Noah

Noah, 2014

Directed by Darren Aronofsky

I'm going to start off this review and let you know, if you didn't know already, I am a Christian. I believe in God, the Bible, and all the stories in them. And I'm sure you've all heard (Christian and non-Christian alike) about all the 'controversy' and 'backlash' this film has garnered. This film had been on my radar for a few years. And while I haven't watched many Aronofsky films (the only one being Pi, which I was forced to watch in English Class and did not enjoy it), I've been aware of, more or less, how biblical/unbiblical this would be.

First, I'd like to clear up the idea that this film was made because studios love controversy, don't care about keeping it accurate and only care about making money. Aronofsky, you can readily read, has been wanting to make this film since he was a teenager. While he is a professed Athiest, he has always been fascinated by this story, and he and co-screenwriter Ari Handel had a very clear vision of this film. However, the studios disagreed with said vision. They wanted it shortened and more "safe" (aka more "biblical"). They released various cuts of the films to various religious audiences, with all kinds of mixed reviews. The studios seemed quite eager to try to please the audience and deliver the film they wanted, rather than let their director make the film he wanted. On the contrary, studios do not like this kind of controversy. However, the cut we now see in theatres is Aronofsky's original cut.

Noah is a very different blockbuster and envisioning of this story than most people, mainly the Christian community, expected. As a Christian myself, hearing how "controversial" this film was, and how divided everyone seemed to be, made me become extremely interested in seeing this film. I read review upon review, Christian and otherwise, to see what everyone was saying. And finally, 3 weeks after it's release, I watched the movie, along with my husband and 3 friends from our weekly Bible study group.

I tried to critically watch this film both through a Christian standpoint, but also in a view that separates the film from any Bible knowledge and just to watch the film as it was. This was difficult at points, but it was a truly interesting experience.

And when I came out of the movie, myself and the others I attended with, sort of all had the same feeling about it. We didn't really care for the movie one way or the other. Though one friend seemed particularly off-put by the amount of "magical glowing", but nevertheless, we all seemed a little indifferent to the film as a whole.

I have since read the passage of Noah over and over again both before and after watching the film. And the only thing I can really think of that directly contradicts the text is that all of Noah's sons boarded the ark with wives. Pretty much everything else in the passage is included in the film. Which, seriously, is not hard. However, not giving a specific voice to God/The Creator made for some narrative shifting, but overall, everything in the text is in the film. But it's just a matter of reading between the lines and Aronofsky and Handel did a lot of this. However, another point to remember, specifically for this story, Noah is not exclusive to the Bible. There have been all sorts of legends, religious stories, etc of a flood, an ark, Noah, etc, and are part of Juddaism, Islam and various other mythologies as well. This is something so many Christians seem to forget and I would like to send out as a reminder.

Personally, I more or less didn't have problems with the filling in of the blanks in this film. The scripture itself is very brief, so this was obviously necessary to some extent. While most things worked, there were a few that didn't. What didn't work particularly well was the extended use of the Watchers. Large rock creatures who are cast out of Heaven for wanting to help humans, they are introduced quite early on. While they later go on to find their place in the film (as illustrated in the next paragraph), they more often come off gimmicky and a little silly. I had very mixed emotions over the Watchers and felt their role could've been reduced. As well, the inclusion of the "evil stowaway" on the ark added pretty well nothing to the story and could've been eliminated completely. However, what I felt most mixed about is the third act, and final narrative. SPOILERS AHEAD. While I thought the idea of Noah being determined that all of human kind should die, including his family, was an interesting question to be raised, I felt the film took it a little far that it became unrealistic. Noah, threatening to kill Ila's children (if they are girls) seemed somewhat out of place, and not fitting from what we've seen of Noah thus far. Noah, while powerful, cares so incredibly much for his family, and is very loyal to the Creator. Noah never had a specific vision that his family should die out, and when Noah asked the Creator, he received no answer. While Russell Crowe played out the mania expertly, the extent the story line went to toed the line on melodramatic and felt out of place. End Spoilers. In fact, I felt several things really toed the line on melodrama. Ham's quest for a wife was understandably quite dire and he felt strongly about it. But the lengths he goes to while angry at his father is a little much. But this goes along with my dislike of the inclusion of the stowaway. While most of it stayed afloat and not overly dramatic, it often got a little close.

 The things that worked best was the inclusion of Ila. Ila is a young girl whom Noah's family finds wounded near the beginning of the film, her family dead. Noah and his family take her in, and she grows up with them. Destined to be barren because of her injury, she and Noah's eldest son have fallen in love and are essentially (it is not explicit whether they are or not) married. Played thoughtfully by Emma Watson, Ila provided a very different and tender voice to the film, that, without it, might've left the film way too dark. And while I wasn't overly enthused with the Watches at all times, they found their perfect place when helping building the ark. Seeing how large this ark was, it seemed entirely plausible that Noah and his family would need some "big help". As well, many interesting questions are raised throughout the film (justice vs mercy, the will of the Creator, who is "deserving" of grace, etc), and while these are specifically tied to the scripture story of Noah, they were biblical and thought-provoking questions all the same.

However, what worked the best, was how horrific the flood became. Between Noah's visions of being underwater, surrounded by corpses, or to the shot of Noah sitting in the ark, the water rushing around him and you can hear the screams of all those outside, trying to cling to life. They story of Noah is very different, in reality, to what we learned in Sunday school. It's not a happy little ark with Fisher-Price animals in the plastic ark. It's a horror story of mass extinction and eradication of humans. And Aronofsky captured this element perfectly. And while Noah knows he did the right thing, we see Ila and Shem starting to beg their father to rescue those outside, that they have so much room. They have such compassion, but Noah knows he has followed the Creator's commands, and this is incredibly powerful. If the film did anything right, it was this, by far.

The visuals in this film were incredibly stunning, that I can say with certainty. The cinematography (mainly those stunning silhouette shots at the beginning of the film) were gorgeous. While I felt some of the visual effects were a little hit or miss, the overall effect of all the animals and the ship were stunning. As well, all the acting was fairly solid. Russell Crowe is an understated powerhouse as Noah. And Jennifer Connelly brought such power and peace to the role. And while she is white (unlike her real life counterpart would've been) I felt she was one of the best casting choices. Emma Watson has never overly impressed me with her acting (though she was so fun in the Bling Ring), I felt she did some good work here, in the end. However, some of the cast looked a little too pretty. Mainly Emma Watson and Douglas Booth as Shem were the main offenders. Emma Watson looked a little too perfect to be believable, and Douglas Booth looked like a Biblical Model. As well, some of the costumes were a little odd (specifically Noah wearing a modern looking jacket with a hood).


Overall, I understand the controversy. This was not what Christians were expecting, and it's not exactly the film the trailer was promoting (or at least the one or two trailers I watched). I felt much of the problem arose from slightly false advertising of the film, via the trailers. The trailers make this out to look more or less Biblically accurate. Again, I haven't seen all the trailers released, but the one that played in theaters felt misleading after watching the film. However, a recommendation for Christians regarding films: Do your research! This is not something I can stress enough. If there's a Biblical/Christian movie coming out, look into this film. Who is in it? Who is directing it? Just looking at the director can tell you a lot about what to expect, if they have a large enough or prominent enough filmography. The amount of the people I know who don't realize that the Son of God movie is just the Jesus section from the Bible mini-series (plus deleted scenes) astounds me. Even just read reviews! I know too many Christians who went into this blind and came out angry and disappointed. They felt they had been mislead and mocked with this unexpected story.

However, this was a film, in the end, I did not feel like I'd ever need to revisit. This is not because of some Christian blah-blah of thinking this adaptation "ruins scripture" and Aronofsky is "mocking Christians". I feel none of those emotions towards the film, and felt the film was incredibly creative and original. However, Aronofsky is a filmmaker I am realizing is just not for me. Some things worked in this movie, but the mania went a little too far, and some of this felt unrealistic for where the plot and characters had been going prior.

Would I recommend this movie? I'm not sure. I don't have really many feelings to it and I feel it was (extremely ironically) a little forgettable. It's a film that is definitely an "experience" and definitely raised some interesting questions. But was it a good movie? That, I'm not terribly certain on.

7/10

From Here to Eternity

From Here to Eternity, 1953

Directed by Fred Zinneman

Nominated for 13 Oscars, Won 8

Wins Include: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Supporting Actor, Best Supporting Actress, Best Writing (Screenplay), Best Cinematography (Black and White), Best Sound Recording, Best Film Editing

This film is about the romantic and personal entanglements of various soldiers stationed in Hawaii. Beginning with Prewitt, who had requested to transfer, and ended up in Hawaii, but finds out Captain Holmes had heard about his great boxing skills and wants him on the company team. Prewitt had given up boxing a year ago, and is tormented by various peer soldiers and his superiors when he refused to join the team. As well, Sergeant Warden has started a romance with the captain's wife, who is in an extremely rocky marriage. Not to mention the weekends off the base where Prew finds a woman he loves, all while the attack on Pearl Harbour is looming in the very near future. 

I'm not sure why, but I had very little patience for this film. Maybe because there's an exorbitant amount of war/army films that have won Best Picture and I've seen several recently (Patton, The English Patient, etc). Or maybe because I just could care less about everyone's "problems" in this film. 

The entanglements came off very melodramatically, and many of the characters were extremely unsympathetic to boot. Prewitt is headstrong and stubborn, as well as most people around him. Prewitt is constantly getting picked up by his superiors and fellow soldiers because he won't join their boxing team. And Prewitt takes a very "I won't give them the satisfaction" attitude towards the abuse. So when he does start to show he weary he is, I can't really feel sorry for him. Especially with how the film ended. As well, all the romantic storylines felt very contrived, and all the woman "troubled". Maybe because it's the 50's but it's tiring always having the love interests being being reluctant about getting together with the man, or blaming the man for not actually wanting to be with her, or saying "don't go do that brave thing! stay and marry me!". This is also in part the portrayal of the men, who are all so strong and stubborn but "romantic". I guess I just don't buy into this thing of the woman being "weak" and the men "strong". 

But other than my feminist views of 50's war films, the acting was alright. This had 5 of it's actors up, and 2 of them won (for Supporting Actor and Actress). Frank Sintra was indeed a standout of the film, and I don't think really anyone else compared. His story line was also probably the most interesting (maybe because it didn't revolve around getting together with a girl?). But overall, Sintra was a great choice for the role and he deservedly won for it. Burt Lancaster was also solid, but I felt Montgomery Cliff (Prewitt) was just trying way too hard (Also he looks SO much like Tom Cruise! Just me?) and it came off a little blah, to me anyway. 

I find the movie quite dull most of the way through. It moved quickly for not really having a plot, like, at all. And the attack on Pearl Harbor scenes were by far the most interesting thing about the film, and the most well done. 

Overall, I wasn't a huge fan of this. Like I mentioned, I just seemed to have very little patience for it and the characters and their circumstances. Like, seriously, Prewitt is able to leave the base one of his first weekends in Hawaii and meets Lorene (and admittedly really connects with her.. though he does also acost a man she's talking with after he left her for a moment) and when he doesn't come back until 6 weeks later, he still expects Lorene to be with him exclusively (which Lorene calls him out on but eventually does go to him). The men seem to all feel self important and all the women a bit cold but weak. I

Maybe it was just a bad day to watch this (this was my second attempt as I wasn't in the mood last week), or maybe I just really didn't like it, but this film didn't go over super well with me and is one I can't imagine I'll watch again in a while, despite some solid performances and a good battle scene. 

Acting- 8.5/10 

Directing- 8/10 
Screenplay- 6.5/10 

Visuals- 7.5/10 

Music- 7.5/10 

Emotional Connection- 4/10 

Entertainment- 5.5/10 

Rewatchability- 5.5/10 

Overall Enjoyment- 5.5/10 

Overall Package- 6/10       

Total: 64.5/100

The Grand Budapest Hotel

The Grand Budapest Hotel, 2014

Directed by Wes Anderson

To date, I have only watched 2 Wes Anderson films. And those are his two most recent. Moonrise Kingdom, which I haven't watched probably four or five times since it was released on DVD, and The Fantastic Mr. Fox, a film I only watched a few weekends ago.

I like to think that if I made films, they would be something like a Wes Anderson film. However, I am not an aspiring filmmaker, nor am I capable or talented enough to become one. However, Wes Anderson (or what I've seen from his most recent 3 films), are what I love about movies. The style, the humor, the visuals are exactly right up my alley. I just love it all! So I was a little anxious going into the Grand Budapest Hotel, hoping I would continue to love what I'm seeing from Anderson. And while this didn't surpass my love of Moonrise Kingdom and Fantastic Mr Fox, it was still a fantastic film, highly entertaining, extremely hilarious, and fabulous.

The film starts off with an extreme meta narrative. We first see a young girl opening a book, named The Grand Budapest Hotel. Next we hear (and see) the words being read, told by an elderly writer, who is telling the story of his younger self, visiting the named hotel. He happens to be staying there at the same time as Zero Moustafa, an elderly gentleman now, and the owner. They run into each other in the public bath's and the young writer enquires to Mr Moustafa his story of how he came upon the hotel. And we enter the final layer of the story. We are now seeing young Zero's story as he first arrives at the Grand Budapest hotel several decades earlier, as a new lobby boy, and tells of murder, stolen paintings, prison break, fancy chocolates, and first love.

The two main things that stuck out to me about this film were Ralph Fiennes, and Alexandre Desplat's score. Ralph Fiennes, a person of whom I've only seen in dramas (does he really do comedy?), is pitch-perfect as M. Gustave H. The quirky, flirtatious, and charming owner of the Grand Budapest. As Zero mentions, many of the guests come exclusively to see him. And as it should be, many people came to see the film solely for him as well. Fiennes is quick-witted and dead-pan (as with most Anderson characters).

I don't mean to short change the acting of any others within the film because Fiennes was so fantastic. While this film is advertised as a huge ensemble film, with many Anderson favourites, it's actually a film that had two main characters, with a small handful of meaningful support. Of course, we have Gustave and Zero. I have not read much about Tony Revolori (who plays Zero), he admittedly does not have nearly as showy a part, but is plays his part well, keeps expression to a minimal, unless needed. For supporting, our main character here is Agatha, played by Saorsie Ronan. Her part is not as showy either, but she is a fun addition to the cast and generally just gives great performances. We also have a very sinister Willem Dafoe as the assassin, Jopling, and Adrien Brody as Madame D.'s son. Both sinister, both great.

As well, the music in the film was fabulous. Desplat has long been a favourite composer of mine, and I feel some of his best work is done with Anderson. I have not seen an Anderson film that Desplat hasn't composed, but I feel that Desplat really adds something to the film, and the overall style and quirkiness. It's extremely distinctive, and it makes complete sense why Anderson keeps bringing him back on board. This, along with Ralph Fiennes, was one of my favourite parts of the film. Immersive and quirky, and completely fun.

The story itself felt a little complicated and convoluted (a problem not found in Moonrise or Mr Fox), but I typically find Anderson films need several viewings to completely appreciate, take in, and notice all the little details and quirks, and this is a film I plan to watch again as soon as I can. However, when the film wasn't convoluted, it was touching, charming, random and grand fun. Some of the best fun in the film was all the completely (on purpose, of course) implausible situations, and how everyone reacts. To the extended conversation between Gustave and Zero after they have succeeded in the prison break of Gustave, to the hilarious shoot-out in the hotel. What makes this movie so fun is it takes a story idea, which has been done many, many, many time before and makes it feel completely fresh and new. How many times have we seen films about people wrongly accused of murder and they try to track down their killer? But Anderson gives a quirky and irresistible spin on this story, making it hilarious, but still a heart-warming and, at times, touching.

As I've seen so far, we have the contrast between irresponsible adults, and responsible children. While Moonrise Kingdom had parents and grown-ups giving advice to the young lovers, they never followed it themselves, and, ironically, Sam and Suzy often handled situations better than the adults did. Mr Fox in Fantastic Mr Fox was classic irresponsible, and often dragging others into his schemes (and often the calm, responsible Kristofferson). Here, we have Gustave H, the head member of adults acting like children. We do not often see him actually doing any work, but often giving it to others. He is always off to flirt with some older woman, or just have a good time. This is not to say he shirks responsibility (he gives "sermons" during dinner, and does manage the entire hotel and is the reason it is so grand) But also remember, many guests come simply to see him.  And while there are less children around this time, Zero and his fiancee Agatha, are definitely the level heads, and are the ones with the plans, the brains and the capabilities. Zero, who is loyal and devoted, is often the common sense. Not to mention, the fact that he draws on his little mustache, him and Agatha get "engaged", and Agatha has a full-time job shows the contrast of adults being children, and children being adults.

As well the film is nostalgic for, perhaps, a time that never existed. But it's never a flawless nostalgia, but is always tainted with the things that really did taint the past. Things like war, lack of modern technology, etc. But is reminiscent of simpler times, though always a world that never quite exists.

Overall, the film of a style level is marvelous. The humor, the style, the music, the acting is all pitch-perfect. The story was a little muddled at times, but never completely collapses, or even comes close. And while I'm reserving judgment for an overall placement until I've watched this film a time or two more (and until I've watched more Anderson films), but at this point Moonrise Kingdom is still ruling, and will be tough to beat. Admittedly, Wes Anderson films are not generally for everyone. They are so quirky and different from much other filmmaking going on that it is a little jarring at times. However, I do recommend the film.

Will it garner awards attention? I really hope so. This absolutely deserves recognition in Art Direction, Costumes, Make-up/Hair-styling, and Screenplay. But most of all, I'd love to see Ralph Fiennes recognized for his work here. He is the head of the film, and is so marvelous, as I've stated before. But even if nothing comes to fruition, this film is still lovely, and definitely worth seeing.

8/10

Best Picture Ranking So Far

So I have now watched 70 out of 86 of the Best Picture winners and now only have 16 to go! It's definitely been really interesting and fun (and sometimes boring) to see many of the films that have won. Also, it's been a while since I've done this, so I thought I'd update you all on how my rankings stand, best to worst. While some of my choices probably aren't as "critical" as others, I've endeavored to find a ranking that equally ranks how "good" a film is, and how much I enjoyed it. The list has had some adjustments since I last did this (mainly do to rewatching, and just my view of films being sharpened since). So here we go!

The Greatest Show On Earth

The Greatest Show On Earth, 1952
Directed by Cecil B. DeMille
Nominated for 5 Oscars, Won 2

Circus Manager Brad Braden has secured the Great Sebastian to join the Ringling Bros Circus, in order to make sure they can run a full season and continue to be profitable. Before this, they were only supposed to do a 10-week run instead of a 10 month one. But the Great Sebastian comes with strings attached. He's a notorious flirt, and extremely wealthy and famous. It also means Brad's girlfriend Holly, is knocked out of the center-ring trapeze, and Holly and Sebastian begin a dangerous one-upmanship duel (without nets and rings to boot), which threatens to bring the circus down.

The main complaint I had about this film was that it seems no one had ever heard of a montage scene. The movie is two and a half hours long, but could've easily been under 2 hours had many of the circus scenes been reduced to montages. We have many unnecessary circus act scenes that add nothing to the plot that are overlong and pointless. We have the long parades, in which we see the whole thing. We have hula dances who sing and do acrobatics, and we see the entire thing. None of these add anything to the plot (which doesn't really exist anyway).

Otherwise, I didn't mind this film. I mean, no, it was certainly not best picture. But I didn't mind it. It was overly dramatic with so much personal issues, many of them trivial and pathetic.

I had very low expectations of this film, thinking it would be some sort of general movie with not really any main characters or much of a story. I knew virtually nothing about the movie before going in. So I know a lot of people rag on this for being one of the worst films to win, but I was pleasantly surprised that it was alright and it wasn't crazy boring for being as long as it was. The first half of the film had my attention all the way through but about halfway was when it started to drag and you realized there wasn't much of a story. This could've been a lot more concise than it was (see above about montage scenes).

The acting was extremely mediocre. There was nothing overly special about the performances and probably most anyone could've played these roles. Some of the circus scenes were definitely well done, but as the movie wore on, you started to get tired of them. And it definitely is dated since circus's have advanced since then and are doing even more extreme things (maybe not as extreme as Holly and Sebastian, but you know).

Overall, the film was alright. As I said, first half was good, second half continued to just have no idea where it was going and tried very hard to make it look like there was a story. Holly's constant going back and forth between Brad and Sebastian was tiring and childish, and the side stories about Buttons the clown and Angel and Klaus were boring and over-dramatic (and distinctly soap-opera-ish).

While this wasn't necessarily a bad film, it was definitely not a deserving winner. It still boggles my mind that Singin' In The Rain wasn't even nominated this year, as it's pretty much my favourite movie ever and kind of deserves like all the awards, including Best Picture.

Acting- 6.5/10 

Directing- 7/10 
Screenplay- 6/10 

Visuals- 7.5/10 

Music- 7/10 

Emotional Connection- 5/10 

Entertainment- 6/10 

Rewatchability- 5/10 

Overall Enjoyment- 6/10 

Overall Package- 6/10       

Total: 60/100

All The King's Men

All The King's Men, 1949
Directed by Robert Rossen
Nominated for 7 Oscars, Won 3
Wins Include: Best Picture, Best Actor, Best Supporting Actress

Based on the Pulitzer Prize-winning novel, we have the story of the rise and fall of a politician. We are told the story through the eyes of Jack Burden, a journalist, who is told to go over to Kanoma County to cover a man named Willie Stark. He's running for County Treasurer, but people are also saying he's an honest man. He doesn't end up winning the race, but Jack takes a liking to him all the same. In a few years, Stark is making a name for himself. First as a lawyer, and then he runs for governor. At first, he is convinced to run by some other politicians who are hoping to split the vote so another candidate will win. And while he does indeed, lose, he goes on to run again in a few years (and easily wins), but has changed. He is no longer quite the honest man he used to be.

I'm sorry, but this movie was quite dull. The acting was fine, and the premise was, at least, semi-interesting. But it was not overly interesting and dragged itself out.

I'm really not sure what more to say about this besides that it was dull. I mean, this isn't nearly as boring or mediocre as other films I've seen before, but it was still nothing special.

John Ireland was great as Jack. It's actually pretty uncanny that Jude Law played him in Zaillian's 2006 adaptation, because they look quite similar. However, he did a solid job as the reporter Jack. As well, Broderick Crawford was great as Willie Stark. The transition between characters is believable and he plays both the honest man and the corrupt one so well. Mercedes McCambridge was also fun as Sadie, the wise-cracking assistant.

However, the rest of the film was quite lacking besides the acting, and I'm not really sure what else to add but just give my overall rating.

Acting- 8.5/10 

Directing- 7.5/10 
Screenplay- 7/10 

Visuals- 7/10 

Music- 7/10 

Emotional Connection- 5/10 

Entertainment- 5/10 

Rewatchability- 3/10 

Overall Enjoyment- 5.5/10 

Overall Package- 6.5/10       

Total: 62/100

12 Years A Slave (updated review)

12 Years a Slave, 2013
Directed by Steve McQueen

12 Years a Slave has been the talk of the town ever since it premiered at TIFF. And after watching the film trailer wondered if this movie would be the Best Picture winner this year. And it seems I was right.

12 Years tells the story of Soloman Northup. A free black man, in the 1840's, living in New York. He's an accomplished violin player and has done very well for himself in society. But when he naively goes with 2 white men to Washington while his wife and children are out of town, as they are offering him a job to play violin with them for a circus they run, he gets drugged, kidnapped, and sold into slavery in the American South.

Right there, taking a man who was free, who had no master, and had a wife, a family, a house, and a career with rights and privileges, and selling him into slavery, losing everything, that makes it so much more personal. And knowing it really happened makes it even more so. All of a sudden I'm sitting in the theatre imaging it happening to me. Or to my husband. It makes the story much more relatable. And all the more heartbreaking.

I cannot express enough how beautiful, heartbreaking and moving this film is. Chiwetel Ejiofor as Solomon Northup gives the performance of a lifetime. Ejiofor was subtle, and so much of the performance relied on his expressions and the emotion in his eyes. The most moving parts are when he isn't speaking at all. The performance is absolute perfection, and Ejiofor really captures Solomon's rage, anger, desperation, hope and love. Never does Solomon let himself truly fall into despair. Solomon knows where he came from, and while he may not expect to ever see his family, he remains faithful to them in hopes that one day they are reunited. In fact, the final scene of the film is one of the most heartbreaking of all. And Ejiofor carried this all so well.

The two other notable performances include Michael Fassbender and Lupita Nyong'o. Fassbender has worked with Steve McQueen on his previous 2 films. While I haven't seen either of them, I was completely taken in by his work here. He is an incredibly diverse and flexible actor, and he really takes on the crazy of Epps, the alcoholic and insane slave owner, without making him a caricature. What I love about Fassbender was the nuance of his crazy. The resting of his arm on another slaves head while talking to Northup, or walking around in just his long white shirt, or the weird little hanker-chief he wears on his head, staggering around drunk, and holding "dances" for the slaves in the middle of the night. Fassbender is able to pull this off without being over the top crazy, and becoming a funny/evil character rather than a bone-chilling one. 

Lupita Nyong'o, a complete newcomer and this being her first feature film, is dazzling. She as Patsey, the tortured and yet a little too loved slave of Epps, is portrayed with such grace and yet such heartbreak. Patsey is the character we feel the most for, as she does not receive a happy ending. Nyong'o, while her role was quite small, give quite an impact on the film overall. She was outstanding, and completely deserved her Oscar. As well, Sarah Paulson as Epp's wife, was completely chilling and outstanding. Other small but notable roles include Benedict Cumberbatch, Paul Dano and Brad Pitt. 

Aside from all the acting, the story was well told, and at times, we extremely uncomfortable, in a way that I loved. As with Schindler's List, there were many scenes that were a little uncomfortable, and a little horrific. The camera frequently lingered a little longer than we're comfortable with on certain moments. And while I didn't enjoy any of these moments, and once or twice just really wanted the camera to turn away, I loved what it did for the film, and the message. Slavery and the treatment of slaves should not be something we stay within our comfort zone for. It was cruel, and sometimes extremely brutal. And while experiencing such subject matter, we should be pushed out of comfort. When we see a man hanging, with only the tips of his toes slipping around in the mud as the only way to keep from choking, we shouldn't just think "hmm, that sucks". And McQueen didn't do that. We had an uncomfortably long time looking at this, with slave children running around, laughing in the background, white women looking from the window, and a fellow slave giving him a sip of water, but otherwise they're going about their business, Northup slipping around in the mud until sundown. It went on for a long time, and I was practically begging for it to end. For me it was only a minute or two. For Soloman Northup, it was all day. We see whippings in this film, lasting longer than we're used to in film, Patsey receiving upwards of 20 lashes. And so on. This, for me, is another thing that made this film more powerful, was how uncomfortable it was. Which, for me, makes it much more of a great movie than any other slavery film made.

This film is probably the most deserved win in many years. It's a hard look at the stain on America's past (though slavery is definitely a stain on every single country). The film is utterly moving, though hard to watch. The performances were fantastic and the cinematography gorgeous (though some credit definitely goes to the stunning Louisiana background). Hans Zimmer music is moving, and perfectly emotes the heartbreak and hope we are supposed to simultaneously feel. While the film definitely deserved more nominations and wins than it received, 12 Years A Slave is a fantastic film, and one that will age well and place relatively high on overall winner lists, even if it's one I don't need to visit again for a long time.

Acting- 10/10 

Directing- 8.5/10 
Screenplay- 8/10 

Visuals- 8/10 

Music- 8/10 

Emotional Connection- 8/10 

Entertainment- 7/10 

Rewatchability- 6.5/10 

Overall Enjoyment- 9/10 

Overall Package- 9/10       

Total: 82/100

The Life of Emile Zola

The Life of Emile Zola, 1937
Directed by William Dieterle
Nominated for 10 Oscars, Won 3
Wins Include: Best Picture, Best Supporting Actor, Best Writing (Screenplay)

Emile Zola was a poor writer. A hard stickler for facts (and controversial ones at that), he is continually told by police and his employers to stop writing such controversial work, and to mind his business. He does the exact opposite, and he finally writes a best selling novel, Nana, after meeting a French prostitute. He continues to write expose pieces and makes quite a name for himself. But as he becomes older, and starts to think he can now relax and work at his leisure, one of the biggest scandals in France happens, and he gets drawn in. The Dreyfus affair takes place. Captain Alfred Dreyfus was wrongly accused of giving military secrets to the Germans. Dreyfus, continually insisting his innocence, is set to prison for life on Devil's Island. The army, however, arrested Dreyfus under very little evidence, and the rest presented is sketchy at best. After several years, Mrs Dreyfus approaches Zola to help her, as she has absolute proof that her husband is innocent. For Zola to get involved, he knows it would likely mean being arrested and tried for Libel, but it's a risk he's willing to take if it means an innocent man's freedom.

Admittedly, I had never heard of Emile Zola, or even the Dreyfus affair, though my husband was quick to explain that the Dreyfus affair was a very large scandal in France. And, after viewing this film, I can see why. While the film is entitled the Life of Emile Zola, it would more aptly be named along the lines of relating to the Dreyfus Affair, as this was the bulk of the story.

While the subject matter itself was interesting, the film itself did not get overly interesting until the last 45 minutes of the film or so, when we entered the trial, which was essentially the rest of the film. The trial, presently well and precisely, was interesting and the most well done part of the film.

The acting was well done in the film, and while the actor who portrayed Dreyfus had a relatively small-ish part, he was quite fantastic, and I definitely remembered his performance. A well deserved supporting actor win. As well, Paul Muni, who played Zola, was also really great as well, and was particularly awesome when laying the smack down and giving awesome speeches.

Overall, while the film could've been more interesting overall, the trial scenes were kind of interesting and were certainly the highlight of the film.

Acting- 8/10 

Directing- 7.5/10 
Screenplay- 7.5/10 

Visuals- 7.5/10 

Music- 8/10 

Emotional Connection- 7/10 

Entertainment- 7/10 

Rewatchability- 6/10 

Overall Enjoyment- 7/10 

Overall Package- 7.5/10       

Total: 73/100

Cavalcade

Cavalcade, 1933
Directed by Frank Lloyd
Nominated for 4 Oscars, Won 3
Wins Include: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Art Direction

Cavalcade is the story of one family, spanning across 33 years, beginning on New Years Eve 1899, the dawn of the new century. An English family, who, among other things, are touched by the Boer War, the sinking of the Titanic and the Great War. 

Cavalcade, admittedly, felt like an overview of the first 33 years of the 1900's. Which is exactly what this film is. The film serves as a "highlights" (though all of them hard and depressing events) of the early 1900's. 

The film is set on the back of Jane Marryot, wife and mother. The story always comes back to her. We see the Boer War and the Great War through her eyes, of waiting at home and never knowing. We see her lose her children and worry about the future. 

Overall, the film didn't have much to say, individually. It was mainly repeating the ideas and values that came from the events in the film, and didn't amount to very much. 

The film was a little overly long and was quite dull, even though it was telling a lot of "highlights". The acting was competent, but was nothing special. It felt like a mediocre film, and that was exactly what this was. It wasn't a bad film, per se, but it wasn't one that needs to be watched again, and is one that won't be remembered very well. 



  
Acting- 7/10 
Screenplay- 6/10 
Directing- 7/10 
Visuals- 7/10
 Music- 7/10 
Rewatchability- 5.5/10 
Emotional Connection- 6/10 
Captivation- 6/10 
Enjoyment- 5.5/10 
Overall Package- 6/10       


Total: 63/100                                                     

Oscars: A Gif recap

So this years Oscars have come and gone! And despite the fact I went into the Oscars thinking anything could happen, it was an overall predictable night for winners. I got 18/20 predictions correct (a personal best!), proved wrong in a category I wanted to be proved wrong in, and lost out on a small prediction risk. Overall, a satisfying night!

Personally, I love Ellen. I thought she made an otherwise pretty boring show pretty fun. She randomly popped up in the audience among stars, made fun of Jennifer Lawrence,  ordered pizza (and then Brad Pitt handed out paper plates to everyone), and organized the world greatest selfie. Overall, while the show was just alright itself, Ellen was a safe and awesome pick for the night and really made it a fun and relaxed night for everyone. Oh, and she also gave Bradley Cooper some scratch lotto tickets when he didn't win Best Supporting Actor.






Besides that there were some awesome moments for the winners. For the most part the speeches were pretty concise. Though did anyone else notice the moment when, after the main editor from Gravity gave his speech, Alfonso Cuaron was about to start speaking just as the music cued in and all he said was 'hi'?. Anyone? But just everyone's speeches seemed so amazing. Highlights including Jared Leto, Alfonso Cuaron, Steve McQueen/Brad Pitt and (while long) Cate Blanchett. I loved how she called the Oscars 'random and subjective'

Add caption

Also, Lupita Nyong'o won and the world rejoiced because she was the definition of class and beauty last night. Her dress was amazing, and she was just had so many random cute moments with her brother, dancing with Pharrell, made Benedict Cumberbatch cry during her acceptance speech and when the whole crew from 12 Years A Slave was on stage after winning Best Picture. As much as I love Jennifer Lawrence, I was so happy not to see her win this year. Also, American Hustle shut out anyone? I personally felt weird predicting it and last minute changed my Original Screenplay prediction. However, I was way too happy to see Spike Jonze win it and see Hustle with no wins. Both the shut out and the Spike Jonze win were deserving!

Overall, I was pretty pleased with the winners. I know the entire world is complaining about Leo not winning but I'm personally whining that Chiwetel Ejiofor was pretty much over looked the entire season. He was so incredible and I don't really understand how he didn't sweep awards seasons. Personal preference I suppose. And Brad Pitt finally has an Oscar!!! I am so so excited for him! This has been long overdue and I'm glad he finally has one!

Like I said, I played it relatively safe (aside from predicting 12 Years A Slave for the Costume Win) so I did a personal best! It was a great year for film, and I"m still so excited 12 Years A Slave won. It is utterly incredible and I know it'll rank high on an overall list of winners, and well be remembered similarly to Schindler's List. Gravity, as well, will not be forgotten soon and will definitely change cinema and technology.

Overall, a pretty fun year! Looking forward to everything next year will be bringing us!