circle). Davis has had a very good career, but her performance in Husbands and Wives is her best – and should have won her the Oscar.

2.    Damage  - Miranda Richardson 

Miranda Richardson was wonderful in Best Picture nominee The Crying Game this year (and apparently also in Enchanted April), but her best work was in Louis Malle’s Damage – a tale of sexual obsession where Jeremy Irons falls for his son’s fiancée Juliette Binoche, and the two are powerless to stop their love affair. Richardson is Irons’ wife, who when the shit hits the fan, as it must, is quite obviously angry and lashes out at her husband. It is a terrific performance in one of those rare movies that deals with sexuality seriously. A terrific performance by a great actress.

3.    Howards End  - Vanessa Redgrave

The great, controversial Oscar winner (still, I can say with complete confidence, the only Oscar winner to use the phrase “Zionist hoodlums” in her acceptance speech) has a small, but wonderful role in Howards End. She plays Anthony Hopkins first wife, who while she is still alive essentially interviews Emma Thompson to take up her role when she dies, as she knows she will soon. Redgrave, a great actress if ever there was one, puts Thompson through her paces in this scene, seeing if the younger actress can keep up – and Thompson passes with flying colors. It is a great performance by Redgrave – and her last of six Oscar nominations (although she should have gotten number 7 for 2011’s Coriolanus).

4.    My Cousin Vinny  - Marisa Tomei (Winner)

You know how I know with 100% certainty that the oft-repeated myth that Marisa Tomei didn’t really win this year, but a confused Jack Palance just read the last name again, as so many have claimed? It isn’t that the Academy actually has a process in place in case this happened (as embarrassing as it would be for all involved) – it’s that I have heard four different versions of the story from four different sources – one with each of the other nominees the supposed “true” winner. Anyway, as odd as it seems, Tomei did win for her role in My Cousin Vinny, and she is hoot in the film. Personally, I think it took it a while to grow into her talent and sexuality – I would have loved to see her win for In The Bedroom (2001), Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead (2007) or The Wrestler (2008) – all three show just how great she can be. But she didn’t. She won for this one – and I think it’s time we move past it.

Enchanted April  - Joan Plowright
I have always meant to see Mike Newell’s highly regarded Enchanted April, but somehow have never gotten around to it – it may well be because as much as I like Newell, I don’t love him, so every time I go to the video store, I find something else. Anyway, I’m sure sooner or later, I’ll get to this.

Overlooked: There is no doubt that Vanessa Redgrave had the showcase supporting role in the film, but I think Helena Bonham Carter in Howard’s End was just as deserving of receiving a nomination. In 2012, we know that Bonham Carter has pretty much given in to her weird side – whether it be for partner Tim Burton’s movies (where she can be great), or Harry Potter or Les Miserables or the upcoming Great Expectations, so it can be hard to remember just how good Bonham Carter can be in a more normal role. She is great in this film, and should have at least been considered for a nomination.

Movie Review: Warm Bodies

Warm Bodies
Directed by: Jonathan Levine.
Written by: Jonathan Levine based on the novel by Isaac Marion.
Starring: Nicholas Hoult (R), Teresa Palmer (Julie), Analeigh Tipton (Nora), Rob Corddry (M), Dave Franco (Perry), John Malkovich (Grigio), Cory Hardrict (Kevin).

The biggest problem I always had with the Twilight books and movies is that I always thought it was silly for a vampire and a human to fall in love. After all, vampires are predators, and human are their prey, so it’s kind of like a lion falling in love with an antelope. And vampires, of course, are not alive, but “undead” – so they are essentially walking, talking, killing corpses. How could someone fall in love with a corpse? And why is it that people fall in love with vampires so easy, but never fall in love with a zombie?

As if in answer to my query comes Warm Bodies – a funny teen romance where a zombie and a human really do fall in love. Yes, the premise is as ridiculous as Twilight, but one of the many charms of Warm Bodies is that it knows full well that the premise is ridiculous – and has some fun with it. The movie plays with the conventions not only of the zombie genre, but also romantic comedies. It isn’t trying to be a “generation defining love story” as some have ridiculously claimed Twilight is – but rather just a fun zombie comedy. And while it is no Shaun of the Dead or Zombieland, I had a hell of a lot of fun watching it.

The movie stars Nicholas Hoult as R, who also narrates his adventure. He doesn’t remember his real name – but thinks it started with a R – and doesn’t remember what he did for a living (although, as he states, judging on his hoodie, he was unemployed). He doesn’t even remember how he became a zombie, just that he is, and although he feels guilty about eating people, he does so anyway. The “new hunger” is too strong for him to ignore. Like many other zombies, he lives at an airport. He has made his home in an old passenger plane that he has filled with whatever he comes across and likes. He loves vinyl records for example, but has a lot of other stuff. One day he and a group of zombies come across a group of survivors, and one thing leads to another, and R is soon eating someone’s brains. This is when we learn that when a zombie eats the brain of somehow, he gets to see their memories. I’m sure some purists of the genre will argue this goes against well-established genre rules, but considering I haven’t really seen another movie from the point of view of a zombie, I cannot say it really does. Anyway, what he learns is that the guy whose brain he is eating is in love with Julie (Teresa Palmer), also at that raid. When R sees her, he is instantly flooded with love – and rather than eat her, he saves her life and brings her back to his plane. Obviously, this is not the way to start a healthy relationship, but R doesn’t really have another option. And once Julie realizes that R means her no harm, she starts to relax around him, and open up. And gradually, R starts becoming more and more human.

Warm Bodies owes much of its charm to its two stars. Hoult, who first came to audience’s attention 10 years ago in About a Boy, has grown up a lot, and turned into quite a good actor. The role requires him to be funny under a lot of zombie makeup for much of its running time, and for the most part, he succeeds wonderfully. Perhaps even better is Teresa Palmer who really did remind me of a sunnier, less mopey, Kristen Stewart, and who is quite charming. They get good support for Annaleigh Tipton as Julie’s best friend (who picks a perfect song for a makeover montage), John Malkovich, who is clearly doing this for a paycheck, but it is still fine, and especially Rob Corddry, who steals his scenes as R’s best friend M.

The film was written and directed by Jonathan Levine, and even though it is quite different from his last film – the cancer dramedy 50/50 – he shows once again a gift for comic timing behind the camera. Warm Bodies may not be a great movie, but it is great fun to watch.

Movie Review: West of Memphis

West of Memphis
Directed by: Amy Berg.

I have now seen four documentaries about the West Memphis 3 – the three Paradise Lost films directed by Joe Berlinger and Bruce Sinofsky made between 1996 and 2011, and now Amy Berg’s West of Memphis made in 2012. Of them all, I still think the original Paradise Lost from 1996 is the best. When Berlinger and Sinofsky went down to make the film, they assumed, like everyone else, the three were guilty and they would be making a film about how three teenagers murdered three younger boys. What they found though didn’t add up. There was no evidence, aside from a confession got out of the slowest of the three boys, who recanted. Other than that, the entire case seemed to be built on smoke and mirrors. And it is also unquestionable that without that film, they rest would not have been made. Pretty much everyone who became involved in the case over the years became involved BECAUSE of that documentary. Having said that, I think that West of Memphis is probably the most complete single film about the case. It has the benefit of hindsight, and the years of research and investigation into the original case and shows you precisely what did happen. Even after four documentaries about the case – not to mention an excellent book about it – I’m still learning things.

The story is now familiar to most people – it has become one of the most well-known true crime stories in recent American history. Three eight year boys were found beaten, bound and murdered in a shallow creek. The police have no real leads, but think that the crime might have something to do with Satan worship. They focus on Damien Echols, a “strange” teenager in town, who dresses all in black, and is said to worship Satan – as well as his two friends – Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley. The story becomes huge in the small town, and begins to attract national attention. After hours of interrogation, Jessie confesses to helping Jason and Damien kill the three boys. His confession is splashed all over the front page of the paper. It is also riddled with mistakes and inconsistencies that the detectives help him remember correctly. He later recants his confession, and refuses to testify against Damien and Jason – who are to be tried separately. There is no physical evidence tying any of the three of them to the murders. Despite this, all three are convicted, and Damien is sentenced to death.

The movie opens with a recap of the case from back in 1994 – including gruesome crime scene footage and descriptions, that quite frankly, are hard to stomach, but necessary. It then goes over what has happened in the 18 years since then – the celebrities who became involved in trying to free the West Memphis Three – from Eddie Vedder to Johnny Depp to the Dixie Chicks to Peter Jackson (who produced this film, and also gave lots of money in order to hire appeals lawyers and investigators to help out) – as well as the “regular” people who became involved – including a woman named Laurie who ended up falling in love and marrying Damien. The film also supplies an alternate theory of the crime.

For years, the most likely suspect was thought to be John Mark Byers – the stepfather of one of the murdered boys. He was front and center in the first two Paradise Lost movies (especially the second one, which is admittingly the weakest of the three) – and certainly did himself no favors, with his over the top grieving and hate filled tirades against the West Memphis Three, not to mention some apparent slip ups. But in one of the ironies of this case, many focused on him solely because he “seemed” like the type of person who WOULD do something like this – which is precisely what got the West Memphis Three in trouble in the first place. There is no evidence against him, and no one really believes he did it anymore. That person is now Terry Hobbs – another stepfather – and there actually is some evidence to support this claim – a hair found in one of the knots that bound the murdered boys for example. Whether or not he did it, you’ll have to decide for yourself based on what the movie shows. It is clear there will never be a true investigation into him by the police or the prosecutors, who insist they convicted the right three people.

And that is sad thing about this case. What has become clear enough for pretty much everyone to except – that the West Memphis Three are innocent and served 18 years in prison for something they didn’t do, is what the police and prosecutors – not to mention the original judge – will never admit. When it became clear that the three were going to get new trials, the prosecutors came up with a deal for the three of them. In one of the strangest pleas I can imagine, the West Memphis Three were allowed to maintain their innocence, while admitting that the prosecution had enough evidence to convict them -  and were allowed to go free. This was presented as a Win-Win for all involved. The Prosecution technically got guilty pleas, and are able to close the case, maintaining they convicted the right three people, and they spent years in jail for the crime, and also protect themselves and the state from any lawsuits the three may file. The West Memphis Three got to get out of jail, and not spend years longer waiting for a new trial, where there was no guarantee they would be found not guilty. Win Win, right?

Except it isn’t a w in win, because the real killer or killers of those three innocent boys is still out there. The prosecution and police don’t care, because they have protected their own asses. But is that really their job? Isn’t their job to find, convict and punish the guilty, and get some level of justice for the victims and their families? The case of the West Memphis Three is one of injustice – injustice because three innocent kids spent 18 years in jail for something they didn’t do, going in when they were teenagers and coming out as they approach middle age. And injustice because someone killed three innocent children, and will never face justice for it. There is no happy ending to a case like this.

Movie Review: A Royal Affair

A Royal Affair
Directed by:  Nikolaj Arcel.
Written by: Rasmus Heisterberg and Nikolaj Arcel based on the book by Bodil Steensen-Leth.
Starring: Alicia Vikander (Caroline Mathilde), Mads Mikkelsen (Johann Friedrich Struensee), Mikkel Boe Følsgaard (Christian VII), Trine Dyrholm (Juliane Marie), David Dencik (Ove Høegh-Guldberg), Thomas W. Gabrielsson (Schack Carl Rantzau), Cyron Melville (Enevold Brandt), Bent Mejding (J. H. E. Bernstoff), Harriet Walter (Augusta - Princess of Wales), Laura Bro (Louise von Plessen), Søren Malling (Hartmann).

A Royal Affair is the type of lavish, historical romantic drama that we always see this time of the year – a prototypical “Oscar bait” movie, about a beautiful young Queen (Alicia Vikander) who does the unthinkable and falls in love with someone not her husband. In this case, that is Johann Friedrich Struensee (Mads Mikkelsen), a German doctor hired to be the personal physician of the Danish King Christian VII (Mikkel Boe Folsgaard), who ends up sleeping with the King’s English wife.

This probably sounds like something you’ve seen before – and in many ways you would be right. The difference in A Royal Affair is that the filmmakers are as interested in the title affair itself – but rather in the politics of the time (the late 1700s in Denmark), and how Struensee did everything possible to drag the country into the age of Enlightenment – and for a brief time succeeded. He is seen as a hero in Denmark today – not so much at the time he was around.

The nicest way to describe King Christian VII would be to say he was feeble minded. He is certainly not very bright, and would no doubt be diagnosed with some sort of mental disorder were he alive today, but no one was all that interested in doing that at the time. Because Christian is a perfect foil. The learned council – full of religious zealots and the rich – passed laws that suited them, and not those that helped the common man. Christian attends all these meetings so he can sign off on all these laws – when he asks what he’s signing, they simply tell him not to ask questions, and just sign, and he does.

But then two people come into his life who will end up changing not just him but the country. The first is his beautiful English bride Caroline Mathilde, who is a modern woman, upset that most of her books were sent back to England because they had been banned in Denmark. She is horrified to discover her husband really is a silly twit – more in love with dog than anything else. But she does what she was raised to do – become Queen of Denmark, and give the King an heir – after which, she promptly banishes him for her bedchamber. Then comes Struensee, who is one of many doctors interviewed by the King to be his personal doctor. Struensee immediately sees how childish Christian is, and knows just what to do to manipulate him. Soon Christian sees Struensee as his “best friend” and confidant – and Struensee sees how he can get Denmark to become a modern country – which in this time means things like ending serfdom, banning torture and opening orphanages. It is also clear that Struensee and Caroline are drawn to each other – the share similar ideals, and are both saddled with the King, who they don’t really like, but need to accomplish their goals. It’s only a matter of time before they will fall into bed with each other.

A Royal Affair is an extremely handsomely mounted production. It has all the trappings of this kind of movie – beautiful costumes and production design, lush cinematography, a romantic score. The film is one of the most expensive made in Danish history – and may well get an Oscar nomination for Best Foreign Language film, as it is their entry (beating out The Hunt, also starring Mikkselsen). But A Royal Affair is also more concerned with ideas than most costume dramas of this sort. In fact, it is the romance between Struensee and Caroline that gets the short end of the stick here – the movie is so concerned with the politics, the maneuverings of Struensee, and his rivals on the council, and how they all manipulate Christian, that it almost feels like the pair fall into bed simply because the plot requires them to. Both Mikkselsen and newcomer Vikander are very good in their roles, but the sexual chemistry between the two of them isn’t quite there. They seem better suited to each other when they are discussing their ideals than in the throes of passion.

Still, I think that’s why I liked A Royal Affair. I’ve seen too many movies set in this time period, or shortly before and after, where people who are not supposed to fall in love with each other inevitably do just that. The movies often use society’s outrage at the lovers as proof of just how backwards that society is. But A Royal Affair knows that there were more important things wrong with society, other than the fact that it kept lovers apart. And this makes A Royal Affair an engrossing costume drama.