Cinematography:- The Artist
- The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
- Hugo
- The Tree of Life
- War Horse
Once again, another solid category. While this may have been a weak year for really good films (is that just me?), but it's a strong year for the arts in movies, between Makeup, costumes, art direction, cinematography, etc. All 5 nominees here have great cinematography (while I haven't seen TGWTDT, the trailer alone showcases the bleak, Swedish landscapes, and I already knew it would likely be nominated). Hugo, which people are saying has been revolutionizing 3D, the sweeping shots of the train station, and of Paris, included. The Artist perfectly captured the time period of the film, and also filmed it in such a way that many films used to be shot, including aspect ratio, and capturing the light perfectly (light/shadows being a large focus in the film). War Horse has sweeping shots of the beautiful British landscapes, gorgeous shots that completely swallow Albert and Joey, and the scenes of war. All were so effective. And then there's the Tree of Life, the film that many people argue is the obvious winner. And I'd have to agree. While I was firmly on War Horse's side prior to watching ToL, I am now a convert. The Tree of Life perfectly captured so many things. The sun shining through the trees, Jessica Chastain walking (whether on the street, or through the woods, or on a beach), and following the character through the film, rather than having the characters follow the cinematographer. While I still would love War Horse to win, simply because the cinematography was beautifully overwhelming, The Tree of Life was both subtle at times, and so obvious at others that it's the clear winner. And yes, it won the top prize at the American Society of Cinematographers Awards.
Will Win: The Tree of Life
Could Win: War Horse
Dark Horse: Hugo
Who I Want to Win: War Horse
Tuesday, 14 February 2012
Monday, 13 February 2012
The Tree of Life
The Tree of Life, 2011
Directed by Terrence Malik
Nominations Inlcude: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Cinematography
Yes, I've finally watched this movie. I find it a little ironic that the very first BP nominee to be released was this film, way back in May. And it was the very last nominee I needed to watch.
I had heard so many different things about this film. Going on the iTunes page for renting it, you either had people saying it was very boring, and wishing they could give it 0 stars, and those who loved it, and gave it 4 or 5 stars. I was under the impression that regular movie-goers didn't like it, and film buffs loved it. Therefore I wasn't too sure what to think. I knew there wasn't a whole lot of "plot" (I got this from the very vague synopsis I read on iTunes and IMDB), and from hearing about the long creation scenes, I figured I was settling in for a movie that was more art than story.
I'm glad I went in with the mindset I did, because had I been expecting plot, and character development, and dialogue, I'd be extremely disappointed. But even from the trailers that came out around this time last year, I didn't really expect an ordinary movie. And that's definitely not what this was.
This movie revolves around a young boy named Jack, and the idea of the way of nature and the way of grace. The way of nature, Mrs. O'Brien explains via voice-over in the beginning, is self-seeking and only willing to please itself, which is what society teaches us. But the way of grace, is the way of God, loving those around us, and looking to please others before pleasing yourself. While Jack starts off as an innocent child, we see him lose his innocence in a number of ways. Through seeing his friend drown at the local swimming pool, to dealing with his father, who reigns their family with an iron fist, and, fro Jack's view, doesn't seem to love his children. Jack is trying to choose between the ways of grace, and the ways of nature, his parents both embodying one (his mother, grace, his father, nature).
What I found interesting was there was very little dialogue in the film. A lot of it was whispered voice-overs, through montage scenes. We get some perspective from each character in the film, and learn what they are really thinking.
The film gets off to a little bit of a bumpy start, jumping back and forth between scenes, time periods, and character views. But the things that gets the ball really moving is the 25-minute creation sequence. We see everything from shots of the universe (dust clouds), to the collision of 2 planets creating Earth, molten Earth, cell formation and dinosaurs, all while hearing sparse whispered prayers from Mrs. O'Brien (Chastain). It isn't exactly clear why this is included, but reinforces the fact that we are but a very small speck in the span of space and time. We live a hundred years (if that), while the Universe has existed for thousands (or millions) of years, and will continue to exist long after we are gone. And how small and insignificant our lives are compared to the vastness of the Universe. Very impressionistic.
After this, we focus on the lives of the O'Briens'. We see the parents in love, the birth of their children, playing wit their children, teaching them lessons about their lives, and just their general lives, the insignificant things, like going to bed at night, or eating dinner, or playing ball on the street. Jack, the eldest son, is innocent of the evils of the world.
But as Jack is getting older, he starts realizing more and more things. He see's a friend drown at the local pool, and another friend has their house burn down, his friend suffering burns. He's learning that his parents are 2 very different people, his mother kind and loving, while his father is strong and ruling with an iron fist, and is starting to realize he's more like his father than his mother, which he isn't happy about. And he questions how he can get back what his brother's have. Their innocence.
This film was incredibly well acted, and I'm surprised it didn't get any nominations. Hunter McCracken, who played young Jack, was so magnificient in his debut film. He expressed everything with such ease, I felt like Malik was almost filming him, playing with his brothers and parents, with hidden cameras, it was so natural. He really held the film on his shoulders, and supported it with surprising ease. He conveyed all the emotions so well, and his whispered voice-overs were haunting.
Brad Pitt, also was so good. He was so subtle, but plays his best roles when he plays a parent (Moneyball, and this). He has such good fatherly instincts in his acting, and connects so well with these boys. He is utterly convincing as the rigid father who has a temper.
But Jessica Chastain is the one who truly, truly shines. This is only the second film I've seen her in of the many that were released in 2011. She gave such a beautiful performance, embodying the 'way of grace'. She was graceful and loving always. Just the way she walked, and talked was grace embodied, 100%. She was just so lovely, and so different from her portrayal of Celia Foote in the Help. I felt this performance was far superior to hers in the Help, but love that she is getting recognition, though she won't win. Jessica Chastain has proved how versatile she really is, and this performance was utter perfection.
And I retract my comment that if War Horse doesn't win Best Cinematography I might throw a hissy fit. The Tree of Life completely owned War Horse. It was a subtle cinematography at most times, simply following characters around, not having characters stay within the frames. And then there were the lovely shots of creation (does those count as cinematography, or visual effects?), and the shots of those on that beach in the last scene. And just everytime Jessica Chastain walked, it was beautifully shot. It's definitely a deserving winner, though i still have so much love for War Horse's cinematography.
Overall, I found myself insanely interested, though there wasn't a whole lot of plot or dialogue. I was interested and invested in this family, and I found I cared about all 3 sons, and the parents, and their relationships. I found them interesting, even though they showed me the mudane things about their life. While I felt it went on a little too long (my interest starting slowing around an hour and 45 minutes), it was an interesting film. It wasn't my favourite film of their year, but it was certainly an impressive film, that gives us things to think about. I can understand why a lot of people didn't like it, however. It's not a movie that's everyone's taste, and I understand that. With films like Transformers, which is all action and 'plot' and dialogue, I can see why this film would get pushed to the wayside, though it is an incredibly impressive film, should you choose to be patient, and understand it's different from regular films. Will it win Best Picture? No, it will not, but I still thought it was a mighty interesting film.
7.5/10
Directed by Terrence Malik
Nominations Inlcude: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Cinematography
Yes, I've finally watched this movie. I find it a little ironic that the very first BP nominee to be released was this film, way back in May. And it was the very last nominee I needed to watch.
I had heard so many different things about this film. Going on the iTunes page for renting it, you either had people saying it was very boring, and wishing they could give it 0 stars, and those who loved it, and gave it 4 or 5 stars. I was under the impression that regular movie-goers didn't like it, and film buffs loved it. Therefore I wasn't too sure what to think. I knew there wasn't a whole lot of "plot" (I got this from the very vague synopsis I read on iTunes and IMDB), and from hearing about the long creation scenes, I figured I was settling in for a movie that was more art than story.
I'm glad I went in with the mindset I did, because had I been expecting plot, and character development, and dialogue, I'd be extremely disappointed. But even from the trailers that came out around this time last year, I didn't really expect an ordinary movie. And that's definitely not what this was.
This movie revolves around a young boy named Jack, and the idea of the way of nature and the way of grace. The way of nature, Mrs. O'Brien explains via voice-over in the beginning, is self-seeking and only willing to please itself, which is what society teaches us. But the way of grace, is the way of God, loving those around us, and looking to please others before pleasing yourself. While Jack starts off as an innocent child, we see him lose his innocence in a number of ways. Through seeing his friend drown at the local swimming pool, to dealing with his father, who reigns their family with an iron fist, and, fro Jack's view, doesn't seem to love his children. Jack is trying to choose between the ways of grace, and the ways of nature, his parents both embodying one (his mother, grace, his father, nature).
What I found interesting was there was very little dialogue in the film. A lot of it was whispered voice-overs, through montage scenes. We get some perspective from each character in the film, and learn what they are really thinking.
The film gets off to a little bit of a bumpy start, jumping back and forth between scenes, time periods, and character views. But the things that gets the ball really moving is the 25-minute creation sequence. We see everything from shots of the universe (dust clouds), to the collision of 2 planets creating Earth, molten Earth, cell formation and dinosaurs, all while hearing sparse whispered prayers from Mrs. O'Brien (Chastain). It isn't exactly clear why this is included, but reinforces the fact that we are but a very small speck in the span of space and time. We live a hundred years (if that), while the Universe has existed for thousands (or millions) of years, and will continue to exist long after we are gone. And how small and insignificant our lives are compared to the vastness of the Universe. Very impressionistic.
After this, we focus on the lives of the O'Briens'. We see the parents in love, the birth of their children, playing wit their children, teaching them lessons about their lives, and just their general lives, the insignificant things, like going to bed at night, or eating dinner, or playing ball on the street. Jack, the eldest son, is innocent of the evils of the world.
But as Jack is getting older, he starts realizing more and more things. He see's a friend drown at the local pool, and another friend has their house burn down, his friend suffering burns. He's learning that his parents are 2 very different people, his mother kind and loving, while his father is strong and ruling with an iron fist, and is starting to realize he's more like his father than his mother, which he isn't happy about. And he questions how he can get back what his brother's have. Their innocence.
This film was incredibly well acted, and I'm surprised it didn't get any nominations. Hunter McCracken, who played young Jack, was so magnificient in his debut film. He expressed everything with such ease, I felt like Malik was almost filming him, playing with his brothers and parents, with hidden cameras, it was so natural. He really held the film on his shoulders, and supported it with surprising ease. He conveyed all the emotions so well, and his whispered voice-overs were haunting.
Brad Pitt, also was so good. He was so subtle, but plays his best roles when he plays a parent (Moneyball, and this). He has such good fatherly instincts in his acting, and connects so well with these boys. He is utterly convincing as the rigid father who has a temper.
But Jessica Chastain is the one who truly, truly shines. This is only the second film I've seen her in of the many that were released in 2011. She gave such a beautiful performance, embodying the 'way of grace'. She was graceful and loving always. Just the way she walked, and talked was grace embodied, 100%. She was just so lovely, and so different from her portrayal of Celia Foote in the Help. I felt this performance was far superior to hers in the Help, but love that she is getting recognition, though she won't win. Jessica Chastain has proved how versatile she really is, and this performance was utter perfection.
And I retract my comment that if War Horse doesn't win Best Cinematography I might throw a hissy fit. The Tree of Life completely owned War Horse. It was a subtle cinematography at most times, simply following characters around, not having characters stay within the frames. And then there were the lovely shots of creation (does those count as cinematography, or visual effects?), and the shots of those on that beach in the last scene. And just everytime Jessica Chastain walked, it was beautifully shot. It's definitely a deserving winner, though i still have so much love for War Horse's cinematography.
Overall, I found myself insanely interested, though there wasn't a whole lot of plot or dialogue. I was interested and invested in this family, and I found I cared about all 3 sons, and the parents, and their relationships. I found them interesting, even though they showed me the mudane things about their life. While I felt it went on a little too long (my interest starting slowing around an hour and 45 minutes), it was an interesting film. It wasn't my favourite film of their year, but it was certainly an impressive film, that gives us things to think about. I can understand why a lot of people didn't like it, however. It's not a movie that's everyone's taste, and I understand that. With films like Transformers, which is all action and 'plot' and dialogue, I can see why this film would get pushed to the wayside, though it is an incredibly impressive film, should you choose to be patient, and understand it's different from regular films. Will it win Best Picture? No, it will not, but I still thought it was a mighty interesting film.
7.5/10
Winner Breakdown: Art Direction
Art Direction:
- The Artist
- Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2
- Hugo
- Midnight in Paris
- War Horse
This is another category that I feel is super strong. There were again, so many other films that could've been nominated here too. It was definitely a good year for the Arts categories! But the 3 big contenders in this arena are Hugo, The Artist, and Harry Potter. Hugo was fantasic looking, with it's 1930's Gard du Nord train station setting, the silent films settings, and the automaton. The Artist had the glitzy 1920/30's Hollywood look, with snazzy set designs, and just making everything look genuinely old. And then Harry Potter. Harry Potter has been nominated for Art Direction, 3 times before, making this its 4th time. And it's been deserving every single year. We had the destroyed Hogwarts, the glass boat house, the flashback scenes, etc. The 3 big winners at the Art Directors Guild awards was The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, Hugo, and Harry Potter. While that doesn't exactly rule who wins, it gives Harry Potter a step up, and the Artist a step down, though only slightly. Again, Hugo has tons of nominations, and I expect it'll win a lot of them. Hugo probably has the best chance of winning it here. However, the Academy could decide to give it to Potter, after all the times it's been nominated, and not excluding the great Direction it had again for this film. If anyone will upset Hugo, it'll be Harry Potter, though don't count the Artist out. It may sweep because of it's front-runner status.
Will Win: Hugo
Could Win: Harry Potter & The Deathly Hallows Part II
Dark Horse: Midnight in Paris
Who I Want to Win: Harry Potter & the Deathly Hallows Part II
- The Artist
- Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2
- Hugo
- Midnight in Paris
- War Horse
This is another category that I feel is super strong. There were again, so many other films that could've been nominated here too. It was definitely a good year for the Arts categories! But the 3 big contenders in this arena are Hugo, The Artist, and Harry Potter. Hugo was fantasic looking, with it's 1930's Gard du Nord train station setting, the silent films settings, and the automaton. The Artist had the glitzy 1920/30's Hollywood look, with snazzy set designs, and just making everything look genuinely old. And then Harry Potter. Harry Potter has been nominated for Art Direction, 3 times before, making this its 4th time. And it's been deserving every single year. We had the destroyed Hogwarts, the glass boat house, the flashback scenes, etc. The 3 big winners at the Art Directors Guild awards was The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, Hugo, and Harry Potter. While that doesn't exactly rule who wins, it gives Harry Potter a step up, and the Artist a step down, though only slightly. Again, Hugo has tons of nominations, and I expect it'll win a lot of them. Hugo probably has the best chance of winning it here. However, the Academy could decide to give it to Potter, after all the times it's been nominated, and not excluding the great Direction it had again for this film. If anyone will upset Hugo, it'll be Harry Potter, though don't count the Artist out. It may sweep because of it's front-runner status.
Will Win: Hugo
Could Win: Harry Potter & The Deathly Hallows Part II
Dark Horse: Midnight in Paris
Who I Want to Win: Harry Potter & the Deathly Hallows Part II
Sunday, 12 February 2012
Winner Breakdown: Costume Design
Costume Design:- Anonymous
- The Artist
- Hugo
- Jane Eyre
- W.E.
To be honest, I'd say there's a pretty solid year for costume design, and there were many other's that could've made the list (My Week With Marilyn, Midnight in Paris, War Horse, etc). So, this is really anyone's game in this category, though I'd say most likely to win is Hugo. Hugo's been nominated in all technical/art categories except Makeup, and I expect, for the most part, it'll sweep, here in included. Hugo had a great array of costumes, from the Paris 1930's, to the Silent Film era, and all those film costumes. However, hot on it's heels is The Artist, which was 1930's Hollywood, filled with Tuxedos, flapper dresses, and an array of costumes used in- lookie here- Silent films! However, I'd say it'll most likely go to Hugo, though I'd love to see something like Jane Eyre win, simply because it did have great costumes and it's not up for anything else. But I'd say count on Hugo, but I'm not ruling anything out to steal it. Anyone could easily take it.
Will Win: Hugo
Could Win: The Artist
Dark Horse:W.E.
Who I Want to Win: Hugo
- The Artist
- Hugo
- Jane Eyre
- W.E.
To be honest, I'd say there's a pretty solid year for costume design, and there were many other's that could've made the list (My Week With Marilyn, Midnight in Paris, War Horse, etc). So, this is really anyone's game in this category, though I'd say most likely to win is Hugo. Hugo's been nominated in all technical/art categories except Makeup, and I expect, for the most part, it'll sweep, here in included. Hugo had a great array of costumes, from the Paris 1930's, to the Silent Film era, and all those film costumes. However, hot on it's heels is The Artist, which was 1930's Hollywood, filled with Tuxedos, flapper dresses, and an array of costumes used in- lookie here- Silent films! However, I'd say it'll most likely go to Hugo, though I'd love to see something like Jane Eyre win, simply because it did have great costumes and it's not up for anything else. But I'd say count on Hugo, but I'm not ruling anything out to steal it. Anyone could easily take it.
Will Win: Hugo
Could Win: The Artist
Dark Horse:W.E.
Who I Want to Win: Hugo
Thursday, 9 February 2012
Winner Breakdown: Film Editing
Film Editing:
- The Artist
- The Descendants
- The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
- Hugo
- Moneyball
This is another one of those categories where I understand it, but have a hard time noticing it when I watch the actual films. But what I do know about this category is has correlations with Best Picture. 5 our of the last 10 awards has the Best Picture winner also won editing. And those within the editing nominees are usually also Best Picture nominees. While TGWTDT was not a Best Picture nominee, I don't think you should count it out just yet. However, Hugo, having nabbed tons of nominations in the technical fields, and The Artist being the frontrunner, I'd say the race is between these two. But I wouldn't count any of these films out of the race. Yes, The Descendants and Moneyball are less likely, but I'd say they still have a shot. I'd even like to see Moneyball win, since I thought it was extremely well put together, and isn't likely to win much (or anything) this year. However, I'm officially predicting Hugo to win, but if anyone will steal it, it'll be The Artist, and equally challenging opponent.
Will Win: Hugo
Could Win: The Artist
Dark Horse: The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo
Who I Want to Win: Moneyball
- The Artist
- The Descendants
- The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
- Hugo
- Moneyball
This is another one of those categories where I understand it, but have a hard time noticing it when I watch the actual films. But what I do know about this category is has correlations with Best Picture. 5 our of the last 10 awards has the Best Picture winner also won editing. And those within the editing nominees are usually also Best Picture nominees. While TGWTDT was not a Best Picture nominee, I don't think you should count it out just yet. However, Hugo, having nabbed tons of nominations in the technical fields, and The Artist being the frontrunner, I'd say the race is between these two. But I wouldn't count any of these films out of the race. Yes, The Descendants and Moneyball are less likely, but I'd say they still have a shot. I'd even like to see Moneyball win, since I thought it was extremely well put together, and isn't likely to win much (or anything) this year. However, I'm officially predicting Hugo to win, but if anyone will steal it, it'll be The Artist, and equally challenging opponent.
Will Win: Hugo
Could Win: The Artist
Dark Horse: The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo
Who I Want to Win: Moneyball
Wednesday, 8 February 2012
Winner Breakdown: Original Song and Score
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)
This was a really good year for music, with Alexandre Desplat scoring six different films, Thomas Newman doing one or two, Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross also in there. I was slightly disappointed to see that none of these people made it in, and we got 2 John Williams nominations instead. I have no qualms against Williams, but would've loved to see Desplat in there again, or even the others I named. But this year's nominees are all really good. By far, my favourite is John William's War Horse. I'm not even a very big Williams fan, but I adored his work. However, Ludovic Bource's music carried The Artist. While I thought it was a charming score, I thought it was a little wrong in some places, or cut off mid scenes, but I suppose that's not Bource's fault. However, the score that could pose the upset, I think, would be Howard Shore's work for Hugo. It is so unlike Howard Shore's other music, and is so typically French, and is quite charming. However, I don't see Shore winning this year, nor do I see Iglesias or Williams winning either. Undoubtedly it'll go to Bource... and who can blame him?
Will Win: The Artist
Could Win: Hugo
Dark Horse: Tinker, Tailor, Soldier Spy
Who I Want to Win: War Horse
Music (Original Song):- Man or Muppet (The Muppets)
- Real in Rio (Rio)
The big news is that there will not be live performances of the Original Songs this year at the Oscars. Personally, I don't mind, because I never really knew any of the songs anyways, and always changed the channel, or went for popcorn during this time. But it's interesting, having only 2 nominees. Many were predicting Mary J. Blidge's "The Living Proof" from The Help to win, however she wasn't nominated. But I think it's fairly obvious that "Man or Muppet" from the Muppets. While I love Rio, and the music from it, it really don't stand a chance against the Muppets.
Will Win: Man or Muppet
Could Win: -
Dark Horse: Real in Rio
Who I Want to Win: Man or Muppet
- The Artist (Ludovic Bource)
- Hugo (Howard Shore)
- Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (Albert Iglesias)
- War Horse (John Williams)
This was a really good year for music, with Alexandre Desplat scoring six different films, Thomas Newman doing one or two, Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross also in there. I was slightly disappointed to see that none of these people made it in, and we got 2 John Williams nominations instead. I have no qualms against Williams, but would've loved to see Desplat in there again, or even the others I named. But this year's nominees are all really good. By far, my favourite is John William's War Horse. I'm not even a very big Williams fan, but I adored his work. However, Ludovic Bource's music carried The Artist. While I thought it was a charming score, I thought it was a little wrong in some places, or cut off mid scenes, but I suppose that's not Bource's fault. However, the score that could pose the upset, I think, would be Howard Shore's work for Hugo. It is so unlike Howard Shore's other music, and is so typically French, and is quite charming. However, I don't see Shore winning this year, nor do I see Iglesias or Williams winning either. Undoubtedly it'll go to Bource... and who can blame him?
Will Win: The Artist
Could Win: Hugo
Dark Horse: Tinker, Tailor, Soldier Spy
Who I Want to Win: War Horse
Music (Original Song):- Man or Muppet (The Muppets)
- Real in Rio (Rio)
The big news is that there will not be live performances of the Original Songs this year at the Oscars. Personally, I don't mind, because I never really knew any of the songs anyways, and always changed the channel, or went for popcorn during this time. But it's interesting, having only 2 nominees. Many were predicting Mary J. Blidge's "The Living Proof" from The Help to win, however she wasn't nominated. But I think it's fairly obvious that "Man or Muppet" from the Muppets. While I love Rio, and the music from it, it really don't stand a chance against the Muppets.
Will Win: Man or Muppet
Could Win: -
Dark Horse: Real in Rio
Who I Want to Win: Man or Muppet
Tuesday, 7 February 2012
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
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
Sunday, 5 February 2012
All About Eve
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
Saturday, 4 February 2012
Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close
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.
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
Thursday, 2 February 2012
The Iron Lady
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)