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- 7/10
Music - 7/10
"The look"*- 7/10
Entertaining- 8.5/10
Emotional Connection- 8/10
Rewatchability- 8/10
Did I like It?- 8.5/10
"Total Package"**- 7.5/10

Total Score: 76.5/100

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.

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

My Fair Lady

My Fair Lady, 1964
Directed by George Cukor
Nominated for 12 Oscars, Won 8
Up Against: Becket, Dr. Strangelove, Mary Poppins, Zorba the Greek

My Fair Lady is the story of a poor young English woman, and a rich older speech therapist. When the speech thearpist, Henry Higgins, meets the young English woman, Eliza Doolittle, and hears her horrid Cockney accent, he makes a bet with another speech therapist, Hugh Pickering (a new acquaintence), that he could turn this any woman into a proper speaking woman and present her as a duchess at the Embassy Ball. Eliza, who aspires to work in a flower shop, instead of selling flowers on the streets, goes to Henry the next day, asking for proper English lessons. Henry Higgins is a pompous, slightly sexist man, who is more used to working with upper class people. Eliza reminds him that he said he could pass off any woman as a Duchess after working with her for 6 months, and Pickering decides to pay for Eliza's lessons and clothes, etc, if Higgins will, in fact, train Eliza. He says yes, and the work begins, though Eliza is a loud, stubborn woman, showing his work is cut out for him.

I feel ashamed to say I've never seen an Audrey Hepburn movie before this. That being said, I have no idea what to expect with this movie. It looked like another cutesy musical, and I was interested in seeing it.

First off, Audrey Hepburn was totally awesome in this film. I'd always pictured her as a dainty soft-spoken kind of girl (sort of a back-then's Carey Mulligan). But she totally rocked the crazy Cockney, whining young woman. She was horribly annoying and her accent was terrible (all of that in a good way! you know?). It was fun watching her on screen, making her transformation. Although her transformation was a little abrupt, it was fun. She didn't look all that special in the beginning, but she looked amazing when she got all dressed up.

Rex Harrison, who played Henry Higgins, was also great. He was pompous and arrogant, but also had a sort of lovable side to him, and Harrison really embraced that.

The movie really deserved all the Oscars that it won, Directing, Best Actor, Cinematography, Sound, Score, Art Direction and Costumes. Addition nominations included Supporting Actor (Pickering), Supporting Actress (Mrs. Higgins), Editing and Adapted Screenplay. I was sorely disappointed that Ms. Hepburn wasn't even nominated, but that's the way it goes I guess. She'd gotten her Oscar several years before for Roman Holiday.

The only flaws I found in the movie was it ran on too long. Clocking in at 2hrs and 52 minutes, some of the film (the scenes about Eliza's father, for example) were unnecessary, and the movie could've been solved earlier.

However, all the musical numbers were great. Most musicals there's at least either a) a long slow song that the girl sings (ex, As Long As He Needs Me, from Oliver!), and/or b) a long modern number (Broadway Melody Ballet, from Singin' In The Rain). I was surprised that there was neither of these in My Fair Lady, giving the film an extra few points for me.

Overall, the movie was enjoyable. It was cute, and funny, and Audrey Hepburn was great.

8/10

Crash

Crash, 2004
Directed by Paul Haggis
Nominated for 6 Oscars, Won 3
Up Against: Brokeback Mountain, Goodnight and Good Luck, Munich, Capote

Crash tells the story of racism in LA. It tells 6 different stories, all of which don't seem to connect with each other at first, but as the story goes along, it does. I'd explain the intersecting stories, but I'd end up explaining the whole movie to you. The first storyline is about a middle-aged white couple, the man of whom is a dsitrict attorney and uses race as a political card in his career, and his wife who was recently car-jacked feels that her biases and views towards those who aren't white are justified and therefore not racism. Then we have the car-jackers; 2 young black men, one of whom is constantly complaining about racism half the time, and uses it as an excuse the other half. Then we have 2 cops, the experienced one a racist pig, the other who believes he doesn't hold those views at all, and hates the experienced cop for his. We have a black filmmaker and his wife, who were recenetly harassed by said cops, the wife semi-molested during the experience, and feels her husband doesn't support their black background and tries to be "too white". Then we have a Latino man, who is trying to make a better life for his daughter. And a Persian family trying to make it in America with their store, who have recently purchased a gun.

I'm going to put it out there right away, this movie tried WAY too hard to get it's "point" across, that racism still happens today. In all honesty, most of the things that happened weren't really racism, just people making stupid decisions. Granted, there were a lot of examples of racism, but there were also a lot of examples of people acting like idiots. But that's besides the point. This movie just took everything to the extreme to make a point, and it really lowered it's value. This year's The Help also dealt with racism, but did it in a much better way, which wasn't throwing it in your face every 5 seconds.

Ludacris's character was the car-jacking, racism complainer. All we really did heard from him was about how racism is unfair, how racist people are, and how he don't ever steal from black people. I understand him complaining at first, but it got really tiring after over an hour of straight complaining whenever he was on screen. Granted, he did a great job in his role, and I thought he was quite well acted.

This is the same with pretty much all the character. I know it was a film about racism, but in other films about racism, it's not a constant rant about race, which is what this movie was. Sure, there were some powerful moments in the film, like when the filmmakers wife is rescued from the car crash just before it exploded by the racist cop who semi-molested her only 12 hours before. Powerful, and it wasn't as blatant as some of the other scenes, and had much more subtlety to it.

Anyway, enough about my rant about it's obviousness. Other than that fact, the acting was quite good. While most characters spent very little time on screen (another problem of the film, I felt like I was being introduced to someone new, constantly), they performed well. I was pleasantly surprised by Ludacris. I'd had no expectations from him, but he was quite good. And I really enjoyed Sandra Bullock as the cold and racist woman. Things like cinematography were good too.

Overall I spent half the movie going "oh my gosh..." and rolling my eyes, or being like "really? did that just happen?". I also laughed a lot. This movie was just too corny and hoaky, and while it did get it's message across, loud and clear, it was just too much. Also, has anyone ever heard of this movie?

4/10

Braveheart

Braveheart, 1995
Directed by Mel Gibson
Nominated for 10 Oscars, Won 5
Up Against: Apollo 13, Babe, Il Postino: The Postman, Sense and Sensibility

Braveheart is the story of William Wallace and his fight for the freedom of Scotland, and his people, from the British. When William was a little boy, King Edward I, or also know as Longshanks, of England, invades Scotland. Little William see's tons of men in his village hung in a hut where they were promised a meeting to make peace, and William's father and brother die. William goes to live with his uncle, is educated, and returns to his village a grown man. He falls in love with a woman he knew when he was young, and they court in secret, and marry in secret. They marry in secret because Longshanks grants his noblemen land in Scotland, and also something called "Primae Noctis", which means noblemen have the right to sleep with a Scottish women on her wedding night. William and his wife meet in secret, hoping to avoid this. However, when a man tries to rape William's wife, William injuries and kills many of the noblemen, and the two try to flee, but his wife is captured and publicly executed in the village before William figures out what has happened. William and the entire Scottish village wage a war on the noblemen staying there, killing them all, and executing the sherriff. William Wallace is now on a crusade for Scotland's freedom, and as his name and legacy spreads, his builds an army. But with all this comes a cost.

Braveheart is a film about bravery, and about living (and dying) for what you believe in. This movie is nowhere near historically accurate, nor does it really try to be, though is set with real people as characters, in a real war. What I loved about this movie straightaway was the score. And right away I could tell it was by James Horner. He has such a distinguishable sound to him (but so did John Williams, back in the Star Wars/Jurassic Park days, and as does Hans Zimmer, John Powell, and Alexandre Desplat), but the score was superbly Scottish, and was very beautiful. Additionally, the sets and costumes were really stunning. The scenery was gorgeous, and filmed so well (it won Best Cinematography). The Art Direction, set design, make-up, just looked really great too. Besides Best Picture and Director, the film won Cinematography, Make-Up and Sound Editing. All these awards were rightfully deserved. And it rightfully earned nominations for Score, Costume, Editing, and Sound Mixing. However, the thing I wasn't so keen on was the pacing of the story.

The story of William Wallance, his childhood and the secret wedding and murdering of his wife took up the first hour of the movie. The next two hours were battle scenes, cliche scenes of Scottish citizens overtaking the English Noblemen, and The Princess of France (married to Longshank's son), and Robert the Bruce (aspiring to take the throne of Scotland) supporting William Wallace inwardly, while those around them do not.

While the movie was acting very well, had great effects, and achieved well in the art and tech areas, this movie was a little stop-and-start in pacing, and was just so simply average. The story was cliche, with nothing all that new or original to boast about. It was exceedingly inaccurate, and was just like any other period piece war movie. Additionally, I found things were drawn out too long, and the movie could've been significantly shorter than the 3 hours that it is.

I don't mean to crap all over this movie. It was a decent film, with some good acting, beautiful scenery and great costumes and great music. However, this film isn't all that original, is a wee bit too long for it's own good. Oh, and it was up against Apollo 13 that year.

6/10

The King's Speech

The King's Speech, 2010
Directed by Tom Hooper
Nominated for 12 Oscars, Won 4.
Up Against: The Social Network, Black Swan, The Fighter, True Grit, Inception, Toy Story 3, The Kid's Are Alright, Winter's Bone, 127 Hours

As I've said in a previous post, The King's Speech makes into my favourite movies arena. I seriously enjoyed it, and I'm putting that up front right now before I do a little analysis and say what I liked and didn't like about it.

For those of you who don't know, this movie is the story on King George VI, known as Bertie. Bertie is the Duke of York, and struggles with a speech impediment that makes it very difficult for him to speak (much less in front of an audience). His wife, Elizabeth is reffered to a quirky speech therapist named Lionel. While Bertie is hesitant at first, he finds himself needing help, and knows Lionel can help him. Soon, he is thrust on the throne  very unexpectedly. How can Bertie lead a country if he can hardly speak?

This is Tom Hooper's second feature film after having done great work doing several different mini-series. He and the crew knew that they had to get some sort of star attached to this project or it may never lift off the ground. Someone in the crew lived  near Geoffrey Rush and they got them to slip the script through Rush's mailbox, with a note attached to it apologizing that it was unsolicited but they desperately wanted him to do the film. Who knew the act of slipping an unsolicited script through a mailbox started the process in what ended up to be the next Best Picture winner.

The crew were able to find their star-studded cast, having Colin Firth, Helena Bonham-Carter, along with Geoffrey Rush, to play the three lead. Geoffrey Rush was such a treat in this film. He was quirky and zany, but he was also inspiring. Rush really nailed the part of quirky, Aussie Lionel (though the accent was only sort of there). Helena Bonham-Carter was lovely, which is in stark contrast with her character Bellatrix LeStrange in Harry Potter, which she was filming at the same time as the King's Speech. She was supportive of her husband, but she was broken-hearted over this hurt her husband was going through. And she was a little bit uppity, but Helena is wonderful, and was able to play all of it convincingly, and with lots of grace and poise.

And then there's Colin Firth. Honestly, we was so phenomenal in this role. His stuttering was heartbreaking, especially the beginning speech in the movie, just those horrible echoing noises, and just not knowing how to get his words out. Colin Firth both broke my heart and made me laugh throughout this movie. He was able to strike the right balance between humor and sorrow, especially in the scene while talking about his childhood with Lionel. Colin Firth really embraced this role, and seemed to truly get into the heart of the character. His speech impediment, and his stuttering were perfect and were never too overboard, or too subtle. He struck the right amount, making it more severe in some situations, and less so in others.

The scenery and artwork and costumes were all great. Alexandre Desplat gives us a lovely score. Nothing too brilliant, though in some of the more emotional tracks (Queen Elizabeth, Memories of Childhood), he replays a single not over and over, almost as though it is stuttering and can't get farther. But that may be me reading into Desplats music (though I doubt it, he's played themes backwards and forward before).

One thing that bothered me is sometimes the cinematography tried to be too "artsy". There were a lot of awkward, character in the very corner of the shot, sometimes cutting the person beside them out. It's hard to explain without showing. Google didn't have many good examples. This was as close as I could get

Overall, the film told it's story well. It showed the problem right up front, and showed how Bertie dealt with it (or didn't), and how exactly it affected his life, and why.

Many will say this is one of the most competitive and disputed years. You'll hear such debates as Shakespeare in Love vs Saving Private Ryan, Forrest Gump vs Pulp Fiction, and I know that list has come to include The King's Speech vs The Social Network. Like the 2 debates mentioned above, both are incredibly different and very opposite movies. The King's Speech is a classy period piece, while The Social Network was very modern and dealt with something very current. Both have pros and cons about them, but for this one, I'm going to have to side with The King's Speech. It took me a few tries to warm up to the Social Network and appreciate what it is. While it had good acting, the acting in TKS is much stronger, though TSN excelled in the music (the music and movie had amazing chemistry) and cinematography.

Unpopular(ish) opinion, but I dearly love The King's Speech. It was an uplifting, yet sad, movie, and had some very wonderful performances.

8.75/10

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.

8/10

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.

6/10

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.

7/10

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 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

All Quiet on The Western Front

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6/10

Winner Breakdown: Best Actress

Best Actress:
- Glenn Close (Albert Nobbs)
- Viola Davis (The Help)
- Rooney Mara (The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo)
- Meryl Streep (The Iron Lady)
- Michelle Williams (My Week with Marilyn)


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

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

Gentleman's Agreement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8/10

Oliver!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9/10

The Broadway Melody

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

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

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

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

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

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

5.5/10

Gigi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7.5/10

Annie Hall

Annie Hall, 1977
Directed by Woody Allen
Up Against: The Goodbye Girl, Julia, The Turning Point, Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope

Woody Allen directs and stars in this film. While it's only the second Woody Allen film I've seen (the first being Midnight in Paris- yes I'm behind on things), it's the first film I've seen him act in.

Allen plays a wonderfully dorky, intelluctual, neurotic comedian, living in New York City. He's been married twice already, and opens up the film telling us that life is full of loneliness and it's over too quickly, and that he'd never be a part of a club that has a member like himself. Right off the bat we get an idea about who Alvy Singer is and what he's about. He's not like most guys.

Alvy is in love with a woman named Annie Hall. She's slightly ditsy, and a different kind of neurotic. She's flighty and simple-minded, while Alvy is a deep-thinker who's always pinned as being slightly hostile, obsessed with death and paranoid. The story of their love is told in a narrative that jumps back and forth between present and past, and is riddled with captions stating what they're thinking, their present selves visiting their past selves, and frequently addressing the audience with their thoughts. It's a quirky love story, but it's utterly charming.

The film tells us about how Alvy and Annie were introduced (playing tennis), how they got together, the good times, the bad times, the break-ups, the other one-night stands and the getting back together. And the circle continues. While the story doesn't have too much of a plot, it's interesting. It's more of a documentary of 2 lovers in New York, living life.

In a way this film reminded me of (500) Days of Summer. Not so much what the film was about, but more how they were both told in quirky, unique ways, and focused on how different they both were (Tom and Summer, and Alvy and Annie). Had this film been told how regular movies are told, with little voice-over narrative, few flashbacks and a definitie plot, this film would've been a lot less charming than it was. Alvy is cooky but you feel for him, and you love his quirks. Annie is erratic, but you come to love and care about her too.

I loved Woody Allen playing Alvy. Yes I know he wrote the screenplay, but I thought he was perfectly dorky, and carried the part so well. He really understand Alvy (duh), but really portrayed him well too, with great timing and perfect awkwardness. Diane Keaton was also great as Annie. She was the perfect balance between being erratic and simple-minded. She brought passion into the part, and played Annie well. Hence her winning the Oscar for the role.

Of course, the screenplay was great. Woody Allen seems strongest suit really seems to be writing. Many times I wished he'd write novels, while watching this movie. They would be incredibly interesting.

The only few flaws of the film was many-a-times, a flashback scene would be shown, and I'm never really sure if it's ended, or if we're back in the present. It's easy when we're seeing flashbacks of Alvy and his ex-wives, but his flashbacks with Annie are less defined, and the scene at the beginning of the movie, I'm never sure if after that we went completely to the beginning and went chronologically, or if we came back to that point and did present time then flashbacks, alternating.

But overall, I really enjoyed the film. It's so different from other Best Picture's I've watched so far. It was a cute movie, it was funny and sarcastic, and it was enjoyable to watch!

8/10