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.

2006 / Ramin Bahrani > With a mood similar to a Hou Hsiao-Hsien film, Bahrani almost pulled off a coup of sorts here: He nails the loneliness, the colors, the feel of the city, but ultimately fails to stay true to its nature. Man Push Cart, ironically, should be called Man Pull Cart as we rarely see our protagonist push it, but that’s excusable. What’s not are the pretty girl at the newsstand and the absolutely preposterous climactic sequence. It’s a joke to someone familiar with the churns of the city, and complicates the film even if put in a metaphorical context. The potential here was enormous, but the film ended up getting carried away in its own little world with absolute disregard to the viewer.

2006 / John Cameron Mitchell > Calling it experimental would be a bit of an insult: Without its explicit sex scenes, Shortbus is less novel and considerably more of the old. It’s about relationships, sex and the proper mixes that lead to comfort, themes that have persisted and evolved throughout the history of film. And Mitchell’s sense of evolution by incorporating what most of us are all familiar with in vivid detail is meant to have given us a better grasp of the lessons within.

Admittedly, though, the atmosphere here is a little quirky, and the characters in Shortbus and the eponymous gathering place are often hard to relate to. It’s easy to like the film on the surface level: It’s playful, honest and seems to treat sex in an essential but non-exploitative manner. But ultimately, I found it tough to replay the rhymes and reasons of the players without questions, without wondering the simple craziness of sequence after sequence. I imagine this is a great film for many, and in fact I’ve been surprised by the multitude of those who have enjoyed it. But it’s definitely not for everyone, especially those who may have trouble digesting some of the over-the-top scenes.