All Quiet on The Western Front

All Quiet On The Western Front, 1930
Directed by Lewis Milestone
Nominated for 4 Oscars, Won 2

All Quiet On The Western Front is the first Oscar winning film about war. There have been tons and tons of films that have won Best Picture that either take place in war, or have a war theme. Even more have been nominated. But this was the first one to win (albeit it was the third movie to win ever).

All Quiet was made in the year 1930. It's about a young German man, Paul, who, after a rousing speech from his teacher, him and his friends, and all his classmates enlist in WWI, thinking it would be a great adventure, and would bring them honor. Of course, now, we know how wrong they all were.

The film looks spectacular for a movie made 82 years ago. Wow, 82 years ago. It seems so crazy that they were making films, and they looked as good as this one. For a movie made in 1930, where there was no CGI, no computers, or special effects, this movie looked pretty real. The graphics weren't as horrible as I expected them to be. In fact, they looked quite good from what I could tell, though I am hardly an expert. The film looked great, and was decently acted, though slightly melodramatic, but melodrama is forgiven in a 1930's WWI film.

Overall, the film was a little dry. There are very few character we connect to, really. We only really get to know Paul the last half hour or so of the movie after (spoiler) almost everyone he knows dies. The film has very little plot, and merely follows Paul and the 2nd Company through the war. While this sort of thing works for movies like The Hurt Locker (yes, I loved that movie), it didn't work so much for the movie here. Had there been strong character connection, or development, this film would've been a lot better than it had.

Still, it's an impressive film for being so old, and I kind of liked it. I'm surprised there hasn't been any sort of remake yet (it was remade as a TV movie in the 70s, which hardly counts). While I know there were rumors of Daniel Radcliffe being attached to a remake some years ago, this seems unlikely. It'd be interesting to see what they'd do with it, and it has the most potential for a really good remake of the very early winners.

Overall, the film had more novelty to it than it did the actual story. It was an interesting angle, coming at it from the side of the Germans, which I found interesting. WWI is so depressing, something I've been learning from book/stage production of War Horse, and was even more reinforced with this film. WWI was a war to bring home honor, when it never really brought anyone home. Thousands, upon thousands of people died, and most didn't know what they were fighting for. There was an interesting conversation between some of the troops in this film, discussing why they thought the war had started. They said that 1 country had offended another. Was it the Brits? The French? They weren't sure. One man noted that he wasn't offended by anything, so why should he have to fight? He went on to say that his solution for war would be to have the government people of each country entering a ring in a roped off field in their underwear, be handed clubs and fight it out there. It's an interesting idea. Why should there be a war when this is really the government's idea, or about something that doesn't concern the people, or if they don't know why? And that was a strong message throughout the film. And it really is true.

Acting- 7.5/10     
Directing- 7/10     
Screenplay- 7.5/10     
Music – 7.5/10    
Visuals- 8/10     
Entertaining- 6.5/10    
Emotional Connection- 6.5/10     
Rewatchability- 6/10     
Overall Enjoyment- 7/10     
Overall Package- 7/10      

Total: 70.5/100

Winner Breakdown: Best Actress

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 competition is in these 2 top acting categories. It's Meryl vs Viola for Best Actress, and Jean vs George in Best Actor, but I'll cover the latter tomorrow. Meryl Streep played Margaret Thatcher, both as a young(ish) woman, a woman in her 60's and an Alzheimer-riddled 90 year old. She was great as the younger Thatcher, speaking very regally and saying these inspirational quotes, I didn't completely buy it. Something about it reminded me of her role in Julie and Julia, and some other films. It was great (because its Meryl) but I was always thinking Meryl rather than Margaret. However, Meryl as the 90 year old woman is where she completely shines. She looks, acts, talks like an old woman. She completely nails it, from the shaky hands, to the slow hunched walk, and even in the makeup. Then we have Viola. Viola played Aibileen, a black maid in Mississippi in the 1950's (or 60s?). She is a woman she is sick and tired of how her and the other maids are being treated, how Hilly Holbrook is making things even worse by making them have their own toilets, and how the children love her but when they grow up, they become their mamas. She teams up with a young woman named Skeeter, who's writing a book from the point of view of the Help. Viola Davis was fantastic in this role, through and through. We can see in her face how worn she is, and how broken. But there is a power behind her too, and Viola is able to carry off both parts of Aibileen. But who will win? Right now Viola and Meryl are pretty neck in neck. Viola has the Critics Choice Award and the SAG, while Meryl has the BAFTA and the Golden Globe. Many people say Meryl is overdue for her 3rd Oscar, having not won in 29 years. Viola Davis has been nominated before, in 2009, without a win. Will the Academy choose the honor Viola, making her only the 2nd Black Woman to win Best Actress? Or will they go with Meryl, finally giving her her 3rd Oscar (Honestly, she should've won for Julia Child, that was just fantastic). I'm leaning towards Viola taking the win, here. She had a strong performance, and Meryl already holding 2 Oscars might be against her. However, it's anyone's race, although as much as I love Meryl Streep, I'm rooting hardcore for Viola, and will be really upset if she doesn't win. 

Will Win: Viola Davis
Could Win: Meryl Streep
Dark Horse: Rooney Mara
Who I Want to Win: Viola Davis

Gentleman's Agreement

Gentleman's Agreement, 1947
Directed by Elia Kazan
Nominated for 8 Oscars, Won 3
Up Against: The Bishop's Wife, Crossfire, Great Expectations, Miracle on 34th Street

The Gentleman's Agreement is the story of a widowed father, who goes "undercover" as a Jew for research on an article he's writing on Antisemitism. I was really interested in this movie when I picked it up from the library and read the back cover (yes, I order them, not knowing anything about them), and hoped it was going to be a good one! And I was not disappointed.

Gregory Peck plays Phillip Skyler Green (Skyler Green is his writing name, Phil Green his normal name), the writer and widowed father living with his son and grandmother, having just arrived in New York City. Upon arriving he meets his new boss's (and head of the magazine) niece, Kathy. Kathy is a lovely girl, beautiful, and smart, and she and Phil are instantly attracted to each other, and find themselves quickly engaged. But when Phil's boss tells him he wants him to write a piece on antisemitism, Phil is hesitant, but takes the piece on. While mulling over how to go about it, he realizes he must declare himself as a Jew and see the results for himself. Nobody knows him in New York, he's only just arrived. And he quickly starts to see things he didn't quite imagine.

The story gets more complicated as Phil starts to realize what he can and can't do. He can't go to the hotel he wants for his Honeymoon because it's "restricted", he see's the way people react when he mentions he's Jewish, and the assumptions people make of him. All of this seems a little naive of Phil, considering his best friend growing up was a Jew, and antisemitism seems to be everywhere. Eventually, even Phil's son Tom gets targeted with name-calling.

The story is well told, a double plot concerning Phil and Kathy, and Phil's research on antisemitism. And what I really appreciated about the movie is that it didn't focus on the outwardly antisemitics and how horrible they are, but how the people who dislike it so much but don't do anything to change anything, let comments and jokes slip by, etc, are just as bad. And they're the ones who could make a difference if they spoke up. You can't change the world by hating something and knowing what's wrong. It's knowing what's wrong and doing something about it. It was a well-told message, and something most people forget. About any issue.

Gregory Peck is great as Phil. He's serious, he's troubled, he's a caring father, and a romantic lover, and he's a serious writer. While the topic of antisemitism stays within the upper-class only (would've been more interesting to expand it wider than that), it was an interesting insight. Whether it's because it doesn't happen much anymore, or because it just doesn't happen here in Canada, I thought this film was interesting and I learned a lot. Sure, I knew about the goings on in the States, but not really to the extent of this movie showed.

In general the acting was very good. It scored 3 nominations, with Celeste Holm, who played Phil's flirty friend Anne, taking home the Supporting Actress Oscar. The pacing was really good, the music good, and it was just a really interesting and intriguing film. I can imagine it was quite controversial when it came out, being released in the 40s, right after WWII.

Overall, I liked it, learned a lot, and appreciated the strong message it gave. The only way to change the world is to get up and do something about it.

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

Total: 78.5/100 

Winner Breakdown: Supporting Actor

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)

Once again, we have a very obvious winner. Christopher Plummer has lost very few awards. He's lost to Albert Brooks (not nominated) 5 times, though all in Film Critics awards (Washington, Chicago, New York, Phoenix) and at the NSFC and Satallite Awards. So his only competition should be Albert Brooks, though he was surprisingly snubbed. Plummer has already won the SAG, Golden Globe, Critics Choice and the BAFTA. Previously he hasn't won any of these awards, which is shocking since he's been working in film for so long. But it's fantastic seeing him win this many thigns after so long. And I'm sure the Academy already has his Little Gold Man ready for him, and has for some time. Additionally, none of these nominees have won an Oscar. Kenneth has had 5 Nominations (2 for acting, 1 for director, 1 for writing, and 1 for short film). This is Nick Nolte's 3rd nomination, Max Von Sydow's 2nd nomination, and Jonah Hill's first. Nevertheless, Plummer has virtually no competition in this category. It will be no shock to see him win, and should be expected, in fact. In what is a terribly weak year for Supporting Actors, it's sad to see some decent performances excluded, namely Albert Brooks (Drive) and Alan Rickman (Harry Potter). Both had strong performances and were surprisingly snubbed. This makes the year of Supporting Actors non-exciting and with no competition.



Will Win: Christopher Plummer
Could Win: Max von Sydow
Dark Horse: Jonah Hill
Who I Want to Win: Christopher Plummer/Jonah Hill

Winner Breakdown: Best Supporting Actress

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

I'd say this is another category with a very obvious winner. Octavia Spencer has won every major award in this category. The BAFTA, the Golden Globe, the SAG, the Critics Choice, etc, etc. And she completely deserves this award, in all honesty. She was hilarious in the Help, and really stole every scene. The only one who would give her a run for her money is Jessica Chastain- also from the Help. She had an amazing breakout year, and while she was much more amazing in The Tree of Life, she could be awarded simply because she was amazing in all the films she did this year (which was roughly 6). Berenice Bejo could also make an upset, being from The Artist, but this seems quite unlikely. Snubs include Shailene Woodley from the Descendants, and Jessica Chastain in a different role.



Will Win: Octavia Spencer
Could Win: Jessica Chastain
Dark Horse: Berenice Bejo
Who I Want to Win: Octavia Spencer

Oliver!

Oliver!, 1968
Directed by Carol Reed
Nominated for 11 Oscars, Won 5
Up Against: Funny Girl, The Lion in Winter, Rachel, Rachel, Romeo and Juliet

This musical was one of my favourite musicals growing up. My grandparents owned it, and whenever we traveled north and stayed at their house for the weekend, we frequently would watch this movie. So naturally, I was excited when I read that it had won Best Picture. It's funny, realizing movies that you liked as a child or even a teen turned out to be Best Picture nominees/winners.

This musical is "freely based" on the classic book, Oliver Twist, by Charles Dickens. It's about a young boy, named Oliver Twist. He's an orphan, and after asking for more gruel (he lost at drawing straw rope), he is sold to an Undertaker. After a short while of being abused and living miserable still, he escapes and heads to London to "seek his fortune" as he so puts it. Upon his arrival, he means Jack Dodger (The Artful Dodger- or just Dodger). Dodger is a young boy also, maybe Oliver's age or a bit older. He tells him he knows where he can get lodgings, and Oliver follows. But Dodger doesn't seem as innocent as he is. He's part of a band of crooks, run by a man named Fagan. Fagan lodges dozens of young boys, who pick-pockets for him. And with this group is a few adults, namely Bill Sykes (the crook everyone aspires to be), and Nancy (Bill's girlfriend, and friend to all the children in the ring).

Like I've stated before, this movie is a personal favourite, as I've grown up with it. So I've got a bit of a bias but I'll try to be good.

I've got to say, this film is pretty underrated in terms of Movie Musicals. Nowhere will you see it on top 10 lists, or hear people covering these songs. Yet this is probably my number 2 favourite musical. This song has some fantastic numbers. The opening, "Food, Glorious Food" is just so fantastic, and really shows the desperation of these orphans. And then Consider Yourself, and Who Will Buy? really show London as it was for Dodger, Oliver, and simply how it was back in the 1800's. It captured the different jobs and lifestyles people had so well, and showed just how different the rich and the poor/middle class were. And anything with Ron Moody (Fagan) was just brilliant. He has such incredible charisma, and just likeability (yet you hate him too), and he just is so crazy. Things like "Be Back Soon", "Pick a Pocket or Two", "Be Back Soon" and "Reviewing the Situation" are all so great too.

The story is really well done, pairing the story about a young, innocent boy escaping his miserable life, alongside the story of Bill Sykes, Nancy and Fagan's ring of young crooks. It is by no means a "children's musical" though it is about children. The story is a bit complex, which is what makes it such a winner. It's not overly complicated and dramatic and serious, but brings a bit of complexity and seriousness without losing the humour and the innocence of Oliver.

There were 2 acting nominations for this film. The first was for Lead Actor, for Ron Moody (Fagan). The second was a supporting actor nomination for Jack Wild (Dodger). Again, having grown up with the movie, it seems so funny to me that these 2 were Oscar nominated. But having watched it again today (after several years) I can completely see why. Ron Moody totally lights up the screen in all of his musical numbers, and is great as the not-so-tough crook. As for Jack Wild, he was also great as Dodger. He carried the air of a young child, though not innocent whatsoever, and a bonified crook. He was demanding, and tried hard to impress. He was the perfect choice for Dodger and he played him so well.

Overall I don't have anything negative to say about this movie. It's always been a favourite, and continues still to be. And currently has the top spot on my favourite Best Picture winner's that I've reviewed so far.

Update (1/17/14)
I recently rewatched the movie, and while I still love it, I would not rate it nearly as high as previously. While it formerly had a 82.5/100, I have now adjusted it to be 79.5/100. While the acting of Jack Wild and Ron Moody were great, that of Mark Lester was very weak.


Acting- 8/10     
Directing- 7.5/10     
Screenplay- 7.5/10     
Music – 10/10    
Visuals- 8.5/10     
Entertaining- 7.5/10    
Emotional Connection- 7/10     
Rewatchability- 7/10     
Overall Enjoyment- 7.75/10     
Overall Package- 7.5/10      

Total: 78.25/100

The Broadway Melody

The Broadway Melody, 1929
Directed by Harry Beaumont
Nominated for 3 Oscars, Won 1

The 2nd annual Academy Awards were interesting. It was the only year that there were no official nominees. Only after research by the AMPAs was there an unofficial nominees list composed (based on seeing what films the Academy had evaluated). The Broadway Melody is the 2nd Best Picture winner (some argue the 1st. The 1st Oscars having honoured Best Picture- Production and Best Picture-Unique and Artistic Production, with Wings winning Best Picture- Production, and is listed on Oscar.org as the first winner).

Anyway, I was interested in what this movie would be like. Knowing virtually nothing about it, I was interested to see what a movie from 1929, one of the first all-talkie musicals.

This film was about 2 sisters who have come to New York to perform their act (singing and dancing). The one sister, Hank, is dating (almost engaged) to a man who's in with some music executives for Broadway shows and is a leading singer and dancer in Mr Zenfield's (music executive) show. But after an audition, the executives are only interested in Hanks beautiful sister, Queenie, but Queenie persuades them to take on Hank too. But Hank's boyfriend, Eddie, is falling in love with Queenie. But after Queenie subs in for a woman in very little clothes in one of Eddie's number, she attracts the attention of an older man, someone who Hank and Eddie don't trust.

This movie wasn't all that great. It was cliche and not terribly original, probably even for that time period of 82 years ago. At the same time, it was not bad for a movie that is, 82 years old. The acting was quite good (Bessie Love, who played Hank, had an unofficial nomination) and was a cute, fun film about sisterly bonds, sacrificing for love, and some good music. Funny enough, I didn't think I'd recognize any of it, but I did. One of which was used in Singin' In The Rain.

Overall, I thought it was an okay movie. It wasn't terribly interesting and found myself frequently checking to see how much time is left. But I was impressed in how good it was for it's time. I was expecting a lot less than what I got.

Acting- 7/10 

Directing- 7/10 
Screenplay- 6.5/10 

Visuals- 7/10 

Music- 8/10 

Emotional Connection- 5/10 

Entertainment- 5/10 

Rewatchability- 5/10 

Overall Enjoyment- 5/10 

Overall Package- 6/10       

Total: 61.5/100

Winner Breakdown: Best Director

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


Honestly, this is a pretty straightforward category when it comes to who'll win. This award usually goes right along with the Best Picture winner, so we're looking at first-time nominee Michel Hazanavicius to take home this prize, as he will with Best Picture. I thought Hazanavicius's film was great, and the direction of it was so magnetic. The focus on lighting/shadows, silence vs sound, and just everything about the film was great. Even if it hadn't have been silent, the film still would've been completely captivating, and that's because of Jean Dujardin and Michel Hazanavicius. Hazanavicius won the DGA Award, the Critics Choice Award and several Film Critics awards. However, Martin Scorsese would be the only competition in this category. He won the Golden Globe and National Board of Review. However, Hugo will likely win several technical awards, and Hugo doesn't stand too much of a chance at Best Picture, taking away from the chances at Director. Hazanavicius seems the clear winner here.  

Will Win: Michel Hazanavicius
Could Win: Martin Scorsese
Dark Horse: Woody Allen
Who I Want to Win: Michel Hazanavicius

Gigi

Gigi, 1958
Directed by Vincente Minnelli
Nominated for 9 Oscars, Won 9
Up Against: Auntie Mame, Cat on A Hot Tin Roof, The Defiant Ones, Separate Tables

Gigi is a young girl living in Paris in the year 1900. She lives with her mother (who is too busy with her singing "career" to look after her), and her grandmother, and takes lessons (manners, posture, eating habits, etc) with her Aunt. They are all trying to mold her into the perfect lady. But Gigi is different. She is wild, and silly, and speaks her mind.

On the other hand, there is Gaston Lachaille, a Parisian socialite who dates many women, is extremely rich, and world famous, but finds everything "a bore". He is tired of all the girls being the same, and the city being the same, and everything being the same. He is looking for something new. Gaston is friends with Gigi and her grandmother, and has been for a long time, and loves to play cards with Gigi, talk, and spoil her. But Gigi is starting to grow up, and become a lady, and Gaston realizes she is not a little girl after all... and he may just be in love with her.

This film won all 9 Oscars it was nominated for, making it the movie with the most wins in Oscar history, at that point. It was a well done film indeed, and was a good light-hearted musical. Leslie Caron, who has previously starred in An American in Paris (another BP, and starring alongside Gene Kelly), was great as Gigi. While I found her to be so-so in American (which was her first film), she was fun and wild in this one. While it wasn't Oscar worthy (she wasn't nominated), she pulled off playing a 16-18 year old with ease and was believable.

While the music was fun, and the story was nice, it wasn't a very compelling film, and was just a 'cute' film. Not that I have anything against that. Singin' In The Rain is one of my very favourite movies, and it isn't deep, and is more cute and fun than anything.

The songs, however, were very good. The movies wasn't overloaded with singing (which I liked) and the song were catchy and appropriate for the story (which I like even more). "Thank heaven, for little girls" is still whirling around my head, French accent included.

Overall, I enjoy musicals. Not so much ones from this day and age, but love those from the 50's and 60's. Things like Sound of Music, Oliver!, Singin' In The Rain, Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, etc. So I was hoping for something really good out of this one too, and I really did enjoy (though not as much as any of the above listed). Gigi was a very likable character, which reminded me very much of Anne Shirley (Anne of Green Gables), and the others characters were quite fun. Gaston was funny, yet a playboy. Honore was cute and charming, and even her grandmother and Aunt Alicia were funny. The script was well written, and was funny and witty, which I love in a film.

There's not too much else I can say. I enjoyed it, it was a nice film, though probably not something I would pick for Best Picture. But it was still a fun film. And musicals from the 50's and 60's are the best ones.

Acting- 8/10     
Directing- 7.5/10     
Screenplay- 8/10     
Music – 8/10    
Visuals- 8/10     
Entertaining- 7.5/10    
Emotional Connection- 7/10     
Rewatchability- 7/10     
Overall Enjoyment- 7.5/10     
Overall Package- 7/10      

Total: 75.5/100 

Winner Breakdown: Screenplays

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


This year was very much composed of book adaptations in the best picture category. Of the 9 nominees, 6 are based upon books, though surprisingly only 3 of those made it in (Moneyball, Descendants and Hugo). So far, it looks like the competition will be between the 3 Best Picture nominees. Behind The Descendants we have Alexander Payne and Nat Faxon. Payne previously won an Oscar (his only) for his writing for Sideways. Behind Hugo is John Logan, who hasn't won an Oscar yet, but was previously nominated for Gladiator and The Aviator. And for Moneyball we have Steven Zaillian and Aaron Sorkin. Zaillian has been nominated 4 times and won for Schindler's List, and Sorkin has been nominated twice, winning for his work on last year's The Social Network. (Ides writers both have been nominated for 1 other film, and TTSS are first time nominees). So we're really looking at the BP nominees. But personally, I feel the award will go to Moneyball. Zaillian and Sorkin made a smart baseball film, with some humour, but also with some wit, and passion. It's a well-written script, and may be Moneyball's best shot at anything. It's won lots of Film Critics awards (Toronto, San Diago, etc), and it has the powerhouse's of Zaillian and Sorkin. If anything is to upset this award, it'll be The Descendants, which just won the WGA Award for Best Adapted. Payne has previously won for Sideways, and both films will be duking it out for (possibly) the only awards they have shots at. But I'm going to have to put Moneyball as the winner, just over The Descendants, though I wouldn't be shocked if The Descendants took it.

Will Win: Moneyball
Could Win: The Descendants
Dark Horse: The Ides of March
Who I Want to Win: Moneyball



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


This category was interesting since there weren't too many Original Screenplay's this year. This is Margin Call's only nomination, and it's not likely to win. The clear winner here is Woody Allen's Midnight in Paris. It won the Golden Globe and the Writers Guild Award. I'd say it's pretty much a lock-in, with Allen previously winning 2 Writing Awards, and being nominated a total of 15 times (just for writing). This one is a pretty clear winner. However, The Artist could make an upset (as could Bridesmaids), but I wouldn't seriously think on it, as it's not at all likely. 




Will Win: Midnight in Paris
Could Win: The Artist
Dark Horse: Bridesmaids 
Who I Want to Win: Midnight in Paris