Winners Breakdown: Sound Mixing & Editing

I'm going to start breaking down each category (or 2 at a time) and let you know my thoughts on who I want to win, and who I think will win. Starting it off with the Sound Categories! 


Sound Editing:
-Drive
- The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
- Hugo
- Transformers: Dark of the Moon
- War Horse

Now, I'm no expert on Sound Editing. I know it's the creation of Sound Effects, but that's really about it. But when it comes to Sound Effects, and just general sound recording in films, I'd say Hugo and War Horse will be the biggest competitors, and I'm leaning more towards Hugo because of how many nominations it's received it'll most likely sweep in the Technical Awards. But don't count out the others. The real underdog here is Drive. This being it's only nomination, I wouldn't be surprised to see it win in this category.

Will Win: Hugo
Could Win: War Horse
Dark Horse: Drive
Who I Want to Win: War Horse


Sound Mixing:
-The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
- Hugo
- Moneyball
- Transformers: Dark of the Moon
- War horse


Sound mixing I know a teeny bit more about. It's the mixing of levels of the already created sound, dialogue and music. Again, I'd probably say War Horse and Hugo are the big names here, but I particularly enjoyed the mixing in Moneyball- I actually noticed it. I'm betting for War Horse for this one (since it's either that or Hugo for both I figured it'd bet both on different categories, getting, likely, one right). Here I'd like to see Moneyball win. We'll see about that. 

Will Win:War Horse
Could Win: Hugo
Dark Horse:Moneyball
Who I Want to Win: Moneyball

All About Eve

All About Eve, 1950
Directed by Joseph L. Mankiewicz
Nominated for 14 Oscars, Won 6
Up Against: Born Yesterday, Father of the Bride, King Solomon's Mines, Sunset Blvd.

Synopsis: Eve Harrington is an aspiring actress, and a rabid fan of Margo Channing, a big Broadway star. One evening, a good friend of Margo's a playwrights wife, notices Eve and remembers seeing her at every single show Margo's done, and invites her to meet Margo. Margo, initially repulsed by the idea of a rabid fan, takes Eve in after hearing her story of loss, and of wanting to become an actress. She takes the girl in, lets her live in her home, and Eve becomes almost a pseudo-help. All the while, she's impressing all those she comes into contact with through Margo. And there may be a lot more to Eve than her seeming innocence.

This film has promise to be an interesting story (one that has become quite cliched now) of a young actress taken under their idol's wing, and becoming stars themselves. However, this film was overlong, and take s a very long time to get going, and a long time to wrap up.

It's a clever idea, and was probably one of the first films to mock celebrities. Bette Davis (Margo) was wonderfully over-dramatic, but subtle when she needed to be. And Anne Baxter as Eve was so innocent, but was able to turn on the persona she later gains in the second half of the film with ease and believability. The acting was great, and there was even a couple scenes with a very young Marilyn Monroe.

But the main qualm I had with this film was it was too long. Had this film been at least 45 minutes shorter, the story would've been much more effective, and a lot more entertaining. The first hour or so captivated me, but around the 1 and 1/2 hour mark, I started getting tired of the story. When I saw I still had around 45 minutes to an hour left, I was impatient. The film took too long to get to Eve's "rise to fame" chapter, and then spent too long with a pompous Eve, being quite popular.

Overall, the film was well-acted and looked quite good, and the music also good, but it was just too long to really capture me entirely. The film got quite dry by the end, and I was ready for it to be over. Had this been 1950, and I were watching it when it was made, I may have been less hard on it. I haven't seen and read stories like these a few times over, and it would've been a fresher take. However, it's 2012, and it's hard to judge really. The screenplay was sharp and witty, and was another great thing about it. I really wish I'd liked it more, given how much of a classic it really is. I applaud the idea, being a clever one, and being executed (initially) quite well. Compared to other films, it is still quite relevant, and still has an audience appeal because we still make movies with a similar story. It stands the test of time quite well, as still being regarded as a good film, with a good story, screenplay, and acting. However, had this film been a little bit shorter, I may've enjoyed it a lot more.

Updated Note (3/24/2014): I enjoyed this film much more upon second viewing. The film didn't feel quite as long as I have complained before, and was sharply written. The plot was clever and was extremely fun. You can never quite figure Eve out, and that's what makes it so great. I have upped the ratings in the Directing and Screenplay categories, as well as the Entertainment categories for a new total of 83/100 (upped from 72.5)


Acting- 9/10
Directing- 8/10 
Screenplay- 9/10 
Visuals- 8/10 
Music- 7.5/10 
Rewatchability- 7/10 
Emotional Connection 8/10 
Enterainment- 8/10 
Enjoyment- 8.5/10 
Overall Package- 9/10       

Total: 82/100

Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close

Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, 2011
Directed by Stephen Daldry
Nominations Include Best Picture and Best Supporting Actor.

Synopsis: Oskar Schell is special child. Being an amateur inventor, pacifist, tambourine-player, etc, he and his father have a special connection, playing a game called "reconnaissance expedition", which Oskar must find clues and solve mysteries his father sets him on which makes him talk to people, and do more things he's scared of, all while learning. But then tragedy strikes and his father is killed in 9/11. Oskar is shattered, and feels alone, scared, and angry. A year after his death he finds a key in his father's closet, labelled black, inside a vase he breaks by accident. Immediately he assumes it's another clue, something he needs to figure out, and he sets out to find the lock for this key, and to try to find out what his father left him.

I watched the trailer for this film several months ago, when the initial buzz started forming around this film. I remember watching it and thinking "seriously? Best Picture potential?" and I shrugged it off, knowing it was stlil 2 or 3 months until it's release. Then  it got nominated for Best Picture (after poor reviews) and again I thought, really? But knowing it was one of 2 films I still needed to see of the nominees, I'd have to go see it. I opened my mind to give it a blank slate, and expected nothing of it. I gave it a chance.

And, well, it wasn't horrible, but it wasn't that great either. Hm, where to start this review.

Oskar was an extremely unsympathetic character, which probably would've been a lot better read in the book. You can get away with a lot more things in books than you can on film. And I think this film was a good example. Oskar would frequently ask nosy questions he really had no business asking strangers, he had many quirks about him (like shaking a tambourine to calm himself), counting his lies, listing the things he was afraid of, giving random facts and just having a general inner-monologue that was slightly unnecessary in a film. All would've worked well in the book, but didn't work quite as well on film. Additionally, a lot of the time Oskar would say things about himself, but would act almost hypocritically later. For instance, he has a fear of bridges, but darts right across when the Renter (a mute neighbor of his who offers to help him on his quest) offers to share his story. He's also scared of public transit, but is okay once the Renter, once again, coaxes him on, and they exchange Oxymorons (his father and him used to have "Oxy-moron wars"). This was no fault of Thomas Horn's (the actor of Oskar), or even Jonathan San Froer's (the authors). It was that of the screenwriter, who didn't seem to follow through on things written. Additionally, there seems to be much more to Oskar than is shown in the film. We get a list read to us that he's an Inventor, a Francophile, a Pacifist, and we never get to see any of that. We only get it read to us on a list.

Thomas Horn, who played Oskar, was quite good, but you can tell he has not had too much experience. This is Thomas Horn's very first film, and I must say he did quite well for this being his first. However, many of the voice-overs were very monotone, and he, in fact, spoke monotone a lot of the time, except for when he was angry and yelling (the latter, he did very, very well). He was convincing as the quirky, unique Oskar, even if a little stiff or awkward at times.

One part I was excited for about this film though, was Alexandre Desplat would be scoring it. Desplat, being my favourite film composer, I was delighted, and as always, he didn't disappoint. His music was simple, and so melancholy, but it had a great effect. Mr. Desplat was indeed snubbed this year, missing out on several different opportunities, having scored Harry Potter & The Deathly Hallows Part II, Carnage, The Ides of March, and a Better Life.

While the summaries of this story boast about it being about Oskar's quest to find the lock that the key his father had, it isn't really. While it certainly was a part of it, it wasn't too as well as it could've been. Many a times we see little clips of the different people he visited (usually all looking purposefully at the camera, no Oskar involved), or very small clips with no conversation where we see Oskar interacting. We get the idea he's met so many people, since we see him scrap-booking pictures of everyone he's met, but we don't really get to see any of that, besides one or two characters. Instead, what we mostly see if the many tantrums of Oskar, the many times he leaves his apartment in the night, in his pajamas, out doing something or other, or flashbacks to "the worst day". In a way, I felt like, well, not a lot happened. The movie didn't go very far forward, and I felt like we had very little character development. Most of the time Oskar was rude to the Renter, or his mother, or the doorman, or he was in his room either crying, or looking at his maps. It could've been a meaningful story,  had the option of the people he'd met, heard their stories, and realizing we all have stories, and we've all lost someone. It could've been very impactful. Instead that route isn't taken and it's a shame. There was potential.

Overall, the word that floated through my mind while watching this movie was "pretentious". I had never really understood what people meant when they said a film tried too hard. I do now. It tried to hard to be "deep", it tried too hard to have a quirky little boy, and it tried too hard to show Oskar's grief and his thoughts. Several times in the film we get this image of a man falling through the air (presumably out of one of the twin towers), and it just seems so forced. Force for an emotional reaction. Of course, there is one (as I could tell from the sniffling from those around me in the audience), but the times that were the saddest were the conversation, were the "i love you"s that were almost unheard, and those moments that seemed more natural. Those were the moments where the film was at it's best, and really had something going for it. But in the end, I feel like we hardly moved forward. It was countless moments of Oskar being sad, when we could've gotten more in-depth to some of the people Oskar and the Renter met. While it was a sad film with a good message, it look a long time to get there, and with too many 2d characters.

Will it win Best Picture? It hasn't a hope. I still wonder why it was nominated, especially given that it had to get at least 5% of the overall number #1 choice votes. While it was an okay film, it was definitely the bottom of the 9 nominated, though I have seen a lot, a lot worse films this year. And Max von Sydow hasn't a hope either. Christopher Plummer already has it all wrapped up. Not that I thought Von Sydow's performance was particularly noticeable, much less award-worthy, but nevertheless.

Not a terrible movie, but not a great one either. Again, when asked if I liked this film, I simply shrugged, because there wasn't a whole lot to say about it. It was just okay.

6.5/10

The Iron Lady

The Iron Lady, 2011
Directed by Phyllida Lloyd
Nominations Include: Best Actress (Meryl Streep), Best Makeup

Synopsis: Margaret Thatcher was the first female Prime Minister in England. This is her story, told in flashbacks  as an elderly woman, dealing with Alzheimer's. We see a recount of her life before politics, her first campaign, the trials, the triumphs, her family, and her end.

Honestly, the only reason why I wanted to see this film because I've been solidly rooting for Viola Davis to win Best Actress, and wanted to see if she really, honestly stood a chance up against Meryl.

I hate to be a real downer on this movie, but I thought it had great potential, but it was executed badly. It covered too large a range of Mrs. Thatcher's life, ranging from "last year of high school-getting into Oxford" right up until her resignation, as well as her life as a confused elderly woman, seeing visions of her long dead husband. Had the director picked a certain time in Margaret Thatcher's life, this would've been done well. For instance, we get a look at 24 year old Margaret Roberts, trying to win her way into being considered by the conservative party, meeting her husband, losing her first election, and getting engaged. These scenes I found enchanting, and the young woman playing Margaret (Alexandra Roach) was very, very good, and looked so much like Meryl Margaret. Had these scenes of her trying to become accepted as a real politician and her love life/courtship/engagement with Dennis been played out, it would've been a nice film. Or even her run for Prime Minister, with a small bit of introduction to get to know her first. Instead we got a lot of old Margaret Thatcher talking to her dead husband, her entire political lifestory, and then, finally, halfway through, she decides to run for Prime Minister.

One thing I did very much like was that the film didn't pick a side about Margaret Thatcher. They showed the good and the bad. They showed the bad choices she made, and the consequences, and they showed her triumphs and her passion. They really showed that, in the end, she did what she believed in, she didn't let herself be pushed around by someone lower than her, or someone "more intelligent", and showing both sides was admirable.

Now, to the acting. Like I mentioned previously, I thought young Margaret Thatcher was quite talented. She was authoritative enough, but also was believable. She pulled off confidence and passion very well. The home videos scenes were darling, seeing her as a mother and wife, and a happy, cheery woman. You could see both sides of this woman and I quite enjoyed her, though small her part was. Young Dennis was also dashing, and just very charming, much like Jim Broadbent, playing older Dennis Thatcher. I thought he was really, really good, and quite underrated. I'd have liked to see him up for Best Supporting Actor in the particular weak year of Supporting Actors, but alas.

And now, to Meryl. As all have said, she was great. But I must sligthly, slightly disagree. I thought was great,  but only when she was playing older Margaret. She nailed being an old, confused woman so well, it was just so believable, and I bought into it every time she was on screen. However, playing the younger version, was not as phenomenal. For a lot of it I felt she was Meryl Streep, with a British accent, dressed up as Margaret Thatcher, who had a lot of inspirational things to say. While I thought she exuded so much power, and passion, and she really was Iron, I could see Meryl in everything about it. Many times I was even seeing her portrayal of Julia Child in some things she did. Not to say her performance was bad. Not by a long shot, but she truly excelled as playing an old woman, while her other parts were great, but not amazing like I thought it would be.

Another thought, was the makeup in this film was just whatever, except for when it came to Meryl Streep's age makeup. Her aged make-up was quite phenomenal, and is done just so right. You can hardly recognize Meryl under there, but it is just so flawless. I was rooting for Harry Potter to win make-up, and while I still am, I think it just might go to this film.

Overall, I thought the film was just sort of meh. When asked how I like it, all I could respond with was a shrug. I thought it had a lot of potential to be great, but it really failed to do anything with this film. There was not a whole lot of character development being shown, which hindered the film greatly. It just covered too wide a span to have any real effect. It almost felt documentary like at some times. But overall, not a terrible film, but not a good one. I was surprised to see it was only 1 1/2 hours, after feeling like I had watched a film over 2 hours. Not bad, not good. Am I still on team Viola? Oh yes, I am.

6/10

Kramer vs. Kramer

Kramer vs. Kramer, 1979
Directed by Robert Benton
Nominated for 9 Oscars, Won 5
Won BP Over: All That Jazz, Apocalypse Now, Breaking Away and Norma Rae

Synopsis: Ted Kramer is caught off guard when his wife, Joanna, announces she's leaving him, and leaving their 5 year old son. Ted is a career man, and while he likes to think he has a clue about his son, he doesn't really. Slowly, he grows to know his son well, and become a better father than he ever was. And once he settles into that role, his son loving him and he loving his son, Joanna returns and wants their son, Billy, back.

This film won a lot of the big awards that year. Dustin Hoffman won Best Actor, Meryl Streep won Best Supporting Actress, Robert Benton won Best Director, It won best adapted screenplay, as well as Best Picture. While it was a little bit cliche, here 33 years later, I know at the time the idea was quite original. The father a workaholic, seeing divorce from (kind of) equal sides. It was a moving story about the pain of divorce, and just how selfish it is, especially when there's a child in the picture.

I thought this was an emotional piece about a father who's able to turn his life around for his kids and about how divorce ruins lives. Ted Kramer hardly knows his child when his wife leaves him (not unlike Matt King in this year's The Descendants), but after working hard, getting to know his son, and realizing just what it takes to not just be a father, but to be a "daddy" to his little son, changed their relationship. It shows just how much parenthood changes you, and just how much family matters in your life, whether you want it to or not. It's the age-old idea that while career is important, don't make it the most important thing.

Dustin Hoffman played Ted Kramer perfectly. He was able to bring out so many sides of Ted, and make him such a real person. We saw the angry sides of Ted, telling his son he hates him, angry his wife left him, and angry the lawyers in court won't listen to him when he's trying to say his son is everything to him. We see him become the better parent, supporting his son, listening to him, and realizing all his son wants is love from his father. He doesn't care if his father is doing all the "right things" a father should do, he just wants his daddy to love him. With that being said, Billy, played by Justin Henry, was also nominated for his acting. He played Billy so well, really bringing him to life, and really seeming to understand the character. We see his immense sadness, and his pure joy, and his anger. He is still, currently, the youngest nominee in Academy History, being 8 years old.

Continuing on the acting note, this was Meryl Streep's first Oscar win, and second nomination. While she didn't have a very large part in the film, she was really good. She was such an unsympathetic character, yet at the same time, you almost did sympathize her. She brought the perfect balance of vulnerability to the role, yet a fierceness of a mother wanting her child back. She captured who Joanna Kramer was so well, and, again, brought her to life. But did I expect anything less of Meryl? I did not.

Overall, I liked the film very much. It was moving, and heartbreaking, and endearing. It may me ponder the idea of marriage, and just how sad it is nobody seems to be able to keep their promises anymore. And this film showed the consequences of that. People's lives are ruined, and they are very hard to fix. So many things in marriages can be fixed if one only tries. Had Joanna sought help for her marriage, things would've been very different. But the vows say "for better or for worse". So when the worse comes, why do people use it as an excuse to divorce? If anything, that's the time to stand firm in your relationship, and really try. Because marriage isn't easy. Feelings are easy, commitment takes effort.

Acting- 8.5/10     
Directing- 8/10     
Screenplay- 8/10     
Music – 7.5/10    
Visuals- 7.5/10     
Entertaining- 8/10    
Emotional Connection- 8/10     
Rewatchability- 7.5/10     
Overall Enjoyment- 8/10     
Overall Package- 7.5/10      

Total: 78.5/100

Oscar Nominees- How did I do!?

Well, the list of nominations are up! I'll post both the nominees and I'll let you know how I did with my predictions in each category!

Best Picture:
- The Artist
- Descendants
- Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close
- The Help
- Hugo
- Midnight in Paris
- Moneyball
- Tree of Life
- War Horse

Well, I was surprised to see 9 nominees this year. Especially the presence of Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close. That movie wasn't well-received at all, and has gotten hardly any nominations! Of my top 7, all of them were in there, and The Tree of Life was my number 8 choice. The only one I didn't predict at all was ELaIC, not even my top 20. But I did well, considering.
8/9= 88%

Best Animated Feature:
- A Cat in Paris
- Chico & Rita
- Kung Fu Panda 2
- Puss in Boots
- Rango

I must say, the notable absence here is the Adventures of Tin-Tin. Well if got mediocre reviews, it won the Golden Globe for Animated Feature. But, I'm very very excited to see Kung-Fu Panda 2 up for the award, which was my favourite animated film this year! I didn't predict it though it was my 8th choice.
3/5= 60%

Best Actor:
- Demian Bichir (A Better Life)
- George Clooney (The Descendants)
- Jean Dujardin (The Artist)
- Gary Oldman (Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy)
- Brad Pitt (Moneyball)

This category also had some big surprises. Michael Fassbender and Leonardo DiCaprio were both left out, but Demian Bichir and Gary Oldman snuck in! Oldman has never received a nomination before, and after being snubbed by many awards, I'm happy to see him in here, though would've liked to see Fassbender in here as well! While I didn't predict Bichir and Oldman, there were my 6th and 8th choice.
3/5= 60%

Best Actress:
- Glenn Close (Albert Nobbs)
- Viola Davis (The Help)
- Rooney Mara (The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo)
- Meryl Streep (The Iron Lady)
- Michelle Williams (My Week with Marilyn)

The big surprise here is Rooney Mara sneaking into the nominations, leaving Tilda Swinton out. I'm happy to see Mara in here. While I haven't see TGWTDT she looks pretty incredible in it. While she wasn't predicted, she was my 6th choice.
4/5=80%

Best Supporting Actor:
- Kenneth Branagh (My Week with Marilyn)
- Jonah Hill (Moneyball)
- Nick Nolte (Warrior)
- Christopher Plummer (Beginners)
- Max von Sydow (Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close)

Another surprising omission here is Albert Brooks, and Max von Sydow being included. But really, does it even matter, because Christopher Plummer has already won the award... While von Sydow wasn't in my top 5, he made the 6th spot
4/5= 80%

Best Supporting Actress:
- Berenice Bejo (The Artist)
- Jessica Chastain (The Help)
- Melissa McCarthy (Bridesmaids)
- Janet McTeer (Albert Nobbs)
- Octavia Spencer (The Help)

I'm really, really sad to see Melissa McCarthy here over Shailene Woodley. I felt she gave a way better performance, but there you go. I didn't predict Janet McTeer but she was my 8th choice.
4/5= 80%


Best Director:
- Michel Hazanavicius (The Artist)
- Alexander Payne (The Descendants)
- Martin Scorsese (Hugo)
- Woody Allen (Midnight in Paris)
- Terrence Malick (The Tree of Life)

There have been several directors battling out for the 5th directing spot (Spielburg, Fincher, Malik) and I'm happy to see Malik get in here. He wasn't on my predictions list, but he did take my 7th spot.
4/5=80%


Writing (Adapted Screenplay):
- The Descendants
- Hugo
- The Ides of March
- Moneyball
- Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy

I'm happy to see all this Tinker, Tailor, Soldier Spy love! Well, it's not a lot, but it's getting tons, but it's gotten more than it has anywhere else! While I had predicted the Help & the Girl With the Dragon Tattoo over Ides and Tinker, Tailor, they were both my 6th and 7th positions.
3/5=60%


Writing (Original Screenplay):
- The Artist
- Bridesmaids
- Margin Call
- Midnight in Paris
- A Separation

I did pretty terribly in this category, having only predicted The Artist and Midnight in Paris. While Bridesmaids was my 7th spot, Margin Call and A Separation weren't on my list.
2/5=40%  


Art Direction:
- The Artist
- Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2
- Hugo
- Midnight in Paris
- War Horse

I'm happy to see HP here. I'd really love for it to win this one, having been deserving the entire 7 films. Additionally, I predicted The Artist and Hugo, with The Help and Tinker Tailor in here instead of Midnight in Paris and War Horse. Though WH was my 6th spot, and Midnight in Paris didn't make the list.
3/5=60%


Best Visual Effects:
- Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2
- Hugo
- Real Steel
- Rise of the Planet of the Apes
- Transformers: Dark of the Moon

The largest omission here is the Tree of Life. Most expected it to be a shoe-in, but it looks like it got snubbed here. The movie to take it's place was Real Steel (which was my 7th spot). All the others, I got correctly.
4/5=80%


Makeup:
- Albert Nobbs
- Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2
- The Iron Lady

Again, really happy to see Harry Potter up for this. Truly deserving, and I'd say it's only slightly more the frontrunner over the Iron Lady. Would like to see HP win this one. I had predicted The Artist over Albert Nobbs, but got the other 2 correct.
2/3= 66%


Cinematography:
- The Artist
- The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
- Hugo
- The Tree of Life
- War Horse

The only one I got incorrect was putting HP over TGWTDT. I guess lots of HP nominations was wishful thinking. I'm still rooting for War Horse in this category.However, Dragon Tattoo was my 6th spot.
4/5=80%


Costume Design:
- Anonymous
- The Artist
- Hugo
- Jane Eyre
- W.E.

I'm surprised to see W.E. here. It hasn't picked up many nominations anywhere, but managed to sneak into the Costume Design category. Additionally, Anonymous was able to sneak in too. While I predicted War Horse and My Week With Marilyn over them, they were my 6th and 9th choice. 
 3/5=60%


Film Editing:
- The Artist
- The Descendants
- The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
- Hugo
- Moneyball

While I had predicted War Horse and The Tree of Life over The Descendants and Moneyball, I'm happy to see both of them here, especially Moneyball. They were my 6th and 8th spot.
3/5=60%


Music (Original Score):
- The Adventures of Tintin (John Williams)
- The Artist (Ludovic Bource)
- Hugo (Howard Shore)
- Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (Albert Iglesias)
- War Horse (John Williams)

The biggest shock here, for me, is the complete lack of Alexandre Desplat. He had a fantastically busy year scoring things like Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close, Harry Potter, Carnage, The Ides of March, but didn't manage to make it in. Instead was see some more love for TTSS, with Albert Iglesias getting nominated for his work. Additionally, we have double John Williams, getting in for both Tin-Tin (making up for lack of Animated Feature nomination?), and for War Horse. While I had predicted HP and TGWTDT in here, Tin-Tin was my 10th choice, while TTSS didn't make the list.
3/5=60%


Music (Original Song):
- Man or Muppet (The Muppets)
- Real in Rio (Rio)

Only 2 songs up for Best Original Song. One was in my top 10 (the Muppets) and one didn't make my list at all, though I loved Rio and love seeing it here!
1/2=50%



Sound Editing:
- Drive
- The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
- Hugo
- Transformers: Dark of the Moon
- War Horse

h, I didn't do too badly here, considering I didn't know what I was doing. I got Hugo, the Girl With the Dragon Tattoo and War horse correct, while I wrongly predicted Tin-Tin and Super 8 over Drive and Transformers. Neither of them were in my top 10.
3/5= 60%


Sound Mixing:
- The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
- Hugo
- Moneyball
- Transformers: Dark of the Moon
- War horse

Again, I wasn't too sure what I was doing, though I didn't do as well this time around. I correctly predicted Hugo & Transformers, while I predicted Pirates, Apes and Tin-Tin over Dragon Tattoo, Moneyball and War Horse. I'm happy to see the inclusion of Moneyball though, having said the other day I liked it's mixing (inexpertly).
2/5=40%


Overall, I got a 69%, 64/91 predictions correct, all in my top 5 (or 3 for some categories). However, 91% of the nominees were in my top 10 list. I'd say I didn't fair too badly.

Hugo leads the nominations with 11, the Artist in second with 10, and War Horse and Moneyball in 3rd with 6.

I'll make winners predictions in a few weeks. Until then, happy awards season!



(Below are the other categories I didn't make predictions in)
Foreign Language Film:
- Bullhead
- Footnote
- In Darkness
- Monsieur Lazhar
- A Separation

Documentary (Feature):
- Hell and Back Again
- If a Tree Falls: A Story of the Earth LIberation Front
-Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory
- Pina
- Undefeated
Documentary (Short Subject):
- The Barber of Birmingham: Foot Soldier of the Civil Rights Movement
- God Is the Bigger Elvis
- Incident in New Baghdad
- Saving Face
- The Tsunami and the Cherry Blossom
Short Film (Animated):
- Dimanche/Sunday
- The Fantastic Flying Books of Mr. Morris Lessmore
- La Luna
- A Morning Stroll
- Wild Life

Short Film (Live Action)
- Pentecost
- Raju
- The Shore
- Time Freak
- Tuba Atlantic

Heather's Oscar Picks

Now, Oscar nominations are being released tomorrow morning, and I thought I'd share my picks for Best Picture/Director/Acting, the things I'd choose if I were choosing the nominees.

Best Picture
War Horse
Moneyball
Harry Potter & the Deathly Hallows Part II
Like Crazy
Kung-Fu Panda 2
The Descendants
The Help
The Artist

Best Director
Bennett Miller- Moneyball
Steven Spielburg- War Horse
Drake Doremus- Like Crazy
Michel Hazanavicius- The Artist
Alexander Payne- The Descendants

Best Actor
George Clooney- The Descendants
Brad Pitt- Moneyball
Jean Dujardin- The Artist
Jeremy Irvine- War Horse
Anton Yelchin- Like Crazy

Best Actress
Felicity Jones- Like Crazy
Viola Davis- The Help
Kirsten Dunst- Melancholia
Michelle Williams- My Week With Marilyn
Rooney Mara- The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo

Best Supporting Actor
Alan Rickman- Harry Potter & the Deathly Hallows Part II
Jonah Hill- Moneyball
Andy Serkis- Rise of the Planet of the Apes
Brad Pitt- The Tree of Life
Albert Brooks- Drive

Best Supporting Actress
Octavia Spender- the Help
Jessica Chastain- The Help
Shailene Woodley- The Descendants
Chloe Moretz- Hugo
Berenice Bejo- The Artist

Yes, I was a big Harry Potter, Moneyball, Like Crazy fan. These would be my choices, would I be in charge of the nominations! Oscar predictions out tomorrow!

Moneyball

Moneyball, 2011
Directed by Bennett Miller
Potential Nominations Include: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, Best Supporting Actor, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Editing, Best Cinematography

Synopsis: It's 2001, and the Oakland A's is the lowest salary team in the league. Billy Beane, the General Manager is fed up with losing, and losing good players to richer teams. How can you make a good team when you're running on $40 million, when the Yankees are running on $120 million? When Billy meets Peter Brand, a player analysis, he introduces Billy into a new way of thinking about baseball that could change everything anyone's ever thought baseball was about, and change it forever.

Before you start thinking, I'm a little late on reviewing it, just like Midnight in Paris, this is my review after watching it a second time. I went and saw it in theatres a few weeks after it's release in September, and loved it. Now, I'm no baseball fan. Sure, I've been to a few games. I've seen the Jays several times over the years, and went and saw the Yankees in NYC last April, but overall, baseball is not my thing at all. It doesn't really captivate me, nor interest me. It's a little slow-running for me, personally. However, this film really invited me right in. It was a film about baseball, but there wasn't a whole lot of baseball in it.

The film consists of the behind-the-scenes of baseball. Billy Beane is trying to figure out how to build a successful team from a tiny budget. Peter Brand tells him you aren't buying players, you're buying wins. And by buying wins you're buying runs, meaning you have to get people "who get on base". So many players are overlooked for a variety of different reasons. And we see that there is value in different ways than people think.

The story was really well told, with a really honest screenplay. It was well-paced, and introduced enough that non-baseball fans could follow it, but it wasn't too simplistic, it was just right. Additionally, the cinematography of this film is completely underrated, as is the sound mixing. The cinematography on the big screen was pretty dazzling in a subtle way. The green of the field was surrounding, and the montage scenes were beautifully shot, as were the everyday things, such as the dressing room and stands at night, the empty fields, everything. It probably won't be nominated, but I loved it anyways.

Along with that, the score by Mychael Dana is perfect for this film. It's slow-paced, and just so inspirational sounding. It's simple, and is so effective. The sound mixing for this film is great. So many times we have silence, and it's so effective. Silence, except for the sound of a ball hitting a bat, or just the low notes of the cello. While the score isn't thrilling by itself, it's extremely effective paired with the film.

I'd also like the mention the acting. Brad Pitt was really good in this film. He played all the different sides of Billy Beane so well, going from father, to GM, anger, love, pride, and competitiveness, and teacher. He was very convincing in his role, and expect him to receive a nomination, though I felt Clooney will likely steal the win, having given a slightly better performance. I've become a big fan of Brad Pitt lately. Not just the looks or whatever, but find him to be a really good actor, and always makes really good choices. Would love to see him win an Oscar, but sadly, it won't be this time. Additionally, like Owen Wilson in Midnight in Paris, it's nice to see an actor who is usually in terrible movies (Superbad just being one of them) do a serious role, and show some potential. This especially paid off for Jonah Hill, having been great as Peter Brand, the awkward, statistics whiz kid that Billy befriends. He really showed some good potential, and he has a good shot at making the Supporting Actor cut on Tuesday.

Honestly, if this film won Best Picture, I wouldn't be disappointed. It was my favourite film of the awards season, and the year, before War Horse strolled along, and I still enjoyed it very much. It was incredibly well done, looks, story, acting, etc. While the Artist was a great film, I'd love to see this film win the Big Prize, but frankly, it's not going to happen, though I'd love to see it happen.

9/10

Going My Way

Going My Way, 1944
Directed by Leo McCarey
Nominated for 10 Oscars, Won 7
Won BP over: Double Indemnity, Gaslight, Wilson, Since You Went Away

Synopsis: Father Fitzgibbon has been with St. Dominics Parish for 45 years ("46 this October!") and is getting older. When he meets Father Chuck O'Malley, the new assistant, he isn't too keen on him. He's young, and very different from Fitzgibbon. He has a different way of doing so many things. But the church is in trouble, financially, and they need to find a way to turn it around. Though Father O'Malley may just be what the church needs. He connects with the trouble-making youth gang, but also handle the business and the busy-bodies of the church. But can he win over the trust and adoration of the superior Fitzgibbon?

This film won Bing Crosby his first and only Oscar. However, this film wasn't exactly Oscar material. It was a collection of stories, surrounding the church, and the two Fathers, O'Malley and Fitzgibbon. It's a humorous story, but not exactly the most deep of films. It's light-hearted, but it doesn't go a whole lot deeper than that.

The story is cliche at best. The old man not so welcoming of the younger guy, and the new way he's heading, and while the younger guy tries to appeal to him, it can't be done. But eventually it does, through his showing of potential, and his general charm and how much he cares.

The acting is well done, though, I must say. Bing was great, and the Oscar was well-deserved. He was light-hearted and charming, though was solemn and serious when he needed to be. Barry Fitzgerald (Father Fitzgibbon) was also quite charming. In an interesting circumstance, Fitzgerald was nominated for Both Lead and Supporting Actor, for the same role. However, being more of a supporting role, it was more fitting he should win for that. He was so cute and funny, and just charming as the old Father, and played his part so well.

That being put aside, this film was average at best, filled with cliche story lines, and while it made a nice film to watch once and appreciate Bing Crosby and the films he made, this was certainly not his best, nor was it Best Picture worthy. There were random smatterings of stories that were unnecessary, and storylines that could've and should've been played up more but weren't (the taming of the local troublemaker children, the forming of their choir, etc). Though, undeniably, the chemistry between Crosby and Fitzgerald was great.

Overall, the film wasn't that great, was a little too long for the subject it was about, and was just an okay film. There were a handful of good songs, and Bing Crosby is undeniably a very good actor, as is Barry Fitzgerald, but it didn't have much to it other than that.

Acting- 7.5/10     
Directing- 7/10     
Screenplay- 6/10     
Music – 7.5/10    
Visuals- 7.5/10     
Entertaining- 5/10    
Emotional Connection- 5/10     
Rewatchability- 6/10     
Overall Enjoyment- 6/10     
Overall Package- 7/10      

Total: 64.5/100 

Midnight in Paris

Midnight in Paris, 2011
Directed by Woody Allen
Potential Nominations Include: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Original Screenplay

Synopsis: Engaged couple, Gil and Inez have come to Paris with Inez's parents as tag-alongs on her parent's business trip. Gil instantly falls in love with the city, ready to give up his life as Hollywood screenwriter, his life in California to live in Paris and finish his novel he's been labouring over. Inez feels differently, and see's it as a tourist trip, and more looks forward to going out dancing with her friends, than taking in the city like Gil. But after midnight, Gil experiences something very strange on the streets or Paris. Suddenly it's Paris 1920, he gets invited into an old car, taken about the city and meets people like Fitzgerald, Hemingway, Picasso. But while he seems to be discovering himself, and where his heart truly lies, he's also discovering where his heart doesn't lie.

Ironically, this is probably the last potential Best Picture nominee I'll need to see, but it was the first one released, making it's debut in theatres in June. I've heard so many good things about it since then, it having been nominated for all 4 Guild Awards (SAG, PGA, DGA, WGA), making it a lock for a Best Picture nomination. Also, it's Woody Allen, who is extremely well known and loved. So, naturally, I've been waiting a while to see this film.

Knowing the concept I was wondering how it would pan out without seeming cheesy, or simple, or just plain generic. But it was done very well, and I could see the moral of it The idea of nostalgia is brought up very early on and we can see where this film is headed. Gil is determined 1920's is the Golden Age, between the writing and the art, and the music.

Overall, I didn't find the movie ah-mazing, but I did enjoy it. It was nice to see Owen Wilson in a different type of role, and seeing that he actually does have some talent, hidden behind those awful movies he usually does was nice. He was well-acted, funny, and just so human. He was star-struck, but at the same time retrospective as well as introspective. While it wasn't an Oscar winning performance, or even worth a nomination, I enjoyed him as Gil. We saw Marion Cottilard as Adriana, the alluring French woman that has captured the hearts of Picasso, a variety of famous painters, and, finally, Gil. Marion was completely alluring, yet seemingly innocent, and played her part well. Everyone in the cast did a great job, and it was a hefty cast indeed including Rachel McAdams as Inez, Tom Hiddleston as Fitzgerald, Kathy Bates are Gertrude Stein, Michael Sheen as Paul, the intelligent man that Inez adores. The casting was great, and made it star-studded, but not overly so, though well-done.

Owen really carried the film on his shoulders. We really understood Gil, where he was coming from, and his aggrevation at Paul being a know it all, Inez shushing him and adoring Paul, and just trying to finish his novel, looking for better life than his shallow one in California. The story was just told in a way that we so believed. We were able to put off our sense of disbelief and just accept everything, and we couldn't understand why Inez didn't see it, or why she didn't understand. Gil was a very likable character, and was told so honestly.

Additionally, the shots of Paris really were beautiful. I felt like I saw so much of the city, though I've never been to it. We understood Gil's love for the city, and we see what he sees, the beauty in everything. Also, the costumes were great, and were just so 1920's (obviously), but they were just so well done. The hair, the dresses, the suits, everything just looked so great, but in a subtle way. We could see it was still the same Paris that Gil and Inez are in, but it's also the one Hemingway and Fitzgerald lived in. The same, yet subtly different. The screenplay was also well-written. As I mentioned, Gil is such a believable character, but yet so are so many of the others, including Inez, and Hemingway, and Adriana. It had touches or humor, but it was also touching, and intelligent.

Overall, again, I thought it was a good movie. It was a nice, humorous story about a couple who are clearly not right for each other, and the idea of never being satisfied with where and who we are. Had people not known the references in the film it wouldn't be appreciated, and I only picked up on about 75%, enough to appreciate, but also just a little too much I didn't know that I felt slightly left out. I liked it, I'd watch it again, and I'd recommend it, but it's not my top film of the year. Didn't hate it, didn't die over it. It was a nice film, with a nice story.

7/10