The Dark Knight Rises

The Dark Knight Rises, 2012
Directed by Christopher Nolan

I remember the summer of 2008. The Dark Knight was released, and there was a massive buzz around it. Even working at summer camp with hardly any link to the outside world, we all knew The Dark Knight was the movie to see. And though I was never a superhero fan (I generally enjoyed the first two Spiderman films, and had watched Batman Begins once), I was excited to see it. I got home from camp, and saw it with my father right away.

And that's how I came to love and appreciate the Batman trilogy. After that, I was more interested  in Batman Begins (a film which I still really really love), and of course, loved The Dark Knight, and rooted so hard for Heath Ledger at the Oscars, and will defend to this day that he still would've won even if he hadn't have died.

Superhero movies were never really things I could get into. They were superhuman people, "doing the right thing" and "saving the world" from "evil". They were all kind of the same, and therefore uninteresting. But Christopher Nolan didn't make superhero movies when he made Batman, they're more intellectual and psychological than that. They're complex and political, character driven, and dark. And this most recent addition is the most complex, character-driven and darkest yet. While Captain America, Spiderman, etc weren't that light of movies, The Dark Knight Rises makes them look incredibly simple and fluffy.

This film is set 8 years after after the events of the Dark Knight. Bruce Wayne is a recluse, mourning what the Joker did to Gotham, and having let Batman take the fall for Harvey Dents murder, leaving the people of Gotham to remember him as a good person. Meanwhile, Gotham is in good hands. Organized crime has been swept up, things are looking good, and it's a time of peace for Gotham. But as Selina Kyle says, a cat burglar who finds the attention of Bruce Wayne, "a storm is coming". And come it does. Bane is a terrorist, intent on taking over Gotham, and while young John Blake, a young curious cop, is intent on handling him, alongside Jim Gordon, things don't go as planned. And it seems Gotham once again needs Batman.

As stated, I'm a Batman fan. No, not in the way of having seen all the old Batman films, but I really enjoy Nolan's trilogy because it's not that "superhero" and it's complex, and intelligent. There are so many mindless action movies out there (think Battleship, Transformers, etc) that it really becomes exciting when something so intelligent and complex like The Dark Knight Rises comes out. It's a brain movie, not one just for the eyes (though this one is particularly striking).

I'm not going to lie, this film is not as straight-forward as Batman Begins or the Dark Knight were, and there were a few times where I wasn't positive who everyone was, what they were about, and what was going on. Additionally, what ended up being the main problem (after like 1 1/2 hours), was a bomb and the race against its detonation. While I found this to be quite cliche (how many movies are there about this!?), and Nolan could've given Bane something way more original and he deserved more than that, it still made for an interesting watch, and with Christopher Nolan, you never really know where he's going to take you in this. Ever since he killed off Rachel Dawes, I've never really known what to expect from him. But nonetheless, it was slightly cliche, but it worked incredibly well for this film, and didn't come off as cliche while watching.

Additionally, there were several different things going on at all times, and it seemed Bruce Wayne/Batman were thrown in as an afterthought a few times. At the fore-front of this film we have Bane, played by Tom Hardy, with menacing mask and voice and brute strength. We have Selina Kyle, played by Anne Hathway. I still laugh thinking of all the nay-sayers who were upset at Hathaway being cast as Catwoman. Hathaway was the star of the show, and gave the best performance of the cast. She was witty and sexy, and was totally awesome and was an awesome female addition at the cast, where the previous two films had been incredibly male dominated. It was nice to see a woman out there who wasn't Rachel, and who could fend for herself. And then we have John Blake, played the new hot-and-in demand star Joseph Gordon-Levitt. For a while the film almost feels like the John Blake show, him being a new and curious cop who's a big Batman believer. All three give great performances, and John Blake was a welcome new character who gave a different side to the police side when Jim Gordon wasn't available, and was the ultimate "good guy".

Normally, I don't find actions movies to be that "visually stunning" as some people would call them. Yes, there's good graphics and car chases, but I describe movies like 2005's Pride & Prejudice as visually stunning. But I'd toss it out there that The Dark Knight Rises is the best looking film in the trilogy. The cinematography was particularly gorgeous (all the scenes in the snow, gorgeous), the scenery was great and everything just looked so good.

Overall, I really enjoyed the film. Yes, there were a couple plot holes and things that got wrapped up really quickly, as well as there was a little too much going on at a few points that I found it a little tricky to follow, but that's what the second viewing is for (which will probably be next weekend). This movie had incredible expectations. And while my friends and I all knew we weren't going to get something better than The Dark Knight, I went in not expecting a whole lot from this film other than it was going to be awesome and intelligent, and that's exactly what I got. This was Nolan's opus of the three films. He was the conductor, and the composer, giving everyone different and complex parts, but weaving them all together effectively to make a beautiful movie.

I thoroughly enjoyed this film, and look forward to having a second viewing so I can completely grasp everything that happened, who everyone was, and pick up on more of the little things that happened that got lost in the wide-eyed viewing of the first round.

Will this film end up making a Best Picture run? While a movie like The Dark Knight deserved it, I'm less sure about this one, though wouldn't be too surprised to see it up there on Oscar morning. However, I'd say it's less likely, and fanboys shouldn't hold their breath, but we'll see in the coming months, I suppose. It has great shots within the technical aspects, and I'd love to see it up for Best Score, as Hans Zimmer always delivers.

Overall, a great film, and definitely this years best blockbuster by far. A worthy ending to the ending of one of the best and more beloved trilogys of all time. And if this entire film wasn't fantastic, the last few minutes (give or take 10 to 15) are the most shining moments and the very perfect wrap up. I wish I could share exactly what happened, but to me, Nolan wrapped things up in his own way, and did it perfectly. It's a perfect sequence, and is the shining moment of the film.

Acting- 8/10
Directing- 8.5/10
Screenplay- 8/10
Music - 9/10
"The look"- 9/10
Entertaining- 9.5/10
Emotional Connection- 9.5/10
Rewatchability- 9/10
Did I like It?- 9/10
"Total Package"**- 8/10 

Total: 87.5

In The Heat of the Night

In the Heat Of the Night, 1967
Directed by Norman Jewison
Nominated for 7 Oscars, Won 5
Up Against: Bonnie and Clyde, Doctor Dolittle, The Graduate, Guess Who's Coming to Dinner

In The Heat of the Night is a part murder mystery, part story on racism. It stars Sydney Poitier as Virgil Tibbs, an African-American homicide detective who finds himself in Sparta, Mississippi the night a man is murdered. He's asked by his commander back on the Philadelphia Police Force to stay and help uncover the killer. And while Tibbs has already been treated to racism (he's immediately plucked as a suspect by another policeman because he was black and was carrying a large sum of money in his wallet), he agrees to work alongside Gillespie, the head officer in town, after the widow of the victim is impressed with Tibbs clearing an innocent man on the murder charges when Gillespie arrested him with little evidence.

Tibbs goes on to clear several men of their names after being arrested with shaky evidence, and starts to earn the respect of Gillespie, despite the fact that he's annoyed Tibbs is taking over the investigation and knows more than he does.

This film came out in a time when racism in the south was still going on, and it ended up becoming a very big hit. It got excellent reviews all-around. The infamous slapping scene was pivotal and the lines, "they call me mr. tibbs" is a famous quote.

In all honesty, while I know this film is beloved, I wasn't the biggest fan. I thought it was a little dull, a little slow-moving, and not that interesting. Sure, Tibbs uncovering the whodunit was good, and it had a bit of a twist to it, but overall the process wasn't all that interesting. However, showing the racism in that small town was definitely effectual. It was interesting every time someone sneered about Tibbs being around, but when he mentions he's a police officer, he generally gets a little bit more respect. While it never really hit me how annoying racism probably was for blacks back then, this film really showed it. Tibbs was a hard-working guy, with a respectable career, making good money, and not dealing with as much racism in Philly. But come down south, everything is different. The smallest things, people sneer at you, don't want you in the room, and make racist comments like you're not even there. This was a good perspective that they brought out, even if I wasn't so crazy about the film overall.

Honestly, I felt the film was just alright. The acting wasn't amazing, the sets and costumes weren't that amazing, the story was just alright. It's interesting to see how much of the nominees for Best Picture I actually knew that year (I usually don't know many of them in years before 2000). However, this film was just alright, and surprises me a little bit that it won. However, given the time period and what was going on in America at the time, I guess it's not that surprising. It's a story on a black man and a white man working together, in a time when that didn't happen.

Acting- 8/10 
Directing- 7.5/10 
Screenplay- 7/10 
Visuals- 7/10 
Music- 7/10 Emotional Connection- 7.5/10 
Entertainment- 7.5/10 
Rewatchability- 6/10 
Overall Enjoyment- 7.5/10 
Overall Package- 7.5/10     
Total: 72.5/100

The Amazing Spider-Man

The Amazing Spider-Man, 2012
Directed by Marc Webb
Starring Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, and Rhys Ifans

We all know the story of Spiderman. Nerdy high school boy Peter Parker, bitten by radioactive spider, gains superpowers and becomes Spiderman. Best known in the movie forms that starred Tobey Macguire and Kirsten Dunst, in the form of 3 films.

Well, here we are in 2012, only 5 years since Spider-Man 3 came out. It's a "whole new origins story", now starring the critically acclaimed Andrew Garfield, and the new comedienne Emma Stone. While I remember being extremely skeptical when this "reboot" was announced, I slowly warmed to the idea when I saw the first trailer, and saw Andrew as Peter.

It's not secret that I have a huge celebrity crush on Andrew Garfield and love his acting. He was particularly phenomenal in Never Let Me Go, and I personally thought he deserved an acting nomination over Jesse Eisenberg in The Social Network. However, I digress.

While the trailer and commercials and posters have promised an origins story for Peter and his alter ego, I'd say that was a little more of a let down. There's wasn't too much origins, though it was more of a relationship/personal movie than an action one, which I respect.

I haven't watched any of the Spider-Man movies for a very long time, so I can't really remember how well they resemble each other. Obviously, there were various things that happened that also happened in the Raimi version, such as Uncle Ben's death, the idea of the responsibility to do the right thing should you have the power to do it and, obviously, getting bitten by a radioactive spider and developing his costume and persona.  However, these things had to happen, and they did it in a different way than the original Raimi versions did.

Peter's reaction to his gaining of superpowers was extremely well-done, I thought. It was done in a realistic way, a way that I could imagine myself reacting. Breaking everything, being very confused, and just trying to ignore they happened and move on. The sequence in the bathroom and in his bedroom after that was well done. Additionally, once Peter had finally officially suited up and was roaming the streets for his Uncle's killer, we got a smart-talking Spider-Man, which was very fun. He had some fantastic lines, and made the whole thing quite amusing without overdoing it too much.

While the sequences with Peter were very good, it takes quite a bit into the movie for the Lizard to finally appear. It's not until about halfway through (which is at least an hour in) that Dr. Curt Connors finally turns into the Lizard. And if there were any plot-holes that I could complain about (and there were a few), it'd be more with the Lizard than with Peter or Peter and Gwen. While some the fighting sequences looked amazing (possible Oscar attention for Visual Effects? I'd say it's very possible), there were too many times when the Lizard has him in his grips and doesn't really do anything to Peter. Sure, tell me that villains like to torture their victims or whatever, or the director tried to make it suspenseful, but I thought it was a bit lazy.

In fact, while I enjoyed the movie, I felt like the Lizard was kind of the last thing planned in the story, as though it was decided they were going to do a Spider-man movie, and would do Gwen Stacy and be all comic-book, and oh yeah we need a villain. The Lizard sound ok? While it was an okay villain, it felt like it was way less planned out that Peter's story was, and while I understand this movie was an 'origins' story, I would've liked the villain to make more sense.

Overall, I enjoyed the movie. However, this is probably due to the fact that Emma Stone and Andrew Garfield were fantastic and I feel like I probably wouldn't have liked the movie as much if they weren't in it. Andrew Garfield is a solid actor and has done some good work thus far, and, I find, to be very under-appreciated. He gave a great performance in this film. Though he's about 29 years old, I thought he was able to strike that teenager attitude well. While he didn't exactly look 17 (I'd say he looked about 21, which isn't too bad for a high school movie if you really think about it), he captured the typical walk teen guys have, and had great chemistry with Emma Stone (duh), and really pulled off the cutesyness well. I just really like Andrew Garfield here, okay guys?

Overall, I enjoyed this reboot. It was fun, it was funny, quirky, cute, with some good action sequences. I'd even hazard to say it's been my favourite Superhero movie of the year thus far (okay, there's only been two, but I didn't like the Avengers, so there you have it.) though I know that'll change in a few weeks time when Batman is released.

7/10
(no, I didn't love it, and yes my favourite superhero movie of the year so far gets a 7)

Brave

Brave, 2012
Directed by Mark Andrews, Brenda Chapman, and Steve Purcell

Brave is Pixar's first original non-sequel film since Up back in 2009. It's also Pixar's first female protagonist, and the first character from Pixar to be feature in the Disney Princess line. So it's a little bit of a first in many way.

I remember first seeing the trailer and realizing that it wasn't telling me very much about what was going to happen in the film (besides that Merida would "fight for my own hand!") so I came into the movie not really expecting anything at all, though I had heard the bears were pretty prominent. So, sitting down in the theatre I was expecting an pretty funny, predictable, mother-daughter movie. Which I got, but it was a lot more funny, a lot less predictable (though still predictable), and a lot of mother-daughter.

As you've all heard, Merida's hair is pretty much worth the price of admission. If you go only to see her hair, that's a pretty good reason. Her hair is beyond cool, especially in the scenes of her as a young girl. Additionally, her three younger brothers were infinitely hilarious, always causing mischief and are so adorable. Her father is hilarious and fun-loving too. However, the mother-daughter relationship is what guides this movie along. Merida is constantly exasperated at her mother, telling her a princess does this, a princess doesn't do that and Merida is frustrated to the max when 3 other clans arrive, with 3 suitors trying to win her hand. Merida does not want to get married. After shooting for her own hand at the archery competition, Merida's mother Elanor has had it. Her daughter is reckless and unladylike and embarassing. The two fight and Merida finds herself in a witches cottage, and with a spell to change her mother. But in a way that Merida doesn't expect.

The movie took a turn at this point which I didn't see coming, but is altogether interesting, though was a bit cheesy at first, but came into it's own and played it's part in the mother-daughter bonding thing really well. While it doesn't hit older audiences as much as the Toy Story movies did, Brave has some great lessons for young children about the importance of having a good relationship with your mother. The two of you may be at odds all the time, but you need to listen to each other if either of you want to get anywhere.

Additionally, the visuals and the score were completely amazing in this movie. While it probably would've been best to see it in 3D (which I didn't), it was still brilliantly gorgeous. And usually I'm not a big fan of Patrick Doyle, but I absolutely loved the score he did.

While many have said it doesn't have the brilliance of past Pixar movies, doesn't hit older audiences as well as younger ones, and plays it a little safe, I say that you shouldn't go into this movie expecting any of these things. They're all very true, but if you're expecting this movie not to be the next Finding Nemo, Toy Story or Up, you'll be vastly disappointed. However, this was something I expected, and knew from the beginning. It was a warrior princess movie which involved mothers, archery and bears, and the importance of listening to your parents. And while it doesn't have the things of what made Monsters Inc and the original Cars so good, Brave has it's own qualities to love about it. And that's how Brave should be viewed, a medium of it's own, not in comparison to other Pixar movies. Brave had some extremely hilarious moments, some mischevious little boys, some awesome red hair, cool Scottish accents, and a strong-willed young woman who learns about changing her fate. Brave is a story of its own. And while not brilliant, it was definitely worth watching, and will be worth watching again.

Overall, I liked the movie. It wasn't the worlds best animated movie, it was just good, and had a lot of laughs and adorableness coming from the three younger brothers, little Merida, Merida's hair, and the appearance of some very small cute bears. It was a fun movie, with awesome accents and nice to look at. We're not looking at a masterpiece here, but it's definitely a nice family movie, and great for fairytale fans. Does it have the chance to bring back Pixar to the Best Picture race? Honestly, I'd say no. While Brave was great, not everyone liked it enough, nor was it brilliant enough, I thought. It's definitely going to be a contender in Best Animated Feature, Best Score and Best Original Song.

7.5/10

Marty

Marty, 1955
Directed by Delbert Mann
Nominated for 8 Oscars, Won 4
Up Against: Love is a Many-Splendored Thing, Mister Roberts, Picnic and The Rose Tattoo

Marty is a unique film. The movie is based upon a "teleplay" also called Marty, and is one of only two films to win both the Palm d'Or at Cannes Film Festival, and Best Picture at the Academy Awards.

Marty is the story of a 34-year old man named, well, Marty. He still lives with his mother. He comes from a big family, with many brothers and sister, and all of them are married. So Marty certainly feels pressure to find a girl. However as he himself puts it, "I'm a fat and ugly old man". When his cousin and his wife come over to convince Marty's mother to ask her sister to come live with her (she is making life very hard for Marty's cousins wife), his cousin says Marty should go to the Stardust ballroom as there are tons of "tomatoes" there. Marty gets upset when his mother tells him to go because he's been hurt by women dozens of times before, and has never found a girl there before, but would go just to make his mother happy, telling her the night would endure tons of heartache. But, of course, he meets a girl. She's come with a blind date who's not interested in her, and he tries to blow her off. Marty comforts her, and the two have a nice evening together. However, as the next day comes, it comes out most of the people he knows don't like her because she's not that attractive and Marty "could do better".

In this day and age, where we hear about Hollywood's obsession with marriage, love, sex, dating, we forget that there are tons of people who are "older" that haven't found love and gotten married. No, I'm not quite talking about George Clooney here. That's a different story. We see it all the time, even if we don't like to look or don't recognize it. Not everyone finds love, and that's something hard to deal with. People ignore that fact that some people just don't ever find love.

But the story of Marty is that he did find love. He found it in a girl that his friends said wasn't attractive and that Marty could do way better than her. There's a scene right near the end of the film, the day after Marty meets Clara, and he's sitting around the house with 3 friends. One of them is looking at a "girlie" magazine (if you know what I mean), and the others interrogating him about Clara. Whether they're jealous of Marty finding a girl while they're all still single, they try to convince him not to call her. They're surprised when Marty says he "didn't try anything" and that they just talked. One replied that she must've been a good talker since he looks to be about 40 years old. The other, still looking at his girlie magazine, starts saying that he wished he knew where he could find girls like these. And, for some reason, Marty buys into it. He doesn't call Clara like he said he would. Though eventually realizes she's someone who makes him happy.

I think that's a very interesting look, and is something that is so wrong with our society today. Just because a woman isn't like the girls in those "girlie" magazines (or well, other mediums, today) it means they aren't worth anything. Marty's friends hardly knew her, didn't really speak to her, they only saw her. And that's something that seems to be so wrong with society today. I could go on and on about the objectification of women, how so many men seemed to be so focused on physical beauty, and how that is probably why divorce rates are so high, but I'm sure you get the picture. Marty is a glimmering hope in cinema that tells the story about a man who finds a woman who makes him happy. She's nice, and funny, they had great laughs together and talked all night long. And just because she wasn't "pretty" didn't make her less of a woman in Marty's eyes, and that's something so valuable in him. What we can learn from Marty is that beauty is definitely not everything. Some of the most gorgeous people can also be the worlds worst people, the most unintelligent, and the most vain.

However, enough with the moral lessons on this movie (I could talk about it for so long, I think I'm starting to become an advocate for how woman are more than their bodies and their looks, and society is ruining itself by focusing on it). I found the movie to be quite short, and felt it could probably have gone on a little longer. It's the shortest running Best Picture winner at only 1hr and 30 minutes. Ernest Borgnine was great as Marty. He was socially awkward, and desperate, and very unconventional. Sometimes he was just so hard to watch and listen to, but he nailed it in such a good way. There's not a whole lot else to brag about for this movie. Not that it was bad, but because there wasn't too much in the way of Art Direction, Costumes, Score, etc. The acting was fine, and the screenplay was good. The storyline involving Marty's cousin and wife, with their terror of a mother, and Marty's mother invited the mother (her sister) to stay with her was a little unnecessary and quirky, but overall the film was a good one. It's not a story people like to tell, so it's often not told. It's not a cute romance like The Notebook, it's a real one, and it's awkward and quirky, but that's life isn't it?


Acting- 8/10 
Directing- 7/10 
Screenplay- 8/10 
Visuals- 7/10 
Music- 7/10 Emotional Connection- 8/10 
Entertainment- 8.5/10 
Rewatchability- 8/10 
Overall Enjoyment- 8.5/10 
Overall Package- 7.5/10     
Total: 77.5/100

Lawrence of Arabia

Lawrence Of Arabia, 1962
Directed by David Lean
Nominated for 10 Oscars, Won 7
Up Against: The Longest Day, Mutiny on the Bounty, To Kill A Mockingbird, The Music Man

Lawrence of Arabia is one of those classics. Everyone knows of the movie, but not many people have actually watched it, or really know what it's about besides it being about a man named Lawrence in a place called Arabia. That was me included. I'd heard of Lawrence of Arabia, but had no clue it was set in WWI. I had thought it was set way earlier in time, and had nothing to do about a war. And I had no idea it was a true story either.

Lawrence is a young solider, stationed in Cairo in 1916, drawing maps. Most of his superiors dislike him, calling him insolent and disrespectful, talking when he shouldn't be. He's eventually given a mission, to go to the desert and investigate how the Arabs revolt against the Turks are doing (For those who don't know, Turkey fought on the side of Germany, and they had "control" over several Mideastern countries, such as the Arab tribe). Once he arrives, he is told to keep quiet in front of Prince Feisel, by another officer there. But as we come to understand about Lawrence, he doesn't follow the rules. Prince Feisel, after his tribe being attacked, wants to retreat to Yenbo, but Lawrence suggests pushing ahead to Aqaba, to capture that city, something the soldiers back in Cairo didn't think could be done. From here, Lawrence shows just how different from other soldiers he is. He embraces Arab culture, leads 50 men across the dessert that the Arabs said was impossible to cross, and organizes a guerrilla army, launching attacks on the Turks for 2 years. As Lawrence says to his guide when he arrives in the desert "No, I'm different."

This movie is a little tricky to review. But then again, any more that is almost 4 hours in length is tough to review. It's almost like reviewing 2 movies at once. First off, Peter O'Toole, who went on to be nominated for 8 Oscars, this was one of his first roles, and was certainly his first "big" leading role. And wonderful he was. Lawrence was a complex and different guy, and he carried Lawrence beautifully. Additionally, Alec Guiness was almost unrecognizable as the Arab Prince Feisal. And Omar Sharif, as Sherif Ali, was additionally brilliant, and earned an Oscar nomination for the role.

The film itself was gorgeous, and understandably won Best Cinematography. The landscapes of the Arab desert were gorgeously filmed, even if sometimes it did go on a little too long.

The story itself is a little slow and drawn out (well it is four hours long), but you really get a scope of who Lawrence was, what he did, and why he was so successful, and how the media portrayed him. Lawrence was a complex man, and was so unlike any other  soldiers.

Similar to Bridge Over the River Kwai, Lean does something interesting. This is set in WWI, but we don't get much mention to trenches in France, and whatever else we associate with WWI. Instead it's solely focused on the story of  Lawrence, and the things happening in Arabia, that most people probably didn't know happened during that same time. It's a funny thing to think that War Horse and Lawrence of Arabia are set during the same time period. They seem just so far apart from each other.

While the movie is a classic, I found it hard to sit through. A lot of the movie wasn't explained (why the Arabs should be revolting against the Turks, what going to Aqaba would do, etc). I found myself asking my boyfriend a lot of questions while we watched (He's majoring in History in University, so could answer all my questions). Additionally, everything was very drawn out. Almost an hour was spent crossing the dessert to get to Aqaba (a lot of landscape shots, people falling off camels at night, etc). Yes, it was an interesting story, but I find it just a little overly drawn out. However, this is in big part due to the fact that I have grown up in a "short attention span" era of movies. Movies that are 2 hours or under, with fast action, little talking, etc. I live in an era where things like Transformers are the popular movies. I'm not accustomed to sitting through a 4 hour film that is slow-paced.

And now, I'm introducing a new rating system breakdown, to shown exactly what I liked and didn't like about the film, and scoring out of 100.

Acting- 9/10 
Directing- 9/10 
Screenplay- 7/10 
Visuals- 10/10 
Music- 9.5/10 Emotional Connection- 6/10 
Entertainment- 6.5/10 
Rewatchability- 5/10 
Overall Enjoyment- 7/10 
Overall Package- 8/10     
Total: 77/100

Best of the Best: The Kings Speech vs. The Artist

BEST OF THE BEST

I've decided to try something new here at the Oscars Project. It's something I've entitled "Best of the Best". I'm going to pit 2 Best Pictures against each other, and lay out who I think would win. I'll try to make it as random and unbiased as possible. Sometimes I'll pit similar films against each other, sometimes old vs recent, sometimes I'll randomly select 2 films.

To start it off, I thought I'd do something recent, and relevant. The King's Speech (2010) vs. The Artist (2011). To me these 2 films are, in a way, similar. Both are about a man struggling with finding his voice. While Bertie, in the King's Speech was thrust into the limelight or being a King, George, in the Artist, was highly regarded and was suddenly cast down. Both are about a man's journey as he finds where he's meant to be, and finds their voice. Both learn to "speak".

The King's Speech was met with critical acclaim. It was first shown at the Telluride Film Festival, but really got it's start just a little bit later in September at the Toronto International Film Festival where it got a standing ovation and won the People's Choice Award. From there it picked up steam. However, when it came to awards season, there was another movie that came along. The Social Network. Most of the awards were pretty split between TKS and TSN. However, many called The King's Speech an Oscar-bait film, being a period piece, a true story, and about British Royalty, with a dab of WWII. It was also deemed a "feel good" film, many people saying it is a good thing, and others, not so much. While it sits with a 95% on Rotten Tomatoes, many also felt it was the "safe" choice that year, beating out edgier films like The Social Network and Black Swan.

Aside from that, the King's Speech gave some incredible performances. Colin Firth picked up his first Oscar for the performance, and rightly so. He played the stuttering future King Bertie to perfection, and made us feel empathetic. He was able to capture the humor, but also the sorrow of the situation delightfully. Geoffrey Rush was also nominated, and did a splendid performance as Bertie's speech coach, Lionel. He was quirky and spunky, but was brave and honest. Helena Bonham Carter was charming and a bit snooty, but very loving. Also nominated.

The Artist, on the other hand, premiered at the Cannes Film Festival in May 2011 and is a silent, black and white film. Jean Dujardin won the Best Actor Award, and the film was nominated for the Palme d'Or. The film was popular in many Film festivals, and when it came to Awards Season, the movie picked up tons of awards, with no real "second place" movie. It sits with a 98% on Rotten Tomatoes. And while it was extremely popular, many called it "gimmicky", because of it being a silent films, shot in the aspect ratios of the 20s/30s, and being in black and white. They said the story was a mix of Singin' In the Rain, and A Star is Born, and that it wasn't very original, and was predictable. Another film that was deemed Oscar-bait, for being different and not being "very daring".  However, the music, the performances, the costumes, were all praised. Jean Dujardin spent most of the season in a tight race with  George Clooney for Best Actor, but won out on Oscar Night.

Being silent, the performances and the music were on a pretty high expectation. The music would have to carry the film in a way that sound movies don't. And the actors would have to express everything without talking. However, these worries were quickly set aside. Jean Dujardin, who plays the charming George Valentin, looks as though he really is from another era. He has the most expressive face, and has such a smile. And his little mustache! You'd think you were actually watching a movie from the 1930s. Berenice Bejo, additionally, was so phenomenal. She was perky and peppy (excuse the pun), and just a bubble of fun. You'd believe she really was a film star from the silent days.

But who wins? Both films had similar complaints laid against them. They were too feel good, they were too safe, and the performances were stronger than the story line. The films were even nominated for the same things. The Artist, having 10 nominations, and the King's Speech having 12, all 10 that The Artist was nominated for, The King's Speech was too (the only difference being screenplay and supporting actor).

What the King's Speech has going for it is the performances. Colin Firth is thrilling and perfect, and Geoffrey Rush is great. What the Artist has going for it is the performances, and the fact that it's a silent film, in black and white.

Verdict: I think the Artist is going to take this one. (Though I enjoy The King's Speech more than The Artist, though I love them both)

Not only was it more loved than The King's Speech, but it also had no other competition that year, like The King's Speech had The Social Network. The Artist is a lot more different than The King's Speech, and it did something unique. How can a cute, well-acted and directed film, that's silent and b&w lose? It's something that sticks out in your mind a bit more than a period piece about a British Monarch. However, I'd say that Colin Firth would beat out Jean Dujardin. Dujardin was great, but Firth truly, truly nailed it for me.

Sound off in the comments if you agree/disagree. Did I pick the right winner? For the right reasons? Or was I completely off? You let me know!
Or if you have suggestions for next time's Best of the Best, write them down there too.

Like Crazy

Like Crazy, 2011
Directed by Drake Doremus

Jacob, an American, and Anna, a Brit, meet at college in California and fall in love. When Anna overstays her Visa, the two find themselves seperated.

After the first viewing of the trailer a long time ago, I was excited to watch it. It was a romance film, but it was also receiving good reviews from critics, and was winning film festival awards. So I knew it'd be a little bit better of a film than something like Dear John. And between watching that trailer and reviewing it now, I've watched this film four or five times.

This film is pretty unique in a few ways. It was shot on a DSLR camera. You know, like one of those Canon T2i ones. So it already has this indie hipster feel. Additionally, most of the dialogue between Anna and Jacob was improvised. Drake Doremus gave the general direction of what he wanted to happen in each scene, but Anton Yelchin (Jacob) and Felicity Jones (Anna) did the rest mostly improve. So that being said, this film would either be pretty stiff and awkward, or it would be very natural and realistic. And it was definitely the latter that came through. The two of them have funny little conversations, and really seem to think through the questions they ask each other, like they would in real life. It's cute, and believable, and makes it seem like you're watching a real couple. It doesn't sound at all scripted, because they aren't saying anything cliche or poetic. It's just them, and it's really neat to watch.

Felicity Jones, who portrays journalist and fashion writer Brit Anna, continually broke my heart throughout this whole movie. Felicity Jones won a few small awards for her portrayal as Anna, including the Sundance Special Jury Best Actress, National Board of Review Breakthrough Performance, The New Hollywood award from the Hollywood Film Festival, and breakthrough awards at both the Empire and Gotham awards. Needless to say, Felicty Jones was pretty flawless in this film. She was confused, and heartbroken, and obsessed. She couldn't let her first love go. And just seeing her cry as Jacob leaves her at the airport, kills you, as it does Jacob ("oh man, you're really killing me..." as he cries as well).

Anton Yelchin, on the other hand, won nothing for his portrayal as Jacob. To me, his performance is severely underrated. Jacob is so different, yet so similar to Anna. They're both quirky, like Paul Simon, and is just really goofy, yet really artsy too. But Jacob tries to move on when they decide to. He knows he still loves Anna, but he tries to go on with his life, whereas Anna is a lot more tied to the past and their history. Not to say Jacob doesn't love Anna, because he does, but he shows it in different ways. Anton really balances the conflicted side of Jacob, and the fun-loving goofy side, and also the sensitive side.

Overall, I love this film so much. The music is gorgeous, and while it's made up of so many montage scenes, they also don't feel scripted either. They're goofy, and unconventional, and you really think these 2 people are in love in their quirky ways.

The ending, while some people were unsatisfied, it so portrays the way things end in real life. I won't say much more, but I'll say I respect the direction Drake Doremus chose to go and how to end it. It's heartbreaking, yet so believable.

Yes, I love this movie, and pretty much everything about it. It's sad, it's cute, it's comfy, it's a tearjerker, but overall, it's lovely, with hearbreaking performances (and also a nice little Jennifer Lawrence in it!).

8.5/10

Young Adult

Young Adult, 2011
Directed by Jason Reitman

Young Adult tells a story about that girl we all hated in high school. That really mean one, but somehow she's still popular. Okay, I've never really met anyone like her, but we've all seen Mean Girls, and various other American High School movies. This is the story of that girl, all grown up, except she hasn't really grown up at all. Mavis Gary is stuck in the past. She writes young adult fiction, she wears Uggs and sweat pants, and only tries to look good when she's going out at night. After receiving an email from her high school ex-boyfriend Buddy, that he and his wife are now parents, Mavis decides to return to Mercury, Minnesota (her hometown & where Buddy lives) and to try and get him back.

Initially, watching the trailer, I thought this movie would be awesomely hilarious, and that Charlize Theron would give a super awesome performance, and it would be unique. I was partly right about this thinking. This film was way less funny than I imagined it was going to be, but I don't consider this a bad thing.

Mavis Gary is a complex person. She's stuck in the past, filled with bitterness and regret. She longs to be back in high school where she was still hooking up with all the guys, picking on all the girls, and just loving life and being popular. Mavis seemed to learn the hard way that the way you live in high school just doesn't cut it in the real world. Eventually you need to grow up and become a real person. And that's something Mavis never seemed to learn. She's still the mean girl, who flirts with other people's husbands, is rude to people she doesn't know, and drinks whenever she can.

Charlize Theron really knocks it out of the park in this movie. She's everything we all hate in those mean girls, and we feel so little sympathy for her. She's mean, she's vain, and she's slightly crazy. Really, she's still that mean girl, still a teenager, and not ready to grow up. Charlize hits all the right notes with Mavis.

Many people have compared Bridemaids' Annie (Kristen Wiig) to Young Adult's Mavis (Charlize Theron). They are similar characters in various ways. They're both filled with bitterness, lash out at others, and are just extremely immature and mean. But Mavis is definitely the winner in this character contest. Mavis is over the top and mean, whereas Annie is just bitter and spiteful. Mavis pushes the boundaries everywhere she can whereas Annie only seems to toe the line in comparison.

Now, I can't forget Patton Oswalt. Oswalt plays Matt, a boy Mavis had a locker next to in high school. He got beat up in the woods by jocks because they thought he was gay. They smashed his leg with a crowbar, and he's never walked the same since. Matt is the exact opposite of everything Mavis is. Matt is in a crappy situation but he doesn't complain, and he accepts what he's been dealt in life. Mavis is in a pretty good place, being beautiful and having made it out of Mercury, yet she constantly complains about everything around her.  Patton Oswalt plays Matt with such a sympathy, yet with a hint of humor. He's a nice guy, and Patton Oswalt plays him quite well.

While I really enjoyed the performances, I felt the story could've had way more to offer. The end and the solution came all too quickly, and didn't offer very much. We'd constantly see Mavis pulling out bits of her hair, talking about depression, etc, and nothing seemed to come of these possible outcomes. The ending was quite dissatisfying. Additionally, I'd have loved to seen more of Mavis with old high school friends, instead of just with Matt, or with Buddy. It'd have been interesting to see how her old clique had grown up, maturing, unlike Mavis.

However, it was still quite an enjoyable film, and it's a big shame Charlize didn't get nearly as much attention for her role as Mavis than she deserved. I'd have loved to see an Oscar nomination for this quirky part, but alas.

7/10

Trailer Watch: The Great Gatsby

The Great Gatsby is a literary classic by F. Scott Fitzgerald, and is one of my favourite books, having read it for the first time 2 years ago in my 12th grade literature class. Gatsby is a book about love, life, desire, and hidden pasts. It follows Nick Carraway, after having moved to West Egg, New York. He quickly gets wrapped up in a very twisted plot after meeting his next door neighbour, the infamous Jay Gatsby, and revisiting his cousin Daisy and her husband Tom. Through Nick, Daisy and Gatsby are reunited, having had a passionate past with many secrets. It quickly becomes a tangled web for Daisy, Gatsby, Tom, and especially Nick.

They started casting this film around the time I was reading it in 12th grade, so my literature class was really excited to hear Leo Dicaprio was playing Gatsby. We were also a little skeptical as it was Baz Luhrman directing, who`s films include Romeo + Juliet, Moulin Rouge and Australia. What kind of film would it turn out to be?

And though the film isn't slated to be released until Christmas Day, we got a very early trailer. And I must say, Luhrman has taken a very flamboyant look to the movie. While most people, and other movies, have been more of a "prim and proper" look to Gatsby, this book/movie is also set in the 1920's, the roaring Jazz age. It's interesting the look that Luhrman has selected for this movie, but it's not a surprising one.

Already some people have said it's too "modern". Although this could be due to the modern music used in the trailer, added for dramatic effect and to draw more of the masses in, making it "relevant". However, I rewatched the trailer on mute, and this movie looks like it could be very good, indeed. Yes, it's different from the book. It's over-the-top, it's colourful, it's flashy. And while we didn't get to see much of a performance from any of the characters, they certainly look good.

All in all, this movie, if well recieved, could be a major contender at this years Awards Season. It's one of the most popular and beloved books, in a year of literary classics coming to the screen. Obviously, it has big chances on landing the art nominations, whether this movie is actually any good or not. And while Leo is garnering more attention for his evil role in Django Unchained, Carey Mulligan looks like she could be a contender this year (whether lead or supporting is yet to be seen), and even Tobey MacGuire.

All in all, I'm really excited for this movie. It looks exciting, and I'm really looking forward to seeing if the movie will be very true to the text. However, it's already had a few lines straight from the book, and they've kept a couple parts that I recognize, from the book.

I'm just really excited, and being a literature fangirl right now.