The Sting

The Sting, 1973
Directed by George Roy Hill
Nominated for 10 Oscars, Won 7
Up Against: American Graffiti, Cries & Whispers, the Exorcist, A Touch of Class

The Sting is a story about con artists in the 1930's Depression. Johnny Hooker and his partners Luther and Joe con $11,000 off a man on the streets, not thinking they'd get that rich. Luther announces his retirement and suggests and tells Hooker about a friend he has, Henry Gondorff, saying he should go meet him and learn "the big con". However, things don't go according to plan. The man they conned money off was a numbers racket courier for a famous crime boss named Lonnegan. When a corrupt police officer confronts Hooker and demands part of the pay cut (Hooker had already spent it all), pays in counterfeit bills. Meanwhile, Lonnegan's men murder Luther and Hooker must now flee, and heads to Chicago to meet Gondorff. While Gondorff was a once-great, he's now in hiding and is a bit nervous to take on Lonnegan. But he comes around and the two set up the "big con" for Lonnegan.

The film was an immediate success. It gained positive critic reviews, and was a box office smash. It was also the second pairing of George Roy Hill directed Robert Redford and Paul Newman since Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. It was released Christmas Day in 1973, and went on to win a lot of Academy Awards that year, including Picture, Director, Screenplay.

I really enjoyed this film. This is the first Robert Redford film I've seen, and also my first Paul Newman one (what a treat they both were!) and both were so great. They were great at the double acting (con men, pretending to be several different people, all innocent) and were real trouble-makers. But my favourite part of the entire film was the score. Compiled of mostly Scott Joplin's music composed in the early 1900's, and though not historically accurate for the time period (ragtime was no longer popular in the 30's), but was really really great. It fit the time so well, and was just so fun. It gave the film a bit of a lighter feel when darker music could've made the film more dramatic and sullen. It gave the film a spark quality, and really lit it up.

Additionally, the twists and turns the movie took were great. It really was a thinking movie, and it's so sad how little films like this are made any more. It was well thought out, entertaining, and had a few laughs that balanced the film out well.

Overall, the film was really good. It was a great showcase for Paul Newman and Robert Redford (who looks so much like Brad Pitt. Anyone else notice that?). It was a clever, kind of fun Best Picture as opposed to a lot of the more dramatic, serious, depressing ones.

Acting- 7.5/10
Directing- 8/10
Screenplay- 8/10
Music - 9.5/10
"The look"- 7.5/10
Entertaining- 7.5/10
Emotional Connection- 8/10
Rewatchability- 7/10
Did I like It?- 7.5/10
"Total Package"**- 7.5/10 


Total: 78

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

The Best Years of Our Lives

The Best Years Of Our Lives, 1946
Directed by William Wyler
Nominated for 8 Oscars, Won 7
Up Against: Henry V, It's A Wonderful Life, The Razor's Edge, The Yearling

The Best Years Of Our Lives is a story about returning to everyday life after serving in WWII. This movie tells about 3 soldiers stories, all of whom meet on a plane on their way home to Boone City. Fred, who worked in planes and dropping bombs is returning to a wife he met while training, married soon after, and was deployed after only being married a month. He hardly knows her. Homer is a young bloke who lost his hands when his ship was sunk, and is returning home to a girl he hopes will still want to marry him. Al was an Infantry Platoon Sergeant, and has been married for 20 years and realizes his children have grown up while he's been away. All are returning to jobs they don't love, and find it immensely difficult to adjust. All 3 men's lives intersect with each other and even though they didn't know each other during the actual war, they make ties to each other that are unbreakable.

Though this picture clocks in at 2hrs and 50 minutes, this film had me captivated the whole time. It's not simply about soldiers returning from war (though that's a large part), it's about life, and finding value in what you do, and loving people, and falling in love, and being the best you can be and being accepted by others.

While a story about a soldier returning from war makes for a cliche story, this was one of the first films to be done after WWII. I thought the film was insightfully done. It was made very soon after WWII ended, and gave some good insight on things I'd never thought of. Al's son is talking with him about side-effects of the nuclear bombs dropped in Hiroshima, asking about side-effects. His son, knowing he'd been there, assumed he would know more. Al didn't know very much. Additionally, his daughter was telling him about the struggle on the home front, something he also wasn't aware of. It's not something I'd really thought of. You assume people knew what was happening on both sides, but this wasn't the case.

Let me just say the acting in this film was great. The man who played Homer, Harold Russell, is also a war veteran. He really did lost his hands when he was filming a training film in 1944, after an explosive he was holding accidently detonated. Harold Russell additionally won an Honoray Oscar that year "for bringing hope and courage to his fellow veterans". Harold won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor, and did he deserve it. Having lived through the experience of actually losing his hands, I'm sure Harold was able to connect with Homer quite intimately. He really tapped into the heartbreak and the awkwardness of people around him, and made Homer become 3D. Additionally, Fredric March, who played Al, won Best Actor that year. Again, he play the part so well. The ladies in the film were also fun, especially Teresa Wright, who played Al's daughter Peggy, who finds herself in a triangle with Fred, the newly-wed who's only really getting to know the girl he married. She's whip-smart, and funny, and Wright portrayed her so well.

This movie was just well put-together and was quite touching. The scenes of the soldiers reuniting with their families and loved ones had me tearing up a little, and I found myself really getting into the story. Will Homer get over what happened and be able to love Wilma? Does Fred really love Marie? And what will Peggy do, now that she's fallen in love with Fred? It was a good tale, and it was a great example of a "full package" film that are deserving to win Best Picture. However, it wasn't my favourite film on the list. It did start to drag on at some points (being the almost 3 hour film that it is), and some story lines were a tad dry, but it was a good movie, and definitely a touching one.

7.5/10

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 Bridge on the River Kwai

The Bridge on the River Kwai, 1957
Directed by David Lean
Nominated for 8 Oscars, Won 7
Up Against: Peyton Place, Sayonara, 12 Angry Men, Witness for the Prosecution

Sorry for the hiatus, friends! It's crunch time at school as I write my final exams and finish up my college education in 2 weeks! But I found a little free time to watch a long movie. So here we go!

The Bridge On the River Kwai is set in WWII. It's the story of British soldiers who surrended to the Japanese army and are now in a prisoner of war camp in Burma. When the Japanese Colonel Saito commands that all the British prisoners ("not soldiers!") participate in building a bridge over the River Kwai, which would be an addition to the Burma-Siam railway and help advance the war by feeding the Japanese soldiers. He commands that the Officers are also expected to participate in the manual labor. Captain Nicholson flat-out refuses. The Geneva Convention (which he pulls out a copy of) states that Officers should not be used for manual labor in POW camps. Saito uses the Geneva Convention against him and slaps him with it, and puts him in a tin hut ("the oven") where he sits for days and weeks until Saito, who knows he will have to commit hari-kari (ritual suicide) if he fails to build the bridge in time, realizes he needs Nicholson and his officers to help boost the working pace of the prisoners, who are not working quickly at all. After this, Nicholson takes on this project obsessively. He and other officers take over the bridge project, moving it down stream after they realize the original bridge is in a very bad location, as it's too muddy. Clipton, a military doctor, suggests that others may think they are committing treason, and aiding the enemy by building this bridge as best they can, but Nicholson insists they are setting an example. And he does it for his own pride, forgetting the larger picture that they are, in fact, helping the Japanese, and hurting their own side. Additionally, we get the story of an American soldier named Shears, who, by a miracle, escapes the camp and is enlisted by the British Army (after spending time in a medical center to recover) to return to the camp to blow the bridge up with several men, and we see their journey into the jungle, with Asian women aiding them, in their plans to attack.

This movie is an interesting one. It's so different from all the other WWII movies I've seen. It's not action packed nor is it bloody or violent. It had an interesting message. And it's quite a unique story. Colonel Nicholson is played by the brilliant Alec Guinness. It's a war epic of a different kind. While the story was drawn it, it never felt too long or boring. Interestingly I was kind of enraptured in the story, having no bloody clue how anything would end.

Colonel Nicholson, from my perspective, was a bit of a crazy guy. He was rigid and an old-school soldier. He believed in integrity, and for standing up for what is right. When approached about escape plans, he uttered that they shouldn't because they had surrendered so technically they would be breaking some sort of war/prisoner rules, even though they all knew they would die in this camp.

And then we have Colonel Saito. He is just as rigid and stubborn. He refuses to cave into Nicholson's requests, and the two are constantly going head-to-head, and both are quite mad. Saito insists all the officers work. He is to commit suicide if this bridge fails or isn't complete on time. And that scares him. We also see a scene of Saito weeping privately after Nicholson and his Officers take over the project, in which he was directly in charge of. He is ashamed.

This plot becomes ever complex as we realize what building this bridge means, and how much pride Nicholson takes in it. We feel so many mixed feelings as Shear and the 3 other soldiers arrive to blow up the bridge and the ammunition train.

Alec Guinness is fantastic in the role, and rightly won an Oscar for it. Japanese actor, Sessue Hayakawa, who played Saito, was also nominated, though did not win. The 2 had fantastic adversary chemistry, and were fantastic enemies who come to understand each other in a way. They were fantastic in their respective mad characters.

Additionally, this cinematography was fantastic. There were some great shots, and it showed off the jungle landscape so well, and really hit all the right spots. The costumes were great, and it overall had a great look. The music was used very sparsely, but what we did hear was very good too. Honestly, there's not much to complain about in this movie. I can't really think of much at all. WWII have been incredibly overdone in the past 75ish years since it concluded, with stories about German soldiers, British soldiers, Americans, Canadians, etc, etc. And while this story did include British and Americans, it took a look at the Japanese soldiers, and the name Hitler was not uttered once. Nor was Germany spoken about.

The movie was an interesting look at 2 different people, who were, at the same time, quite similar. Saito comes from a country where you cannot dishonor your family. You should kill yourself rather than bring shame. He strives for excellence so as to not bring shame, and to appear great. Conversely, Nicholson does not come from a country that upholds honor in the same way, though he comes from an Upper Class society (being a colonel), and wants to uphold the laws and regulations that his society holds up. Both want to maintain their reputations and neither will break. But eventually both do.

The ending is so interesting, and really made me think. I won't spoil  it for you, as it's so unique. But it made me think, what's more important: your personal pride and accomplishments, or the country you're fighting for and the pride and duties to your army? I'll leave it there.

Thinking I was going to find this movie boring, I was surprised when I actually loved it. My 3 choices of movies were Braveheart and The Best Years of our Lives (both war movies, the latter also about WWII soldiers), I was glad I chose this one. It was a thought-provoking and truly epic masterpiece. It was never too long, too boring, or cliche. It struck things in all the right places, and made for an interesting and insightful watch into a different aspect of WWII. Something other than Hitler.

8/10

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

The Artist (re-review)

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

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

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

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

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

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

8/.2510

The Tree of Life

The Tree of Life, 2011
Directed by Terrence Malik
Nominations Inlcude: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Cinematography


Yes, I've finally watched this movie. I find it a little ironic that the very first BP nominee to be released was this film, way back in May. And it was the very last nominee I needed to watch. 


I had heard so many different things about this film. Going on the iTunes page for renting it, you either had people saying it was very boring, and wishing they could give it 0 stars, and those who loved it, and gave it 4 or 5 stars. I was under the impression that regular movie-goers didn't like it, and film buffs loved it. Therefore I wasn't too sure what to think. I knew there wasn't a whole lot of "plot" (I got this from the very vague synopsis I read on iTunes and IMDB), and from hearing about the long creation scenes, I figured I was settling in for a movie that was more art than story. 


I'm glad I went in with the mindset I did, because had I been expecting plot, and character development, and dialogue, I'd be extremely disappointed. But even from the trailers that came out around this time last year, I didn't really expect an ordinary movie. And that's definitely not what this was. 


This movie revolves around a young boy named Jack, and the idea of the way of nature and the way of grace. The way of nature, Mrs. O'Brien explains via voice-over in the beginning, is self-seeking and only willing to please itself, which is what society teaches us. But the way of grace, is the way of God, loving those around us, and looking to please others before pleasing yourself. While Jack starts off as an innocent child, we see him lose his innocence in a number of ways. Through seeing his friend drown at the local swimming pool, to dealing with his father, who reigns their family with an iron fist, and, fro Jack's view, doesn't seem to love his children. Jack is trying to choose between the ways of grace, and the ways of nature, his parents both embodying one (his mother, grace, his father, nature). 


What I found interesting was there was very little dialogue in the film. A lot of it was whispered voice-overs, through montage scenes. We get some perspective from each character in the film, and learn what they are really thinking. 


The film gets off to a little bit of a bumpy start, jumping back and forth between scenes, time periods, and character views. But the things that gets the ball really moving is the 25-minute creation sequence. We see everything from shots of the universe (dust clouds), to the collision of 2 planets creating Earth, molten Earth, cell formation and dinosaurs, all while hearing sparse whispered prayers from Mrs. O'Brien (Chastain). It isn't exactly clear why this is included, but reinforces the fact that we are but a very small speck in the span of space and time. We live a hundred years (if that), while the Universe has existed for thousands (or millions) of years, and will continue to exist long after we are gone. And how small and insignificant our lives are compared to the vastness of the Universe. Very impressionistic. 


After this, we focus on the lives of the O'Briens'. We see the parents in love, the birth of their children, playing wit their children, teaching them lessons about their lives, and just their general lives, the insignificant things, like going to bed at night, or eating dinner, or playing ball on the street. Jack, the eldest son, is innocent of the evils of the world. 


But as Jack is getting older, he starts realizing more and more things. He see's a friend drown at the local pool, and another friend has their house burn down, his friend suffering burns. He's learning that his parents are 2 very different people, his mother kind and loving, while his father is strong and ruling with an iron fist, and is starting to realize he's more like his father than his mother, which he isn't happy about. And he questions how he can get back what his brother's have. Their innocence. 


This film was incredibly well acted, and I'm surprised it didn't get any nominations. Hunter McCracken, who played young Jack, was so magnificient in his debut film. He expressed everything with such ease, I felt like Malik was almost filming him, playing with his brothers and parents, with hidden cameras, it was so natural. He really held the film on his shoulders, and supported it with surprising ease. He conveyed all the emotions so well, and his whispered voice-overs were haunting. 


Brad Pitt, also was so good. He was so subtle, but plays his best roles when he plays a parent (Moneyball, and this). He has such good fatherly instincts in his acting, and connects so well with these boys. He is utterly convincing as the rigid father who has a temper. 


But Jessica Chastain is the one who truly, truly shines. This is only the second film I've seen her in of the many that were released in 2011. She gave such a beautiful performance, embodying the 'way of grace'. She was graceful and loving always. Just the way she walked, and talked was grace embodied, 100%. She was just so lovely, and so different from her portrayal of Celia Foote in the Help. I felt this performance was far superior to hers in the Help, but love that she is getting recognition, though she won't win. Jessica Chastain has proved how versatile she really is, and this performance was utter perfection. 


And I retract my comment that if War Horse doesn't win Best Cinematography I might throw a hissy fit. The Tree of Life completely owned War Horse. It was a subtle cinematography at most times, simply following characters around, not having characters stay within the frames. And then there were the lovely shots of creation (does those count as cinematography, or visual effects?), and the shots of those on that beach in the last scene. And just everytime Jessica Chastain walked, it was beautifully shot. It's definitely a deserving winner, though i still have so much love for War Horse's cinematography. 


Overall, I found myself insanely interested, though there wasn't a whole lot of plot or dialogue. I was interested and invested in this family, and I found I cared about all 3 sons, and the parents, and their relationships. I found them interesting, even though they showed me the mudane things about their life. While I felt it went on a little too long (my interest starting slowing around an hour and 45 minutes), it was an interesting film. It wasn't my favourite film of their year, but it was certainly an impressive film, that gives us things to think about. I can understand why a lot of people didn't like it, however. It's not a movie that's everyone's taste, and I understand that. With films like Transformers, which is all action and 'plot' and dialogue, I can see why this film would get pushed to the wayside, though it is an incredibly impressive film, should you choose to be patient, and understand it's different from regular films. Will it win Best Picture? No, it will not, but I still thought it was a mighty interesting film. 


7.5/10