The Next Year

2012

So the nominees are:

• Jessica Chastain in Zero Dark Thirty
• Jennifer Lawrence in Silver Linings Playbook
• Emmanuelle Riva in Amour
• Quvenzhané Wallis in Beasts of the Southern Wild
• Naomi Watts in The Impossible

Since I have very little time left, I have to interrupt 1999 (which will be finished immediately after 2012, don't worry) so that I can finish 2012 before the ceremony (I'm planning to write a more thorough should win/will win than usual). I can say one thing in advance: what a year! And I tell you, according to my own estimations, it will be a real Sophie's Choice between not two, but three (!) performances (very much like 1996). And I love it that none of these performances are usual Best Actress stuff. 

What do you think? Who's your pick? Who do you think will win the Oscar? And more importantly :P, what's your prediction for my ranking? :) 

337. The Impossible

337. (29 Dec) The Impossible (2012, Juan Antonio Bayona) 76

THE IMPOSSIBLE

THE IMPOSSIBLE

Written by Sergio G. Sanchez

Directed by Juan Antonio Bayona

Starring Ewan McGregor, Naomi Watts and Tom Holland

On December 26, 2004, a series of horrifically destructive tsunamis struck many land masses touched by the Indian Ocean. Over 230,000 people were estimated to have died and nearly 1.7 million people were displaced during the events. THE IMPOSSIBLE, the first film from director, Juan Antonio Bayona, since his breakout, THE ORPHANAGE, and incidentally also his first in English, tells just one of those stories and, in doing so, provides one of the most emotional experiences I’ve had at the movies in quite some time.

Ewan McGregor and Naomi Watts play Henry and Maria, father and mother to three young boys, all under the age of 12, on vacation in Thailand for the Christmas holiday. Dad is in the pool with the two youngest when the torrential tide starts to come in, while Mom is a few feet away with a book, and their eldest, a few feet further away getting a ball. Up until this point, Bayona has allowed us to spend a few moments with the family, to get to know them, even if just a little, so there is actually some connection to them that binds them to us when they are fighting for their lives. Then, he simply lets the natural horror unfold and before long we are immersed in devastation and desperation, and led towards salvation by two strong performances by McGregor and Watts.

THE IMPOSSIBLE is quite an apt title for this film. Not only is the experience this family endures an impossible one to survive, but making this film is in itself an incredible feat that should not have been possible either. With the Indonesian Tsunami not quite 8 year behind us now, this disaster movie could have literally been a disaster if it got anywhere near exploiting the events for the sole purpose of titillating the audience and manipulating our emotions. Bayona flirts with this fine line on occasion but for the most part, he creates an honest space that just allows this powerful story to be told and resonate with the sheer nature of its authenticity.

461. J. Edgar

461. (12 Nov) J. Edgar (2011, Clint Eastwood)* 67



One of the more competent biopics of the last decade, Eastwood and Dustin Lance Black find a balance between intimate personal moments with J. Edgar Hoover while confronting his more questionable professional decisions. While most biopics flatter their subject, this is a truly bold take on the man.

Leonardo DiCaprio solidifies his frontrunner status for Best Actor. His accent may be unconvincing, but he brings an impressive physicality to the role. Armie Hammer overshadows him at times, but it's built into the film. Eastwood makes an awesome decision to light Hammer rapturously when we first meet him, suggesting how charismatic and irresistible he was to Hoover. Meanwhile, DiCaprio's eyes are always lit so they look like black marbles.

The film is structured competently and engaging. This is an ambitious undertaking. While it doesn't stack up to Eastwood's better works, it's getting an unfair reputation.

J. EDGAR

Written by Dustin Lance Black

Directed by Clint Eastwood

Starring Leonard Dicaprio, Armie Hammer, Naomi Watts and Judi Dench

Annie Hoover: Edgar, I would rather have a dead son than a daffodil for a son.

Considering Clint Eastwood has lived to witness most of what he chooses to depict in his J. Edgar Hoover biography, simply titled J. EDGAR, it is an awful shame that so much of it feels lifeless and false. Eastwood’s Hoover accomplishes great things, like taking fingerprint technology nationwide and forensic science to new heights, but he does so with very little fanfare, subsequently inspiring even less interest in his audience. Fortunately, incredible performances by Leonardo Dicaprio and Armie Hammer, as the notorious FBI director and his rumoured romantic partner of many years, Clyde Tolson, elevate the picture high enough to overshadow the drab, washed out stiffness of Eastwood’s former America. Dustin Lance Black’s script is smart not to focus solely on Hoover’s sexuality, but unfortunately, the film only truly comes alive when it does.

The Final Conclusion - Best Actress 2003

2003

So the much anticipated ranking is:

5. Samantha Morton in In America

This is a wasted opportunity.2003 offered some really weak Best Actress nominees and Morton was one of them. There were some points where I was minimally impressed but for most of the time I felt really nothing. Too bad, as this could have been something very interesting and moving and yet it became a little dreary and lifeless.

4. Naomi Watts in 21 Grams

I'm very confused. How should I feel? What should I be thinking? For me, Naomi Watts' performance in 21 Grams is a failure. It's not epic fail, it's more of a missed opportunity even though it's extremely hard to say anything about this performance and the movie. All so shady and confusing and again, not in a good way.

3. Keisha Castle-Hughes in Whale Rider

Keisha Castle-Hughes, stands out in the awful field of 2003. Although this is not one of the greatest performances, she still turned in a beautiful work, full of substance. The great parts make up for the weaknesses and overall it's a really great job by an extremely young talent.

2. Diane Keaton in Something's Gotta Give

I ask myself: is this that much from Diane Keaton? Well, probably not. Still, she's extremely funny and entertaining as Erica Barry, she has a wonderful chemistry with Jack Nicholson and she enlightens the screen with her wonderful, radiant personality that I love so much. I might be biased but who cares? I liked her.

1. Charlize Theron in Monster

SURPIRSE! :) This performance is universally praised and for a reason. Charlize Theron gives an unfogettable, astonishing, breathtaking, mindblowing, heart-breaking, angry, bitter, desperate, devastated, devastating, in short brilliant performance as Aileen Wuornos. This might look like another deglam role but it's more than that in my opinion. Charlize really rocks as Aileen, showing the dark sides of human life. Brilliant.

So I can proudly announce

the winner is...

Charlize Theron

in

Monster

As easily as it gets.

Congratulations to Malcolm! Excellent predictions! Prize: you can pick the year I'm going to do after the next one (available for me: 1933, 1943, 1953, 1956, 1961, 1962, 1967, 1968, 1971 1976, 1982, 1985, 1988, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1999, 2000, 2004, 2005, 2007, 2008)

Final thoughts: An awful year. There you go, I said it. I guess that's pretty much what I expected. Charlize was the easiest winner so far. There was so much gap between the first and the second that it almost hurts. Diane and Keisha are pretty solid. However, the other two ladies were not that satisfying (ot put it delicately). Actually, this was the first year when two nominees were fighting for the #4 spot. :) I gave the edge to Naomi because she grew on me a bit.


Omissions: 

• Uma Thurman in Kill Bill Vol. 1. 
• Jamie Lee Curtis in Freaky Friday

The ranking of the reviewed years:

1. 1944
2. 1969
3. 1974
4. 1989
5. 2001
6. 1959
7. 2006
8. 1978
9. 2010
10. 1996
11. 1964
12. 1939
13. 1977
14. 1997
15. 2009
16. 1980
17. 1941
18. 1972
19. 1963
20. 1966
21. 1973
22. 1983
23. 1986
24. 1937
25. 1990
26. 1954
27. 1958
28. 1948
29. 2002
30. 1957
31. 2003
32. 1940
33. 1998
34. 1975

About the next year: Oh, I can't wait to do the next year. It offers not one, but two (or even three?) iconic performances. I really want to make my thoughts clear on that year. It's a historic year. This clue says why:

• VIVA ITALIA! :)

What do you think?

Naomi Watts in 21 Grams

Naomi Watts received her only Best Actress nomination to date for playing Christina Peck, a woman who loses her husband and two daughters in a hit-and-run accident. Some say that Naomi could have been close to Charlize Theron but I wouldn't say so. In fact, I think even Diane Keaton might have got ahead of Watts in that race. Watts didn't get a Globe nomination (that's almost crucial to a leading Oscar) and in my opinion the movie was a bit too much and indepandant for the Academy. Still, I feel that she was at least third.

21 Grams is an incredibly confusing movie. It takes so much time to really get it and this is not a very positive thing. I mean it wants to be so artsy and yet comes off as quite incoherent and complicated. The director made some very stupid decisions, in my opinion. The cinematography wasn't that impressive to me, either. It's just gave a very miserable feeling to the movie and it wasn't in a good way. Sean Penn is quite boring in his role and his achievement is really uneven and the same goes for Benicio del Toro who even got nominated. Melissa Leo (whom I dislike in real life) is the one who's truly outstanding here.

Many people are crazy about Naomi Watts' performance in Mulholland Drive but I'll be very honest with you. Although I've seen Mulholland Drive and I even loved it, I cannot remember Watts' performance at all. She could be brilliant, I just don't remember that's it. Still, I started to watch 21 Grams as open-mindedly as humanly possible. In fact, I expected to love her as her part seemed to be very much like Halle Berry's in Monster's Ball. True, there's some kind of a similarity between the characters and even the performances and yet Watts didn't work with me, at least.

People are mad about this performance. Some are mad in a positive sense and some are mad at it because I hate it. However, once again I just cannot say that I fall into either of those categories. Actually, I'm really in the middle. Or not? Because I don't feel indifferent about it. That's what I felt about Martha Scott in Our Town or Gwyneth Paltrow in Shakespeare in Love. I have very complicated feelings about it. I feel a little bit of anger and hate but I'm not furious and I'm not scratching my own head crazily like I did with Ann-Margret. Or do I?

It's so incredily hard for me to talk about this performance. I guess all of the other bloggers/writers know what I mean. I just really don't know what to say about this work. The first reason for that is that it's so... little. It might be unfair that I'm comparing her work to Halle Berry's tour-de-force in Monster's Ball but I expected emotional fireworks from this performance. And I felt that Watts did try to create them and yet she failed and it was a bit ugly fail, at least for me.

Watts' performance is mostly criticised for the things that I liked the most about her. Her Oscar clip ("I'm PARALYYYYYYYYYYYZED!") is certainly her strongest scene in the movie. I actually saw bits and pieces of those much-needed fireworks. The other loud and hysterical scenes are all too much, though. And the thing that really bothered me was what the heck she really wanted to say with this work (or I can ask the same question about the movie). What was the point? I guess it wanted to show the effects of death but I've seen much better movies in the subject. It's all a really failed effort, which may not be a total disaster but it's really like a fly on the wall. It bothers you. Although it's able not to do so, it does once you think about it. That would be OK, if the movie or Watts was disturbing but (for me) they weren't. I constantly see all the goals of Watts and yet they never really materialize on the screen. Too bad. I guess something really midnblowing could have come out of this movie. Or not? In fact (as I said), Christina's part is very little. Not in screentime, in content. I would expect some more depth.

Again, I'm very confused. How should I feel? What should I be thinking? For me, Naomi Watts' performance in 21 Grams is a failure. It's not epic fail, it's more of a missed opportunity even though it's extremely hard to say anything about this performance and the movie. All so shady and confusing and again, not in a good way.

What do you think?

The Next Year

2003

So the nominees were:

• Keisha Castle-Hughes in Whale Rider
• Diane Keaton in Something's Gotta Give
• Samantha Morton in In America
• Charlize Theron in Monster
• Naomi Watts in 21 Grams

I surrender. Let's see this year. :)

What do you think? Who's your pick? What are your predictions?