Gladiator

Gladiator, 2000

Directed by Ridley Scott

Nominated for 12 Oscars, Won 5

Up Against: Chocolat, Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, Erin Brockovich, Traffic 

Gladiator is a movie I've seen several times, and a movie I really do enjoy. It's the story of Maximus, a general in the Roman army, who is very much loved by Marcus  Aurelius. The time is coming for Marcus Aurelius to announce the succession, and in an unseen move, he tells Maximus he would like him to become his heir. Stunned, Maximus takes some time to think about it. But sadly, while he is, Marcus's corrupt son Commodus is let known he will not be Caesar. Upset that he has never been good enough for his father, he embraces him, and then suffocates him, the world never knowing about what was intended for Maximus. Maximus is arrested, and while he escapes being executed, he doesn't make it home in time to save his wife and son. Sleeping at their charred feet, the next morning he is captured as a slave, and is bought as a Gladiator. He rises through the ranks very quickly, spurred on by his master (also an ex-gladiator who was bought his freedom). His only goal now is to become so great that he may be able to find Commodus again, and let him know that he is not finished with him. 

I'm actually a fan of Russell Crowe, and this is one of my favourite films of his. It's a movie, in my mind, that I always sort of associated with Braveheart as being similar, though Gladiator is a much better made film (that and I don't care for Mel Gibson). Usually I don't very much enjoy films with a lot of killing in them, but this movie was not overdone on the gore. 

The music in this film is a particular stand out to me. While the battle scenes frequently sound like a bit of a wonky Pirates of the Caribbean theme, the rest of it is a very fine Zimmer score. The touches from Lisa Gerard make the slower pieces very touching and peaceful. The pieces that Zimmer and Gerrard did together are so beautiful, and rightfully capture the sadness and hopefullness of Maximus. 

Joaquin Phoenix is also a standout in the film. The sneering, corrupt Commodus, he plays the part to a T. It makes me a bit sad that he didn't win that year, but that's that. 

The cinematography, too, was very good and beautiful, as well as the costumes. Overall, the film looked very authentic, and looked beautiful. 

Overall, this is a film I enjoy. It's not my favoruite film, or even close, but is a movie I always enjoy watching when it's on TV or whatever. I can't comment on whether it deserved to win, having not seen any of the other films that were up that year, but I enjoy this movie so I'm not complaining!

Acting- 8/10
Directing- 8/10
Screenplay- 7/10
Music - 9/10
"The look"- 8/10
Entertaining- 7/10
Emotional Connection- 7/10
Rewatchability- 7/10
Did I like It?- 8/10
"Total Package"**- 7.5/10  

 Total: 76.5/100

Les Miserables

Les Miserables, 2012
Directed by Tom Hooper
Nominated for 8 Oscars

Les Miserables is one of the most popular, beloved and well-known stage musicals. It tells the story, starting and ending, with Jean Valjean, a prisoner for 19 years in the galleys for stealing a loaf of bread. Finally, he is released on parole, but breaks it so to make a better life for himself. Years later, he has achieved this "better life", and when he learns one of the workers at his factory was let go, and has a child she is trying to look after, Valjean decides to rescue this child after the woman (Fantine) dies. Valjean, while still hunted, rescues the child, Cosette, and both their lives are changed forever.

I must confess something. Being the bookaholic I am, I decided to read Les Miserables before ever having seen the full musical (I've seen 45 minutes of the 10th anniversary a year before reading). Yes, you read that correctly. I read Les Miserables. Unabridged, and I skipped no pages. And once I read the final page of the book, I realized I`d screwed myself over for watching the musical or the movie. No play or film could ever accurately portray how beautifully written this book had been; how complex, how heartbreaking, and how glorious it was told. Yes, there were many parts that were drawn out or unnecessary, but when you got to the meat of the story, it was so incredible. And once I read the entire summary of the musical, I knew I was in for a let down. Because translating a 1200 page novel into a 3 hour musical meant that many things were going to be changed, and many would be simplified.

The problems I had with this movie were not the films fault (unless we're talking costume inaccuracies, or historical inaccuracies, but that's different), but that it was over-simplified from how the book had told it. Cosette and Marius did not take one look at each other and were in love. Eponine was not really a main character at all. The Thenardiers were not funny, but were incredibly evil people (and had more children than just Eponine). But I digress.

The first half of the film was incredibly done. Hugh Jackman is the powerhouse of the film, and carries it all on his shoulders. His performance is constantly great, and his singing is really quite good. The live singing, I thought, was incredibly well done. The group numbers were all my favourites and sounded so so good. Anne Hathaway, on the other hand, completely and utterly broke my heart. Her portrayal as Fantine was so emotional, and raw, and broken, that I believed her completely every second. Her rendition of I Dreamed a Dream was heartbreaking, and had me in tears (like everyone else in the theater). For only being in the film a short period of time, her character was properly fleshed out and had the right amount of development (something that the second half of the film lacked).

Everything, right up to where Marius, Eponine, etc come in, this film was really, really good. I had thought I wouldn't like the film whatsoever because of the book, but was surprised I liked the movie so much. Until then. Whether this is how it goes in the stage musical, or if this is just the film, I'm not sure, but everything felt very rushed and under-developed at that point. While Marius was my absolute favourite (Jean Valjean a very close runner up) in the book, his character was extremely diminished. We didn't get to know him on a deeper level like we had Fantine and Valjean. Same goes with Eponine. I felt like I hardly knew her at all before she dies. Which was such a shame. Had there been more time to flesh out these 2 characters, and the other revolutionaries, this would have been much better, but it felt too rushed, and too shallow for me to really care.

Overall, it's very hard to come to a conclusion of what I thought of the film overall. The first half was incredible, well paced and heartbreaking. The second half felt a little more rushed, less character development happening. It makes it very hard to decide what you thought overall.

So overall, I know that the live singing was well executed, and brought a lot more emotional, and a lot more acting in to the film. It made things seem a lot more real. I feel like I Dreamed a Dream would not have been nearly as heart-wrenching had it not been sung live. It would've sounded too perfect and not broken enough. The acting was all superb. Jackman, Hathaway were great. And I adored Eddie Redmayne as Marius. Russell Crowe was not nearly as bad a singer as I'd kept hearing he was (he was decent, ok people?). The visuals were stunning and the makeup for Jean Valjean was excellent. But there were pacing issues, lack of character development, etc.

I'd say Rotten Tomatoes hits it right when it gives it a 70%. It wasn't anything fantastic, but wasn't horrible either. It was a decent movie.

7/10

Beasts of the Southern Wild

Beasts of the Southern Wild, 2012
Directed by Benh Zeitlin
Nominated for 4 Oscars

Going into this movie a week ago, I really had no idea what to expect since every summary I kept reading was extremely vague, and I couldn't understand why they couldn't be more descriptive. After watching the movie, I understood. If someone asked me what Beasts of the Southern Wild was about, the only reply I could really give is "A girl named Hushpuppy lives with her dad in The Bathtub, and are dealing with the polar ice caps melting". And most people would deem this as extremely unhelpful. Which it kind of is. But it is really what the movie is about.

Hushpuppy is 6 years old. She lives in a community called the Bathtub, a community which she loves. They have more holidays, more parties and are much friendlier. It's a community unlike any of us have ever lived in, nor could imagine living in. Her father, an angry man is dealing with health issues, and Hushpuppy is starting to wonder what is wrong with him. She lost her mother along time ago, and even though her father is harsh, she doesn't want to lose him either. As the polar ice caps are melting, and a storm comes brewing, the Bathtub floods, due to a levy the neighboring city has built to keep the water out, which means the Bathtub is constantly"filling up". While many people fled the Bathtub community before the storm hit, many stuck it out and are now dealing with the consequences of living in a flooded community.

I watched this movie with my parents, my sister and my sister's boyfriend. Watching movies with them is never a good idea. They talk and talk and poke fun and make comments and it's distracting when trying to watch a movie you honestly want to get a hold of and understand. And when the people around you aren't so keen on a movie and are verbal about it, it sways your opinion a little bit.

To sum it up, this movie was extremely odd. In this years awards race, I had this film and Moonrise Kingdom on a similar plain- they're both indie movies, with their main characters being children. While Moonrise Kingdom was quirky and funny, this movie was just different and odd. Intertwined with the story of Hushpuppy and her father is the aurochs, an extinct creature from the ice age. But when the ice caps melt, the aurochs are released from cryogenic sleep and are on the loose again, heading straight for the Bathtub. I think I would've enjoyed the film a lot more had the storyline of the aurochs not been included. It was strange and unnecessary and gave a slightly confusing end to the film (and also slightly anti-climatic, though it was supposed to be more symbolic than anything. Whatever).

But Quvenzhane Wallis was fantastic. She truly was. She was funny, and heartbreaking, and just so so good.  Its pretty unbelievable that she was only 5 when she filmed this. She was utterly believable, and so powerful. If I liked anything about this film, it was her performance.

Other than Wallis's performance, I was overall not too enthralled with the film. It was interesting, but the aurochs storyline made it pretty unrealistic, and distracted from the overall story. The score was also really good, and thought it was super cool that Zeitlin, the director, was the co-composer! I've never really seen that before and thought that was really neat. But overall, the film was just okay for me, with Wallis being the total standout of the film. I really hope she's able to build a fantastic career as she's already very talented (and next up she's starring with Brad Pitt and Michael Fassbender in Twelve Years a Slave. Nice move up in the world!). While it was an alright film, I'd have still rather seen Affleck up for director rather than Zeitlin, and Moonrise Kingdom up for picture over this, but that's just my opinion it seems!

7/10

The Sound of Music

The Sound of Music, 1965
Directed by Robert Wise
Nominated for 10 Oscars, Won 5
Up Against: Darling, Doctor Zhivago, Ship of Fools, A Thousand Clowns

Set in the "last Golden Days" of the 1930's in Austria, Maria is a troublesome young woman, attempting to become a nun, but her fellow nuns aren't her biggest fans. She's too outspoken, adventurous and she sings too much. So the head nun, Mother Abbess, decides to assign Maria the task of becoming a governess to the 7 children of Georg Von Trapp, a Navy captain who is a single parent and has written to the abbey for someone to look after his children. Maria is hesitant at first but decides to go since this must be the Lord's will. What she finds there breaks her heart. The children are treated as though they are on a naval ship, called by whistles, are on strict schedules with no time to play. Meanwhile, the children have been through several governess's, having played pranks on them all, trying to get their fathers attention. But Maria is determined to give the children what they never get from their father, laughter, fun and playtime, while Captain Von Trapp goes away to Vienna to meet a lady he's courting. And during that time, and when the Captain returns, everything changes. 

The Sound of Music is one of the most iconic and beloved musicals of all-time. It was a box-office smash when it was released and replaced Gone With the Wind as the highest grossing film. Adjusting to prices now, it is the 3rd highest grossing film of all time, right behind Gone with the Wind and Star Wars. While the Sound of Music had been a Broadway Musical before a film, the film added much popularity to the musical, and helped make Julie Andrews a huge star. 

Like Oliver!, this is a film I grew up on. And again, like Oliver!, we never really watched the whole thing, because it was so long, and both got so serious at the end that it bored me when I was younger. But The Sound of Music is a movie I couldn't say too many negative things about. Sure, it's not a brilliant, deep, or even accurate story. But it has so many iconic songs, and scenes, and it really is a nice family movie. And I'm definitely not adverse to family movies (much less ones that become classics) winning Best Picture. 

This film is a very beautiful film. The Austrian scenery is gorgeous, the set design and costumes are lovely, and overall it is a beautiful looking film. The child actors are really very good, and adorably cute. Julie Andrews was fantastic as Maria, and Christopher Plummer was great as Captain Von Trapp. 

Overall, this is a film I'll continue to like very much. Its a nice movie, with a nice ending. Predictable, yes, but an adorable film with great music altogether. 

Acting- 8/10
Directing- 7/10
Screenplay- 7/10
Music - 9/10
"The look"- 8/10
Entertaining- 8/10
Emotional Connection- 7/10
Rewatchability- 8/10
Did I like It?- 8/10
"Total Package"**- 7.5/10  

 Total: 77.5/100

Midnight Cowboy

Midnight Cowboy, 1969
Directed by John Schlesinger
Nominated for 7 Oscars, Won 3
Up against: Anne of the Thousand Days, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, Hello Dolly!, Z

Joe Buck has left his life in Texas behind and come to New York City to become a "hustler", a freelance sex stud. But things are harder than he'd imagine it to be. The streets are meaner, and Joe has his demons to fight. But then he meets Ratso, a down-and-out crook but outcast. Ratso and Joe form an unlikely friendship, and end up both needing each other if they are to survive life in New York City. Especially since Ratso's health isn't very good and Joe is a naive country boy.

Midnight Cowboy's claim to fame is that it is the only Best Picture winner to be rated X. While it has since been bumped down to an R rating, it was very interesting that it won. It was also released a year after the Hays Code (a code set out by MPAA of what was appropriate and not appropriate to be in films). It was also a slightly controversial film. It contained scenes of homosexuality, and a lot of sex and nudity. Interestingly, the film that won the year before was Oliver!, a movie was a G rating. Shows how different movies are that the Academy awards Best Picture.

This film was definitely not a favourite Best Picture winner of mine. While I adore Dustin Hoffman, and he was really very good in this film, I found the picture rather dull. Sure, it was sad, and Joe was wildly messed up, but I found it a bit of a bore most of the time. The story was slow-moving, and while the acting was good, it wasn't my cup of tea.

It was definitely a well made film. It looked great. Hoffman and Voight made a good team and had great chemistry, and the costumes were good. I can appreciate the movie for that, but, similar to this years Lincoln, it just wasn't the movie for me.

While they gave Joe a very troubled past, and made Ratso a mysterious person, someone we never truly get to know or understand, they seemed a little flat to me. The constant flashbacks at the beginning of Joe's life, and his visions of what he wished he could do in certain situations were a little much. Though I guess the flashbacks at Joe's worst memory was very meaningful to the story and added a lot.

While this film is remembered as the X-rated film that won Best Picture, I feel like there wasn't much more to it. It was unnecessarily explicit, and was very slow moving.

Acting- 8/10
Directing- 8/10
Screenplay- 7/10
Music - 6.5/10
"The look"- 8/10
Entertaining- 6/10
Emotional Connection- 6/10
Rewatchability- 2/10
Did I like It?- 6/10
"Total Package"**- 7/10  

 Total: 64.5/100

Argo

Argo, 2012
Directed by Ben Affleck

Argo is a fake movie. No, the movie I went and watched in the theatres wasn't fake, but it was what was used to get 6 Americans out of Iran without being killed, in a time where Americans were being held hostage.

In 1979, the American embassy in Tehran, Iran was stormed by Iranian revolutionaries, and everyone inside was taken hostage by the country. 6 managed to escape and found refuge in the Canadian ambassadors house. While the world watches, the American government and CIA realize they need to find a way to get these 6 Americans out before the Iranians discover they have 6 missing people. Enter Tony Mendez. With only bad ideas floating around, Tony comes up with something crazy. He and the 6 Americans will pose as a Canadian film crew looking to film a sci-fi movie in Iran, visiting on a location scout. But it's not as easy as it sounds. Tony needs to make sure this is legit. He needs a script, he needs producers, a budget, actors, posters, anything to show that this is real. He needs press. But when he arrives in Iran to get the 6 out, he has to ask himself the age old question, "is this so crazy it just might work?" because the answer to that is life or death.


Ben Affleck has been in the business a long time. His only Academy Award nomination, was also his only win, for his writing on Good Will Hunting, with Matt Damon, back in 1997. For the most part though, Affleck was just a mediocre actor, picking several awful movies, and from time to time choosing very good ones. However, when Affleck released his directorial debut, Gone Baby Gone in 2007, it received instant acclaim. His follow up in 2010, The Town, was equally acclaimed and just missed out on a Best Picture nod that year. His third effort, the film I'm now here to review, is said to be his best picture to date.

Affleck both directs and stars in this movie. What I really enjoyed about this movie was the balance between humour, and tension. This film felt very real. The humor didn't feel out of place or forced. And while some of the tense moments were a little dramatized, it wasn't an overt amount. For a serious film, it was really quite witty and funny. The scenes with Tony in Hollywood with his 2 producers (both in on his ploy), were really quite fun and funny, but switching back to scenes in Iran, it's very serious, and tense. And this was a really nice balance between the two. It was very human, and so many of the situations and reactions of all the characters didn't feel overly scripted.

Additionally, I felt Affleck and his crew did the look of the movie quite well. It was the cheesy 70's, with the massive glasses, horrible hair and mustaches, and most people looked like they fit right in, without it being more cheesy than the 70s already were. The mix of real footage from this time, and the modern footage was good, especially the beginning. And it was also pretty fun having the vintage Time-Warner logo at the very beginning.

Overall, I really, really enjoyed this film. I was able to go with my boyfriend, and 3 other friends, and was happy that all of them really enjoyed it too.

Oscar chances? I'd say it's a definite lock for a Best Picture nod, and most likely a Directing and Screenplay nods as well. It has its best chance in acting for Alan Arkin, though he's nowhere near a lock right now. Going into this movie, it was my predicted winner for Best Picture, mostly based on the buzz from TIFF, and from me being a little disappointed by the Lincoln trailer (my previous, extra early, winner pick). Coming out of the movie, I'd say I'd be very happy if this film took the top prize. It's always nice when a film that the general audience has heard of and seen is picked. It was a really enjoyable film, a great and interesting true story, and was really well made. I'm definitely going to be rooting for this movie this season, thus far!

9/10

Ben-Hur

Ben-Hur (1959)
Directed by William Wyler
Nominated for 12 Oscars, Won 11
Up Against: Anatomy of a Murder, The Diary of Anne Frank, The Nun's Story, and Room at the Top


Wow, I can't believe it's been almost two months since I've reviewed a film! I'm so sorry for the delay in everything! But I've been pretty busy. I took a trip out to Los Angeles right after I wrote my last review, and from there I've been working funny hours that lets me only watch movies on Saturday and Sundays, and those days I'm usually busy being with friends (ok, my boyfriend), and just relaxing, not feeling like watching a 3 hour epic. But I thought I'd hunker down and get this movie done! That, and it finally, finally arrived for me at the library and I couldn't renew it since it's so popular. But I promise I'll be more solid on my reviews. My review for Argo (which I'm seeing tomorrow) will be up over the weekend sometime, and I'll get around the Sound of Music soon!

But for now,


Judah Ben-Hur is a Jewish prince living in Jerusalem during the time of Christ. His old friend Messala, an officer in the Roman legions, returns home, they find their varying views on religion and politics seperate them. After a disagreement, the Roman legion rides through town, with their new governor. Judah and his sister watch from a balconey above, and stones get loose and fall upon the parade. Messala and the rest of the legion barracade the house, and Messala, still angered by their disagreement, has no mercy upon Judah, his sister, and his mother, throwing them into jail. After Judah escapes and confronts Messala, he is sent to be rower in the galleys of a war ship, while his sister and mother stay in jail. Judah swears he will come back for his family, and for revenge on Messala. And he comes back in a way no one imagined.

Ben-Hur is that movie that's always on TV around Easter time, and seems to be on the entire day. Sitting at 222 minutes (or 3 hours and 43 minutes for those of you counting), it's considered a great historical epic. At the time, it was the most expensive film ever made, costing somewhere around $15 million.

A remake of a silent film, based off the 1880 book by Lew Wallace, it took several years until it finally went into production. With several legends turning down the role of Judah (including Paul Newman, Marlon Brando, and Kirk Douglas, after finally settling on Charlton Heston.

Honestly, before I started watching the film, I expected it to be another Lawrence of Arabia. Overrated, but mostly long, boring, and slow-moving. But I was pleasantly surprised by how fast-paced the movie was. No overlong scenes of scenery, or of someone walking (or riding a camel).

In all honesty, I really really enjoyed this movie! The cinematography was beautiful, the costumes were great, and Charlton Heston was really, really great. But most of all, it was fast moving, it was a "rags-to-riches" story. (Or actually, more of a riches-to-rags-to-riches revenge movie..). Being a Christian, I really have an appreciation for Biblical epics (even if this wasn't necessarily Biblical). Most people, I would assume, just dismiss this movie, and it's whole storyline with Jesus and the Crucifixion.

But, obviously, the winning prize, the crown jewel, of the film was the chariot race. Not only was it exciting to watch, but it was impeccably filmed. The parade with all the chariots, around the ring, was honestly so spectacular, how trained the horses were, the cinematography, the music, etc. But seriously, it was really the best part of the movie, and is well deserved as being thought of as a influential and iconic moment in cinema.

Overall, I don't have all that many complaints about the film really. Well-acted, looked amazing, etc. It truly did deserve every Oscar it won, and deserves to be remembered as one of the 3 films that won the most Oscars. And it deserves to be remembered as a classic film.

Acting- 9/10
Directing- 9/10
Screenplay- 8/10
Music - 9/10
"The look"- 9/10
Entertaining- 7.5/10
Emotional Connection- 7.5/10
Rewatchability- 7/10
Did I like It?- 8.5/10
"Total Package"**- 8.5/10  

 Total: 83/100

On The Waterfront

On The Waterfront, 1954
Directed by Elia Kazan
Nominated for 12 Oscars, Won 8
Up Against: The Caine Mutiny, The Country Girl, Seven Brides for Seven Brothers, Three Coins in the Fountain

Terry Malloy used to be a prize fighter, but now he raises pigeons and works on the docks, running errands for the corrupt union boss, Johnny Friendly. One of the errands Terry has to run is telling a man named Joey that he found one of his missing pigeons and that he's put it on the roof for him to come and get, Terry knowing there will be men up there waiting for him to accost him. What he didn't know was that they were going to toss him from the roof of the building, killing him. Terry immediatly feels guilty, and that guilt builds when he starts falling in love with Joey's sister, Edie, while she tries to find out who killed her brother. While the two start falling in love, Terry realizes who much better life can be, and it's not the horrible place with all indecent people he's thought it has been. When Johnny Friendly continues to kill people, and Father Barry, a local priest, challenged by Edie that she "never heard of a saint hiding in a church", and to go out there and see what's going on, tries to find information on who killed Joey. Terry starts realizing he needs to tell the truth, and he needs to bring down Johnny Friendly in the process. 

This movie came highly recommended to me by my boyfriends father. While he's more of a literature man instead of a movie man, I thought I'd take his recommendation seriously since he also spoke extremely highly of Annie Hall. So I put a hold on it at the library (subsequently it had a lot of other holds and it's taken me months to get it). But I popped the movie in just a day after getting it, and found myself enthralled by the story and by Marlon Brando. 

What, I thought, could've easily been a pretty 2D character, Brando turned it into a subtle performance, where we can clearly see Terry start to become more and more guilty and slowly realizing his philosophy of life isn't actually true. Brando was classy, with just enough tough guy to balance it out, that you knew he didn't realize believe what he said he did, and wasn't the bad guy that Edi'e father made him out to be. He was searching for something more, and Edie showed him what it was. 

The movie was well-told, and had many chilling and heartbreaking moments, including when Father Barry is praying over Kayo Dugan's body, and then starts to talk to the dozens of men around him about honesty, and cruxification, and some of the men start throwing food at him. And when Terry, beaten to a pulp, gets up and walks through all the men to enter the docks, after they declare they will only work if Terry is given work. 

The film had just enough amount of romance (doesn't Edie look like a mix of Jessica Chastain and Mia Wasikowski? Or at least I thought so, it was pretty uncanny) without making it too mushy. And had the right amount of action/crime in it. 

Overall, I thought this film was really well done; well acted, well directed, well written. It really deserves all the wins it received (including Best Actor, Best Supporting Actress, Writing, Editing and Art Direction), and deserves to be revered as a classic. Yes, I really enjoyed this film. 

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

 Total: 84/100

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

In The Heat of the Night

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

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

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

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

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

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

Acting- 7.5/10
Directing- 7.5/10
Screenplay- 7/10
Music - 7/10
"The look"- 7/10
Entertaining- 7/10
Emotional Connection- 7/10
Rewatchability- 6/10
Did I like It?- 7/10
"Total Package"**- 7.5/10

Total: 70.5

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.

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

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 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

Best Pictures Ranked (of the 30 so far)

So to celebrate that I've watched and reviewed I'm posting the ranking, from worst to best, of all the Best Picture's I've watched so far. You may not agree with my rankings, but I thought I'd be a fun little thing to commemorate making it to 30, after only 6 months of reviewing and blogging.

(note: some of  the ratings don't go in order. I rate films not compared with anything else but the overall thought, and sometimes films that got a lower rating overall, I enjoyed better than something that was a .5 higher.)

30. How Green Was My Valley  4/10

This film was just very long, and very dull, with very little action, nor anything of interest. It told the story of a family living in a Welsh coal-mining town. It sounded like it would be funny and interesting but didn't turn out that way, for me.

29. West Side Story- 4/10

I've never really understood the hype over this musical. The songs were alright, and the choreography was great, but the acting was pretty terrible, the story line (Romeo and Juliet modern-day retelling in New York with Americans vs. Latinos? With gang/turf wars?) was pretty lame too. It just wasn't the musical for me.

28. Going My Way- 6/10

Again, while it sounded like an interesting story, and Bing Crosby is a really good actor, it was a bit too long, and a bit too much not like what it said it was going to be. And just sort of dragged out the story line. There were a couple nice songs in it though.

27. The Broadway Melody- 5.5/10

Honestly, I thought this movie was pretty impressive for a movie made in 1930. The first talking film to win, and the 2nd winner overall. While it wasn't overly interesting, it was neat to recognize some of the music. And it was pretty good for something so old.

26. American Beauty- 5/10

While I realize this movie is supposed to be complex, and "deep", I just can't take movies like this very seriously, nor can I find myself to empathize for the main character. Sex and nudity don't go well with me either.

25. Shakespreare in Love- 6.5/10

While I thought it was alright, it's just funny to see what the Academy thinks is the best. Personally, I would've pushed it off as another period piece chick flick with lots of big name actors.

24. All Quiet on the Western Front- 6/10

WWI is something I find so tragic. So it was interesting to watch one of the first movies on the topic. While it was made in 1930, it was pretty impressive. The special effects weren't terrible, and the acting was quite good. However the story was a little slow and the characters weren't very connectable.

23. Terms of Endearment- 6.5/10

This was a cute story with good acting. However, some of it felt a little unrealistic, and some of it was just boring. And then the end came as a bit of a shocker, but I felt I hadn't connected well with any of the characters to really care as much as I ought to.

22. All About Eve- 6.5/10

One of the first Hollywood satires. It was a funny story, but was a little too drawn out at 2 hours and 18 minutes. It had a funny, witty script, and had some great performances (including an early Marilyn Monroe appearance).

21. Forrest Gump- 6.5/10

While we've seen movies time and again with people with "simple" mind views, Forrest Gump is probably the best known. While Tom Hanks have an amazing performance, the movie couldn't seem to decide if it was serious or funny, and that really hindered it for me.

20. A Man for All Seasons - 7/10

Being a Christian myself, I felt this movie had a very strong message, and found it quite inspiring. In the typical "die for what you believe in" this movie was well acted, if a little long.

19. The Departed- 7/10

Martin Scorsese's very first Best Picture and Director win. While it was good, and had an interesting plot, excessive swearing always puts me off a movie a little bit. And gangster/crime movies aren't really my thing. However, Leo, Matt, Mark and Jack were all fantastic.

18. Casablanca- 7/10

One of the big classics on the list. Humphrey Bogart being that suave lover, and Ingrid Bergman as the confused woman in love, it was a classy movie, with an interesting story. While it wasn't my favourite movie ever, nor was it what I expected it to be, it was good.

17. No Country for Old Men- 7/10

Very different from all the other best picture winners is No Country for Old Men, based on the Cormac McCarthy novel. It's a thriller, with guns, blood, violence, drugs and money. Javier Bardem floored me in this role. But reading it was a 'fast-paced action thriller' really left me disappointed, since that wasn't what it was at all. It was slow-burning, and psychological. A second watching may bring up the rating.

16. Slumdog Millionaire- 7.25/10

India, slums, romance, and Who Wants to Be A Millionaire. This movie portrays the slums of India, and tells a young Indian boys story in a brutal and honest way. While it wasn't my favourite movie of the year, or even of the nominees, I understand why it won. (Oh, and the little kids were probably the best part of the movie)

15. Chicago- 7/10

I was surprised by enjoying this musical. I thought it was funny, and the way they song numbers were done was interesting and different from other musicals, being on stage, and as an "inner monologue". The dancing was great, and Catherine Zeta-Jones was brilliant and sexy.

14. An American in Paris- 7.5/10

After seeing Singin' In the Rain, I've been kind of a sucker for Gene Kelly and for tap dancing. While the movie wasn't as charming as Singin', and with less tap, this movie looked great, was fun, and had great dancing.

13. Gigi- 7.5/10

Another musical, starring Leslie Caron, who got her start in the previous movie, An American In Paris. This movie, while it wasn't the best musical ever was cute, and fun, and girly. And a girl like me likes stuff like that sometimes.

12. Million Dollar Baby- 7.5/10

The first half of the movie bored me a little bit. The second half I spent bawling my eyes out. Hillary Swank was simply amazing. It was very interesting, very sad, and really well made.

11. Rain Man- 7.5/10

Through this project has brought me to really love Dustin Hoffman. And this movie definitely showcased his amazing abilities. While the movie wasn't altogether exciting, Dustin Hoffman was truly incredible, and I hardly realized it was even a performance.

10. The Bridge on the River Kwai- 8/10

I thought this movie would be boring, but I found it quite interesting. It's very different from any war movie we've seen, and tells the interesting story of soldiers who are prisoners of war, and how one stood up for what he believed in, and how they were able to succeed. I liked it a lot.

9. The Lost Weekend- 8/10

I thought this movie was incredibly interesting. It's about an alcoholic, in the time when alcohol addiction wasn't talked about very much. It was well-acted, and showed it in a really personal way. I enjoyed it. 

8. Gentleman’s Agreement- 8/10

Another interesting movie, from around the same time period. It's about a reported who goes under cover as a Jew to write an article on antisemitism. While it only stayed in the upper class way of things, it was interesting nonetheless and really showed how much antisemitism there was in the States. 

7. The Artist- 8.25/10

This year's winner, and the first silent film to win since the 20's (and only the 2nd one overall). It's a love story, but it's more than that. It's the rise and fall of the silent film era. It's depression and loneliness, pride and cowardice. Jean Dujardin gave an amazing performance and the film was really fun, as well as interesting. 

6. Annie Hall- 8.25/10

Probably one of the only comedies to win Best Picture (only comedy?). It's the story of a disfunctional relationship, not unlike (500) Days of Summer. It was cute and funny, and Woody Allen is adorable. 

5. Driving Miss Daisy- 8.75/10

I know a lot of people give this movie heck for winning, but I watched it with my mum, and we both really enjoyed it. Morgan Freeman is so great, and this role gave him a different side that I hadn't seen him do before. It was cute, fun, and just a nice movie. I like those kind too. 

4. Kramer vs. Kramer - 8.75/10

This is the movie that made me really like Dustin Hoffman. I'm too young to have really seen him in anything before, and I thought this movie was really good. I cried, and I laughed. Dustin was great, Meryl was goooorgeous, and their little boy was adorable. An interesting insight on divorce, when the dad is usually the one made out as the bad guy or the cheater. 

3. Titanic- 8.75/10

I'm a sucker for this movie, what can I say? I have a strange fascination with Titanic in the first place, so I'm pretty biased towards anything on the subject. Leonardo DiCaprio was great, and Kate Winslet was heartbreaking. I like romance, I like Titanic, and I cried a lot.

2. The Hurt Locker- 8.75/10

I'm really not sure why I liked this movie so much. I don't get into politcal movies, and I've never much been a fan of war films either, but I really, really liked this movie. It was different, gritty, and threw me right into the Iraq war. It had the interesting way of not being biased to one political take on the war or the other. It was more about the people, how they dealt with the war, and their feelings. I don't know why, but it was so good. 

1. Oliver!- 9/10

Childhood favourite, there's always a bias. This film never gets old, the music is fabulous and it's just so fun. I love this movie. 

So there you go, everyone. All 30 of the Best Picture's I've watched, ranked from worst to best. I know many will disagree, but I have a funny taste in movies. Enjoy!