2006 / George Hickenlooper > First, a blessing of sorts: Sienna Miller can actually kind of act. Unfortunately, however, Hickenlooper’s attempt at mimicking a Warhol-in-film style falls flat through its brash interruptions of what could have been a decent biopic. The script starts decently enough, but then the drawn out storyline with the faux Bob Dylan takes the film further into the realm of unbearability. It becomes bland and boring, and while Guy Pearce’s Warhol raises a few eyebrows, the ultimate result is forgettable.

2006 / Marc Forster > In the third film since his breakout Monster’s Ball, Forster once again takes his style and does a modest 90 degree turn, being only second to Winterbottom in diversity of his content and style. Here, Forster’s playing a game on two levels: In the very basic sense, Stranger Than Fiction is a tragicomedy that Ferrell himself does the best to figure out. But as an underlying, it ends up being a self-deprecatory piece of work about the medium of writing as well as audience expectations of films.

Strung at the hip by a surprisingly solid and poignant performance by Ferrell, the film touches base with quite a few obvious everyday philosophies (including a non-so-stubborn version of carpe diem) and turns them into something more solvent. It’s a great find and one of the best American films of 2006 (second only to The Departed in my count). It includes one of my favorite scenes of the year: I imagine it’ll warm your heart too when you see it. Also, watch out for writer Zach Helm, as this sets up a high bar for what may be a great career.

2006 / John Curran > It’s beautifully filmed and Desplat’s score is impressive in its ability to turn violent at a moment’s notice, but the film is flawed in its ability to say something beyond the obvious. People make mistakes and redemption often comes when the world is put into perspective, but The Painted Veil tries to say that in a way that finds itself to be almost self-congratulatory. I’ve never read the novel and am unsure of its depth versus the film, but maybe something is lost in the adaptation that keeps it from being of interest. As a period piece, it works on basic levels, and Norton’s passion in making the film comes through, even if a little forcefully at times, quite well.

2006 / Bill Condon > Generally, I’ll avoid musicals if possible, but one had to see what the hoopla was about. And Dreamgirls reminded me why I tend to avoid the sing and dance: In the middle of all the great musical numbers, costumes and sets, the depth and emotion needed for the story to stick and progress gets lost. Condon’s effort here is sub-par to Chicago, but thankfully, it shines on a technical basis.

On the debate of Beyonce vs. Jennifer Hudson, it’s pretty silly. Beyonce lacked script to deliver a real performance. Most of her lines were thin and unoriginal. Hudson, on the other hand, was solid but not entirely Oscar-worthy. (As of now, Kikuchi’s performance in Babel takes the cake for me.) Her character felt forced, self-centered and simply annoying. I’m not doubting she doesn’t have the skills, but I am saying the script kept her back. It was good, by the way, to see Murphy work some magic that we knew he always had.

As a huge fan of Motown music, this was still enjoyable at times. While the tracks were not nearly as catchy, the glitz and glamour of the girls made up for it. Taking that into effect, I would think those who are not fans of Motown or musicals will not find this nearly as appeasing.

2006 / Mel Gibson > It’s not nearly as profound as it would like to be, but Apocalypto is nonetheless a small triumph in filmmaking. On the surface, its entertainment value is immense, with heart-wrenching moments that gnaws past one’s level of indifference. For over two hours, Gibson succeeds in keeping our attention and making us wonder what will become of our protagonist. It’s finely crafted, with enough attention to detail to stave off everyone but the best of historians. If one can get over the small awning of preachiness, the film rewards the viewer with a surprisingly believable thrill ride.

2006 / Darren Lynn Bousman > While the original’s premise was under wraps until the end, the second and third have been forcefully convoluted to try and mimic the shock and awe created by their predecessor. Unfortunately, for the second time, they’ve failed. Gone is the underlying tension that there is something deeper, more sinister at play. In fact, it could be argued that the antagonist has become a sort of an anti-hero, one we actually find ourselves supporting and wondering what type of ingenious puzzle will be left for the next victim.

Cary Elwes and Danny Glover gave solid performances in the original, but that category has deteriorated further in this second iteration. What’s probably most disturbing and annoying is the unnecessary amount of visual quick-cuts that the editors take the liberty of shoving onto the audience. Combined with the numbingly overused screeching sounds, Saw 3 leaves us bored with the exception of some clever deaths.

2006 / Gabriele Muccino > The reason the film is ultimately bearable isn’t because of Will Smith’s performance, but rather the predictable yet heartwarming moments our protagonist finds himself in. Much of the storyline progresses as expected, and by the end all is swell and life goes on. The voiceovers are probably the worst part, and it brings down the film a whole notch. As an underdog movie, it’s nothing special—at least not something a dose of Rudy can’t cure.

Of note is Thandie Newton’s portrayal of Smith’s wife, which I found striking considering she’s often billed rather lackluster roles. Her character’s not particularly multi-faceted, but what she does, she does well. As for whether Smith deserves a nod for the Oscars, it’s tough to say. He’ll probably get the nomination since the role is a made-for-Oscar one, but without a doubt there are better options out there.

2006 / Edward Zwick > And Hollywood preaches on: While this is supposed to be a lesson in how diamonds are bad for the world, Zwick forgets to erase the excesses off the drawing board. The violence here is generally appropriate, but the story comes to a standstill too often. Cutting off 45 minutes from the film would do it wonders (because I’m certain we’ll survive without hearing DiCaprio wheeze for 25 of them).
The melodrama is suffocating, with blatant right/wrong arguments that are just too silly. For that, the story itself is fairly inaccurate and makes the Sierra Leone rebels look unnecessarily barbaric. Nonetheless, the first hour is quite strong and for a while I was thinking that this may be one of the better films of the year. DiCaprio impresses even with a weak script, but Connelly fails to show up. Hounsou is effective. It could have done more, but for that, it ought to have tried less.