Rain Man

Rain Man, 1988
Directed by Barry Levinson
Nominated for 8 Oscars, Won 4
Up Against: The Accidental Tourist, Dangerous Liasons, Mississippi Burning, Working Girl

Synopsis: Charlie Babbit is living in LA, working as a down-and-out automobile salesman. When Charlie hears word that his father has died, he barely feels anything. He and his father have had an estranged relationship since Charlie was sixteen years old, when he borrowed his fathers 1948 Buick convertible without permission, with his friends, got pulled over for 'stealing a car', and his father left him in jail for 2 days while he friends all made bail. Charlie goes to his father's funeral, and then learns that his father's money ($3 million) is going into a trust, and Charlie has only been left the 1948 Buick, and his father's prized rose bushes. While in searches of finding out who the $3 million has gone to, he discovers he has an older brother. His name is Raymond, he's an autistic man living at a home for special needs patients, and he has inherited the $3 million. Charlie is angry, he never knew about Raymond, and that Ray has no need for this money. He decides to "take" his brother from his home, and tries to bargain him for the money, all while traveling cross-country with his autistic brother, hardly knowing how to deal with him.

When I started up this project, my mum was really excited that I would be watching this movie. My dad too, and several other people I knew told me this was an amazing movie. So naturally, I was excited to watch it. I was even more excited after watching Kramer vs Kramer, and seeing Dustin Hoffman as a great actor.

Personally, I found the plot a little slow. Most of the movie was spent in Charlie and Ray traveling across country, and Charlie getting annoyed and yelling at Ray, and Ray just being, well, Ray, and living in his own little world. There was a small plot about Charlie's car company, how it's about to go under, and how he'll owe people a lot of money, and he's broke. There's the little plot about the $3 million, and trying to gain custody of his brother so he can have the money. Oh, and all the funny things they do on their way to LA, like Charlie finding out Ray has a special talent with numbers. They go to Vegas and Ray counts cards so that Charlie can pay back his clients, with which their deals have fallen through. But this movie is really about Charlie and Ray. Charlie trying to come to terms on how to deal with Ray, about how Ray isn't "in there somewhere", this is just how he is. And just dealing with the fact that he had a brother he never knew about.

But above all, this was really a showcase for Dustin Hoffman. Dustin Hoffman playing Ray, the autistic man, who recites "Who's On First?" when nervous, watches Jeopardy at 5 everyday, has lights out at 11, and doesn't like to fly on planes because they crash, likes clothes from K-Mart, and memorizes everything he reads. While Dustin Hoffman was originally cast as Charlie, he changed his mind after encountering Leslie Lemke, who was blind, mentally handicapped, and had cerebal palsy but who could play full piano concertos by ear. He spent a year working with autistic people and their families to try and understand them better, and how they think, and deal with relationships. And this really paid off. Dustin Hoffman was so utterly convincing that I couldn't believe he was that father I had seen in Kramer vs Kramer, that he wasn't autistic. Even though Hoffman reportedly said that this was his "worst work" while filming, he won his second Oscar. And rightly so. His performance was absolutely incredible. While autism was known to some people in the 80's, Hoffman really give a face to what autism was, and really changed people's perspectives on it.

And then there's Tom Cruise. Many people seem to not mention how really good he was too. He and Hoffman had such great chemistry, and you really believed they were somehow brothers. Charlie is erratic and abrasive, and he simply cannot understand Ray at first, thinking his needs and antics are an act. But he slowly comes to terms with who Ray is, and what Ray is to him. And he plays this so well. He's really able to hold his own much of the time, and does a great job.

Overall, this movie was a wonderful treat. The acting was superb, even if the story was a tad weak and didn't really wrap everything up in the end. Hoffman gave one of the best performances I've seen thus far. This film also features Hans Zimmers first Hollywood score, and got Dustin Hoffman his second Best Actor award, as well with winning, Picture, Director and Screenplay. Overall, a good movie.

Acting- 9.5/10     
Directing- 7.5/10     
Screenplay- 7/10     
Music – 8/10    
Visuals- 7.5/10     
Entertaining- 7/10    
Emotional Connection- 8/10     
Rewatchability- 7.5/10     
Overall Enjoyment- 7.5/10     
Overall Package- 7/10      

Total: 76.5/100 

Terms of Endearment

Terms of Endearment, 1983
Directed by James L. Brooks
Nominated for 11 Oscars, Won 5
Up Against: The Big Chill, The Dresser, The Right Stuff, Tender Mercies

Terms of Endearment is a mother-daughter story. Aurora lost her husband when her only daughter Emma was a young girl. It's been the two of them for most of Emma's life. When Aurora tells Emma, the night before her wedding, that marrying her fiancee, Flap, will be a catastrophic mistake, things get tense for the two. Emma marries Flap while her mother doesn't attend the wedding, and the two move away because Flap gets a job teaching English at a university.

During their time living apart, we follow their 2 different stories. Aurora is on her own, living with only herself and a maid or two. She strikes up an extremely unlikely relationship with her drunken, womanizing, ex-astronaut neighbour, despite the fact that she is prim, proper and strict, hardly able to tolerate his (Garrett's) ways. Meanwhile, Emma and Flap are having troubles of their own. They now have several kids, and are short on money. Emma starts to expect Flap is cheating, while she goes out into a little affair herself.

The movie doesn't have a plot, exactly. This is a movie about life, and the struggles and joys within them. Both Debra Winger (Emma) and Shirley MacLaine (Aurora) give fantastic performances. Debra Winger as the awkward and headstrong daughter, and Shirley MacLaine as the prim, proper and harsh mother. Also, both Jack Nicholson and Jeff Daniels give great supporting performances.

I commend the movie for giving such real performances and portrayals of life. Life doesn't have 'plots', it is just moving along, and there are good things and bad things, but we must have relationships, especially healthy ones.

What I wasn't crazy about in this movie was we didn't really get to know the characters. We saw flashes of their lives at different points in time, over several years, but never did we really get to know their characters. We never got to see why Aurora fell in love with Garrett, and what changed about what she felt about him. We didn't the gradual breakdown of Emma and Flap's marriage, we only saw them happy one moment and then angry and yelling the next. I felt this movie would've been a lot stronger had the character been portrayed more 2D. But that's just me.

While I don't usually spoil reviews, this one I can't really help. The last half hour, when Emma is in a bad position with Flap and her children (her eldest son seems to really hate her), but having a decent relationship with her mother, she discovers she has cancer- and is dying. This would've been a much more moving bit if I'd known the characters and cared for them more than I did. But I didn't. And that's just why the movie almost worked for me, but not quite.

Acting- 8/10     
Directing- 7/10     
Screenplay- 6.5/10     
Music – 7.5/10    
Visuals- 7.5/10     
Entertaining- 6.5/10    
Emotional Connection- 6/10     
Rewatchability- 5/10     
Overall Enjoyment- 6.5/10     
Overall Package- 6.5/10      

Total: 67/100

Forrest Gump

Forrest Gump, 1994
Directed by Robert Zemeckis
Nominated for 13 Oscars, Won 6
Up Against: Four Weddings and A Funeral, The Shawshank Redemption, Pulp Fiction, Quiz Show

Embarassingly, I haven't seen this movie before. Actually, I don't know if it's embarassing to admit. The only things I really knew about this movie was "life's like a box of chocolate..." and "run forrest! run!" Other than that, I didn't know a whole lot about it. Though I knew people quoted it a lot. But overall, no idea really going into this.

Forrest Gump is the story of, well, Forrest Gump. Forrest is peculiar. He is sitting at a bus stop and starts telling his story to a woman (the 'audience' changes various times). He was a peculiar kid. He has leg braces, giving him a funny walk, and has an extremely low IQ. He meets a girl named Jenny on the first day of school. She's nice to him while all the other kids are mean. We are told they become lifelong friends. The story continues; Forrest telling us about shedding his leg braces, falling in love with running, playing football in college, serving in the Vietnam War, having his own shrimp boat, and finding Jenny again.

I'm just going to put it out there that I thought this movie was pretty weird. It was quirky, and odd and just really weird. Some things were so unrealistic, and hard to believe. That being said, I didn't enjoy this movie as much as I thought I would. Sure, it was a nice movie, but it was pretty odd, and I kept wondering how this won Best Picture. Again, not terrible, just okay. However, Tom Hanks was utterly amazing. He really owned the part of Forrest, and truly brought him to life. He completely shines and is overtaken by the role. He really knows his character, and is able to embody him in all ways. The accent was great, the manner of speech, the body language.. The best thing about this movie was Tom Hanks.

This is a movie about life, and following Forrest through it. Through this movie, I was continually thinking of The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. I really loved that film, and thought it was so heartbreaking, and so interesting. And I could see so much of CCBB in this (or vise-versa I suppose). Interestingly enough, both movies had the same screenplay writer, Eric Roth. Roth really understood his source material for this film though. It was funny, and really followed through on Forrest, really embodying him the same way, the entire film even though the film was a little too long. Much could've been shaved off.

For some of this film, I was sure whether it was supposed to be taken seriously, or to be joked off. It went back and forth between these two things, being very extreme on the 2 side to boot, that it was a little hard to take in, since it seemed so choppy. One moment Forrest is rescuing his fellow soldiers from an attack and bombing in Vietnam, the next he is eating ice cream in the hospital while recovering from being shots "in the buttocks" and wearing an enormous bandage/cast. The next we're learning about his friend, who lost his legs, and is mad Forrest didn't let him die out in the attack, and then Forrest is becoming a ping-pong champ and hitting at "amazing" speeds. It was very back and forth, and made it hard to take the serious stuff seriously, and the funny stuff in a jokey way. Not that other movies aren't like that, but there is a fine line, and having the serious stuff and funny stuff on two very different ends of the spectrum, it was hard to swallow.

Overall, the film was a little all over the place. There were recurring jokes of showing Forrest with celebrity icons before they were famous and inspiring them (John Lennon, Elvis), and him being put into old footage of football teams meeting the president, when the first black students arrived at Forrest's university (University of Alabama). We see contrast between Jenny's wild life of sex, strip clubs, drugs, and hippie lifestyle, with Forrest living a simple life, being in the Vietnam war, living on a shrimp boat, and their on again, off again relationship. It's a story about life, and love, and how you never really know what you're going to get in life, but that it's your life, and it's worth living to the fullest. While it was a cheesy at some points, purely lame at others, and just full-out unrealistic at others, Forrest Gump is an alright movie, but is extremely mediocre when you think about it winning Best Picture- particularly over films like Shawshank Redemption, Pulp Fiction and Quiz Show.

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

Total: 68/100

The Artist (re-review)

The Artist, 2011
Directed by Michel Hazanavicius
Nominated for 10 Oscars, Won 5
Up Against: Moneyball, War Horse, Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close, Midnight in Paris, The Help, The Descendants, The Tree of Life, Hugo

Yes, I reviewed this movie already. I reviewed upon first seeing back in January. However, I went and saw it again after it won Best Picture and just thought I'd give it another very brief review/thoughts.

I really, really enjoy this film. And a lot of what I wasn't sure of last time, I was more warmed up to. I love, love, love the soundtrack now. At first I thought it was alright, but I guess hearing it all awards season, every time it won something, got me to warm up to it. I love it now. I thought the style of music was better suited and it felt like it stopped and started again at better times than I had originally thought the first time.

Jean Dujardin was just as brilliant as always. His performance was so expressive and everything that silent film stars were. And does anyone else think Berenice Bejo's performance was underrated? I know she was up for all the Supporting Actress awards, but I thought was she also incredibly charming and brilliant, and didn't get as much recognition as it deserved.

Also, what's interesting about this film is that it would've worked just as well as a non-silent movie. While the whole silent-black-and-white thing was a gimmick, it still would've been just as good a movie, and the performances just as charming had it been in colour and with sound.

While I really loved this movie, it came in tied for 4th place in my BP nominee rankings. (Moneyball first, then War Horse and Descendants, and tied with the Help). It's an extremely well put together movie. It's charming, yet has depth to it. Peppy and George were incredibly well developed for a silent movie (and just a movie in general!). The acting was superb, and the sets, design, and costumes were great. While the story was a little slow-moving, and not the most in-depth one, it's a charming film, and a great movie.

Acting- 9.5/10     
Directing- 8.5/10     
Screenplay- 7/10     
Music – 9/10    
Visuals- 8/10     
Entertaining- 7.5/10    
Emotional Connection- 7.5/10     
Rewatchability- 7/10     
Overall Enjoyment- 8/10     
Overall Package- 8/10      

Total: 80/100

A Man for All Seasons

A Man For All Seasons, 1966
Directed by Fred Zinneman
Nominated for 8 Oscars, Won 6
Up Against: Alfie, The Russians are coming! The Russians Are Coming!, Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, The Sand Pebbles

This movie tells the story of Thomas More, a Chancellor to King Henry VIII. Thomas was a moral man, and stood up firmly, for what he believed in. And in this case, he disagrees with Henry wanting to divorce his current wife so he may wed Anne Boleyn. And this movie tells of how he stood up against it all, and in the end, paid for it with his head.

While I found the first hour or so to be a little slow, the second half was a lot more interesting. The first half told of how Thomas More rose to become a Chancellor, and how the King kept trying to gain his approval for the divorce and new marriage, whereas the second half was about how King Henry deems himself Supreme Head of the Church so he can warrant his own divorce rather than waiting for the Pope's approval, how More resigns rather than accepts this, as he see's it as an abomination to what God wants for his people. A new oath is instated about the marriage, and must be signed or you are guilty of high treason, which More eventually is.

As mentioned, it took a little bit to get interesting (for me), so the storytelling was a little choppy. However, the acting was good. Paul Scotfield, who played Thomas More, won Best Actor for this role, and rightly so. He was calm and clear, but very powerful and authoritative. John Hurt was great as Richard Rich (who was apparently an unknown at the time, and this helped launch his career. Crazy to think he plays Ollivander in Harry Potter, he was such a little dweeby character), and just all the supporting cast was great. As I understand, it was a pretty all-star cast.

The costume design, additionally, was great. They were colourful and you could very much tell the difference between the rich, who were overly decked out, and the more middle-class.

The story itself is an interesting one. More is an amazing man, who stood up for what he believed in all his life, and even died for it. He was a Man of God, and really lived it, and made sure others knew it too. It's truly an inspiring story. The movie really showed his strength and conviction and the screenplay, as well as More's character itself were really well written.

Overall, it wasn't my favourite BP, nor was it near my least favourite, and it hit around the middle of the 25 I've already seen. (I'm keeping a list of best to worst, which I'll post when I've watched all 84 winners... though it could be 85 by the time I'm done..). But a good movie, a strong message and story, with solid acting.

Acting- 8/10     
Directing- 7/10     
Screenplay- 7/10     
Music – 8/10    
Visuals- 8.5/10     
Entertaining- 6/10    
Emotional Connection- 7/10     
Rewatchability- 6/10     
Overall Enjoyment- 7/10     
Overall Package- 7.5/10      

Total: 72/100 

A Couple Post-Oscar Thoughts

-Overall, I thought this awards season was a little blah. It was predictable, and things that were really good didn't make the cut. Sure, most of the BP nominees were good, but overall there weren't really any amazing movies this year. 2012, be a solid year!

-Billy Crystal was pretty whatever, to be honest. But the fashion was great this year. Jessica Chastain looked aaamazing, along with Octavia Spencer, Emma Stone, Michelle Williams and Ellie Kemper.

-The whole Dictator thing with Ryan Seacrest was NOT funny. I found it offensive. And I don't get why people hate on Ryan Seacrest either. I think he's a pretty solid guy.

-Ellie Kemper just needs to be in more movies. Can she play some sort of Disney character? Please?

-My 2013 predictions are up! Check them out at the side. They feel like shots in the dark, but it'll be interesting to see how different they looked 8 months or more, from now. This is my 2nd year predicting, but the 1st year being in this early.

Oscar Winners Breakdown!

So the Oscars had it's fair share of upsets, surprises, and obvious 

winners. Here I'll go through all the winners (minus the documentary/animated feature/shorts) in the order announced. 

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY

"Hugo"- Robert Richardson. 

The very first award of the night, and I knew it was off to an interesting start. The Tree of Life was supposed to be the obvious winner here, having picked up several awards, including the American Cinematographer's Association Award. This came as a big shock to me. Plus I was already 0/1. I knew this wasn't going to be a good night. 

ART DIRECTION

"Hugo" Production Design: Dante Ferretti; Set Decoration: Francesca Lo Schiavo

While I had predicted Hugo for this win. I was a) disappointed Harry Potter didn't steal it and b) already tired of Hugo winning. Winning the first 2 awards, announced beside each other, I knew where this was going. I wasn't the biggest fan of Hugo, obviously, but was hoping the surprising wins were over. 1/2. 

COSTUME DESIGN

"The Artist" Mark Bridges

While I also predicted Hugo for this one, it was nice to see the Artist win something early on. There were some great costumes here, and it was a deserved win. 1/3. 

MAKEUP

"The Iron Lady" Mark Coulier and J. Roy Helland

Arguably the only award Harry Potter had a true shot on, and it lost. While I felt HP's makeup work for goblins and Voldemort were fantastic, Meryl's makeup as an old Thatcher was fantastic as well. I wrongly predicted HP to win. Why? I don't know. Silly me. 1/4. 

FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM

"A Separation" Iran

While I know nothing of foreign films, I did get this one right! 2/5. 

ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE

Octavia Spencer in "The Help"

While this was no surprise at all, I was still extraordinarily happy. Octavia looked great, and was so great in the Help. She truly deserved every award she got for the role, including this one. 3/6. 

FILM EDITING

"The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" Kirk Baxter and Angus Wall

A bit of a surprise, really. Most people (including myself) predicted either Hugo or the Artist to win it when The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo really took it. In a way, I'm not too surprised. While it wasn't up for BP it looked like a well edited film. Still, I didn't get this one right. 3/7. 

SOUND EDITING

"Hugo" Philip Stockton and Eugene Gearty

Surprisingly, I did get this one correct! I figured it was going to be either Hugo or War Horse that would either win both, or just one, so I predicted Hugo for this and War Horse for Mixing, figuring I'd get at least one right, since I'm by no means a sound expert. And I got this one correct! Besides that I have no comments. 4/8. 

SOUND MIXING

"Hugo" Tom Fleischman and John Midgley

And, well, Hugo ended up taking both, so I got one of them correct. 4/9. 

ANIMATED FEATURE FILM

"Rango" Gore Verbinski

While I figured Rango would win, and predicted rightly so, I still secretly hoped Kung-Fu Panda 2 would win. Sadly it didn't, but I predicted correctly. 5/10. 

VISUAL EFFECTS

"Hugo" Rob Legato, Joss Williams, Ben Grossman and Alex Henning

Well, this was a huge, huge shocker, in my opinion. Rise of the Planet of the Apes has been a big winner this season. The apes were completely made via motion capture and visual effects, and while I didn't think they looked that great with people around them, it was pretty darn good. My second place was Harry Potter. I hadn't thought past that because I assumed they were the only 2 contenders (HP barely being one). But Hugo stole it away for it's "cool" use of 3D. Dangit. 5/11. 

ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE

Christopher Plummer in "Beginners"

Was anyone really surprised? 6/12. 

MUSIC (ORIGINAL SCORE)

"The Artist" Ludovic Bource

At the rate things had been going, I was worried Howard Shore's work for Hugo would steal this too. Thankfully, Bource's charming score and backbone of the film prevailed. 7/13. 

MUSIC (ORIGINAL SONG)

"Man or Muppet" from "The Muppets" Music and Lyric by Bret McKenzie

Again, obviously. 8/14. 

WRITING (ADAPTED SCREENPLAY)

"The Descendants" Screenplay by Alexander Payne and Nat Faxon & Jim Rash

Everyone predicted this to win, while I predicted an upset of Zaillian and Sorkin winning for Moneyball. Sadly, I was wrong. 8/15. 

WRITING (ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY)

"Midnight in Paris" Written by Woody Allen

Thank goodness for obvious winners. I thought I had known what I was predicting. Clearly I'm a rookie. 9/16. 

DIRECTING

"The Artist" Michel Hazanavicius

Honestly so excited. He was fantastic, and his direction really showed through in this film. Glad to see him win. Very touching moment. 10/17. 

ACTOR IN A LEAD ROLE

Jean Dujardin in "The Artist"

I was very torn on who to win. Initially I was hardcore Clooney, but Dujardin ended up stealing my heart as the time came closer and I found myself rooting for him, though I loved both performances. The first Frenchman to win Best Actor. And a very deserving win, too. 11/18. 

ACTRESS IN A LEAD ROLE

Meryl Streep in "The Iron Lady"

While Meryl Streep is fab, this movie really was not. She's been long overdue for a win, but this shouldn't have been her year. I'd have rather seen her win for an amazing role in an amazing film. This win felt slightly underwhelming as she was the only good part in the film. I was truly rooting for Viola, and she really deserved it. Meryl should've won over Bullock for her portrayal as Julia Child. Disappointed, though Meryl is fab. 11/19. 

BEST MOTION PICTURE

"The Artist"

As the night progressed, I felt myself liking this movie more and more as I was getting a little worried Hugo had more backing from the Academy than I thought. I was utterly relieved to see this win, and was very glad it had. It was such a well made film, and it is so utterly deserving. 12/20. 

Overall, I got 12/20 (and then 2/4 for the Documentary/Animated area, in which were blind guesses based on others guesses). Giving me a total of  60% on the 20 I did breakdowns for. I didn't do so well, but this was my first year of getting into things, and only really got into it around September. It was a fun award season, though I hope next year is a lot better (:

Winner Breakdown: Best Picture

Best Picture

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

And here we are! Best Picture. I thought I'd give a little, tiny, mini review of each film, just a couple of thoughts, and then tell you who I think is going to/could/possibly/who I want to win is. 

Hugo: I wasn't a huge fan of Hugo. I think that was mostly because I couldn't stand the 3D. While I know a lot of others found it revolutionary, I felt like I was watching a motion capture film for the first little bit, and was confused at the beginning, because I knew it was supposed to be live action. I'm picky, so this bothered me a lot, because it was excessive 3D, and made everything look unrealistic. However, the acting was great. Asa Butterfield was very strong, and held his own as Hugo. And of course, Ben Kingsley was great. The pacing of the story I found to be a little off. The last 45 minutes or so were very strong, while the first hour or so were a little weak. Not my favourite, but very willing to give it a 2nd chance. 

Moneyball: Moneyball was my absolute favourite film of the year. And I do not like baseball. Wittily wrote by Steve Zaillian and Aaron Sorkin, with fantastic performances from Brad Pitt and Jonah Hill, this movie is not a typical underdog movie. I went into this movie not expecting much, but I came out adoring it. Brad Pitt's work was subtle but just great. Jonah Hill did extremely well in his first drama, and rightfully nominated. It was a great story, different, but had a good point to it, and didn't go overboard on the underdog thing. Well paced, well told, well acted. I would NOT mind it winning at all. 

The Descendants: Honestly, I really, really enjoyed this movie. It was the very first R-rated film I saw in theaters (no, The King's Speech was not rated R in Canada), and I thought it was great. It's a sad, yet comedic story, and I found myself laughing one moment and tearing up the next. Clooney does so well as the clueless father, and Shailene Woodley steps up to the plate and really owns all the material she's written. Another well told story, with lots of emotions, but it never tries too hard like....

Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close: I went and saw this one with one of my best friends who has read the book. So naturally I felt bad telling her I didn't enjoy the movie much. Granted, I feel it would work a lot better as a book, and am willing to read it. I just felt everyone making this movie tried way too hard to make it emotional, and sad, but didn't follow through with a lot of things Oskar told us about himself. There were inconsistencies, and it was just an okay movie. 

War Horse: I adored War Horse. I'd read the book before seeing the movie, and recently went and saw the stage production in Toronto. It was a really well done movie. While most people thought it was a little choppy, the beginning too long, and just very sappy, I'd disagree. While I agree the beginning was long, I loved every second of it. I would've been happy watching 2 hours of Albert and Joey bonding on the farm, to be honest. I like character development the best. But this film I just genuinely really enjoyed. WWI is so hopeless, and while they didn't touch on it as much as they did in the book/play, I can't help feeling sad and emotionally attached to films about WWI. All the performances were great, and you saw a lot of different sides to the war. (However, after watching the play, which was a lot more war focused, I'd have loved to seen the movie version of that. Which was gritty, and sad, and just so.. war sucks). 

Midnight in Paris: I didn't love this movie the same way other people did. It was quite good, and charming, but it wasn't my favourite movie of the year. It was a clever idea, and really talked about nostalgia in a clever way. Owen Wilson surprised me as being a decent actor. Rachel McAdams was as adorable as ever (even though she was a stupid character). And of course, Marion Cottilard was great. Along with a huge list of cameos, including those of Allison Pill, Tom Hiddleston, Kathy Bates, etc. A cute movie, that I felt I would've enjoyed more had I picked up on a lot more of the literary references. 

The Help: I read the book before seeing the film. The book was just so good, and the movie was too. I'm a sucker for enjoying these movies. Things like the Blindside, and Dolphin Tale, and The Help. The Help had a truly magnificent cast, and they were all brilliant in their own. It was a great story, with fantastic performances from all the cast; Emma Stone (though her accent wasn't great all the time), Viola Davis, Bryce Dallas Howard, Octavia Spencer, Jessica Chastain, etc. A good girly movie. 

The Tree of Life: Reading reviews before this movie, I saw 95% of the reviews either looooved the film, or despised it with all their hearts. Wondering which box I was going to be in after watching, I found it was neither. I enjoyed the movie, yes, but it wasn't my favourite of the year, nor did I lurrrve it. It was an interesting story, with Jessica Chastain being awesome, Brad Pitt being boss, and lots of lovely cinematography. it was  a very good picture, but certainly not for everyone. 

The Artist: And this movie, ladies and gentlemen, it our very clear winner. The Artist has been winning everything in sight since it debuted at Cannes last year. Sure, many saw it as a gimmick, but most agree that even if there had been talking in the film, it still put out the 2 most charming performances of the year. Jean Dujardin was fabulous as George Valentin. He has the most expressive face, and carried the story so well. Berenice Bejo was equally charming, overacting the way they did in silent films, but still giving us a cute and powerful performance. This movie was simply a charming, charming movie, which was incredibly well done. While Moneyball was my favourite film of the year, I'm not unhappy to see the Artist take this. These newcomers to Hollywood were fantastic, and truly deserve recognition for their film. Any film that could take this from The Artist, is most likely Hugo. Hugo is up for the most nominations this year (11), and has won a Best Picture here and there (though not very often), it's another homage to silent films, and it's helmed by Scorsese. Others film to make a little competition (though not very much), are The Descendants and The Help. But count on The Artist winning. Really. 

Will Win: The Artist
Could Win: Hugo
Dark Horse: The Descendants/The Help
Who I Want to Win: Moneyball

Winner Breakdown: Best Actor

Oscar Predictions

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

And here we are, with another big showdown. This time, Jean Dujardin vs George Clooney. Jean Dujardin is a star over in France, having worked with Artist director Michel Hazanavicius many times. But this year is his "American" debut (really worldwide). He stars as the silent film star being left behind while talking pictures are on the rise, and he truly gives the most charming performance of this year. He has such an expressive face, which is so essential to silent films. He is extraordinarily charming, but also gives a very moving performance, in the latter half of the film, dealing with his fall from fame, and loss of fortune. The second to last scene (spoiler: the potential suicide scene) is really amazing. Spoiler: the scene with the gun in his mouth is just so perfect, and so well done. End spoiler. On the other hand we have George Clooney. George has been around for sometime, has 3 (now 4) Acting Nominations, 2 writing nominations and a directing nomination. He won for his first acting nomination, Supporting Actor in Syriana back in 2006. This year's The Descendants brings a much subtler piece for Clooney. He plays a clueless father who needs to look after and get to know his children after their mother is in a coma and will be taken off life support, but also discovers his wife was cheating on him. Clooney was quite brilliant in this role too. It was a much subtler role than Dujardin's was, but he played it so well. We have comedic moments where he shines (when Matt King confronts his wife's lover), and emotional moments where he is his best (saying goodbye to his wife). And I'd say George and Jean are pretty neck in neck. George won the Critics Choice, The Golden Globe (Drama), National Board of Review, while Jean won the BAFTA, The Cannes Best Actor, Golden Globe (Comedy), and the SAG. Dujardin has recently been picking up steam, having won 2 awards in a row (BAFTA and SAG). But either of them could really win it. I'm going to predict Jean Dujardin for the win right now. He's a big newcomer, and isn't likely to return to the Oscar race next year, while Clooney might. Clooney already has 1 statute, and very few Frenchman have won this award. Dujardin's role was also in the Artist, which is the frontrunner, giving him an edge over Clooney. So Dujardin it is. And really, I'm happy either either winning. They both had great performances, and both deserve awards. I'm happy either way!

Will Win: Jean Dujardin
Could Win: George Clooney
Dark Horse: Brad Pitt
Who I Want to Win: George Clooney/Jean Dujardin

The Social Network

The Social Network, 2010
Directed by David Fincher
Won 3 Oscars: Best Film Editing, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Original Score
Lost BP To: The King's Speech
Up Against: The King's Speech, Black Swan, The Kid's Are Alright, Winter's Bone, True Grit, 127 Hours, Toy Story 3, The Fighter, Inception


Last year, I was a huge huge fan of the King's Speech, and rooted for it all the way. After the nominees came out for Best Picture, I decided I should probably see what the big fuss was about for The Social Network, it's biggest competitor. Whether it was bias, or because it truly didn't strike my fancy, I wasn't a fan. I didn't see why it was getting attention, though it was an average, kind of dull movie, and completely dismissed it.

Now, about a year later, I've decided to give it another chance. Why? Because I've become a fan of Andrew Garfield, having watched him in Never Let Me Go and the Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus, both of which he was fantastic. Also, having dismissed the Original Score as well, thinking How to Train Your Dragon should've won, I also picked that up again, and while I knew it was just okay on it's own, it probably rocked with the movie. Thus, I picked it up from the library and settled down and watched it tonight.


This is the story of Facebook, and the people behind it. Mark Zuckerburg is a computer genius, even before he started Facebook. He was going to Harvard, and was able to create websites in an evening, while drunk, that would gain 22,000 hits in one night, and crash the Harvard network. That's the kind of guy he is. When he's approached by the Winklevoss twins to program a website for them, Harvard Connection. It's an exclusive facebook/social network for Harvard University students. Mark initially says he's in, but then he deems their idea lame, doesn't tell them he's out for 6 weeks, and starts up his own social networking site, TheFacebook, for Harvard students with his best friend Eduardo Saverin.

The story revolves around Mark, obviously, and just how he rolls to the beat of his own drum. Doing things with Eduardo's money before asking him for said money, teaming up with Napster-creator gone broke, Sean Parker, moving to California to set up his business, and eventually betraying Eduardo. Mark is given to us a cold-hearted college student. The only person he really cares about is himself. And that shines through in every moment we see Mark. Though we know at the heart of the matter, Mark wants acceptance. And he does this through creating Facebook. It's an interest flip-flop, seeing this in the opening scene with Erica, and then the lawsuit scenes. In the end, you can't have worldwide acceptance, and keep your best friends, it seems.

This movie moves back and forth from the past (creation of Facebook/Harvard) and the present (lawsuits). It's almost as though this film is a supplement and evidence in the cases. We see the scenes as they come up in the suits, sometimes with description and narration from Mark or Eduardo. And we are taken, linearly through the process of the creation of Facebook. The "stealing" from the Winklevoss's, the creation and programming of TheFacebook, with Mark and Eduardo, the college celebrity phase, the move to LA and teaming with Sean Parker, and the Business Deal. It's well told, with not too much narration (but a sufficient amount), and not too much back and forth between the two (though, again, sufficient, that we don't forget about it, and it keeps us wondering what went wrong with Mark and Eduardo).

The screenplay, written by Aaron Sorkin, is whip-smart, witty, and just so geeky. It is said that the opening scene between Erica and Mark was 8 script pages long, and took 99 takes to get right. And I believe both those facts. Aaron Sorkin's screenplay was really great. He has such a talent for turning okay subject into really great movies (see Moneyball).

Additionally, the movie was well acted, and it garnered Jesse Eisenberg a Lead Actor nomination. Though, if anyone should've been nominated, it should've been Andrew Garfield. He's a really strong actor, and that's also true for this film. He has so much passion, and you can see it in every line he speaks in this film (with a wonderful American accent to boot). Of all the acting in this film, I'd say he was definitely the strongest, especially with his moment of confrontation, at the end, with Mark. He plays that so perfectly.

Overall, the film was good, but not Best Picture worthy. I understand the nomination, but still agree it shouldn't have won. It was a well told film, with an interesting(ish) story, but I don't think it'll stand the test of time well, since it's such a modern piece. Not that modern is bad, or that Best Picture's need to stand the test of time, but it's a very here-and-now movie, and while it was good, it wasn't amazing.

7.5/10