Was she?

Rating: Null/10 (18 April 2004)

I don't now if I'm alone here, but the first two victims had it coming! (Well, definitely the first one in any case). Initially, when she won the Oscar, I was a bit cheesed off as Naomi Watts is my favourite actress and I didn't see how anyone could beat her performance in '21 Grams'. OK. I was wrong. Theron's performance is awesome, even taking account of the completely altered appearance. Christina Ricci, who I adore, seemed somewhat dumbstruck (which she's good at anyway - witness her semi-wordless role in 'The Man Who Cried', an underrated movie)in the company of Theron's 'monster'. I really believe, watching Ricci closely (as I always do!), that the camera captures her actually admiring her co-star's acting during their many scenes together. It is almost as if she cannot believe that it is Charlize Theron opposite her, acting as if her life depended on it. Ultimately, CR's performance is somewhat marred and overshadowed by this awe of her co-star. It doesn't matter, though, because she does her job as the easily manipulated and unwitting ally in the unfolding of events. The film does not glamorise proceedings. It is as gritty as '21 Grams' without its tricks of confused chronology. I liked it, even though most of the audience grimaced in their seats. Not as depressing as '21 Grams' in spite of the subject matter. Simple direction and story-telling perfectly recreates the seediness of the story. I hadn't realised that the woman was now dead. I assumed she would be considered ill, but maybe that doesn't alter the American system...Now, would Charlize please go back to being glamorous and leave Naomi to take over for the next few Oscars. And Christina Ricci needs a leading role to properly fulfill her acting abilities and finally emerge as a true Hollywood Great, which she will, I'm sure. 8 out of 10. Why was it an 18? A 15, surely...