Hugo (2011)

Nominee

Scorsese!! You made a kids film!!! And a good one at that.

At first I did not really appreciate what this film was...I kept hearing different things..."It's about a kid who lives in a clock!"...."It's about the filmmaker Georges Melies!"..."It's a Scorsese kid's film!" (Sorry, I, like everyone else, still can't get over that). Well it was no suprise to me that it was about all of those things, but what did suprise was how cohessive the story actually was, and how well Scorsese brought it to the screen.

In almost every aspect of this film it achieved an artistic perfection that truly aided the story. There are a number of motifs that I could use but I would like to touch on three in order to accentuate what made this movie a good watch.

1.) Clocks (time): Time is what carries us forward, what either makes us progress or leaves us behind.  Time is what both Hugo and Melies are victims of, the unfortunate progression of time moving forward leaving them to fend for themselves. However time is also what is needed to bring them together and motivate them to keep creating.  Visually, clocks are all over the film, from Hugo running the clock, to references to clocks in old Buster Keaton clips. We also have the inspector constantly checking his watch. There is no missing this image in the movie.

2.) Innovation/Curiosity: The constant need to discover. What more does a kid need to relate to our hero. It brings us back making us remember our years of persistent curiosity.  The ideas of fixing, creating, and purpose drive our characters forward in a constant search of belonging. From shots of children peering through keyholes, to watching intently as we watch the automaton work for the first time. The editing and shot choices directly instill a child like curiosity into the viewer. Not to mention the saturation of the eye colors of most of the characters, it is through the eyes that we learn, we perceive. The eyes are out gateways to new ideas, new adventures. 

3.)Movie-making/Dreaming: This is Scorsese's love poem to making films. At times the dialogue is not very coded but I forgive it do to it being a kid's film. Melies stands in his studio during a flashback and says, "If you've ever wondered where your dreams come from, you look around... this is where they're made." Through out the movie films are another way to make people imagine, to make them dream. It really is quite beautiful how it is discussed. 

There are so many more recurring ideas but just to give you an idea about how dynamic this film actually  is I named a few.  Also I would be remiss for wrapping this up with out mentioning the actors, everyone provides a certain heightened character of life that makes for a good childhood dream. 

Overall: I loved it! It brought me back to being a kid discovering, fixing, looking for purpose, this film has so much to offer in keeping dreaming  alive. And in case you were wondering I did not watch it in 3D, so although there are a few times you notice it missing overall it still translates. So, Sit back, watch this movie and no matter what age you are Happy Dreaming! 

True Grit (2010)

Nominee

I want to live in the Wild West!... I want to be a old drunken bamf with one eye riding around on a horse and a reputation!... I want to be a young girl trying to obtain retribution while also providing maturity and know how beyond her years!... I want Matt Damon!... If you share with me any of these wants and also just appreciate a good affinity for straight up story telling, you will like this film.

The Coen Brothers took the west provided their signature writing and pacing to it, and brought to life intriguing archetypal characters with "true grit". These characters demand our respect, because we all know that we wish we were that rugged, and getting to watch them; is simply enjoyable.

The actors portraying these them all bring their best to the table. Jeff Bridges brings both the aged Marshall and the father figure to the role of Rooster Cogburn.  Matt Damon does a respectable job of playing a Texas Ranger who attempts to lead a life of structure in the setting of lawlessness.  However, most notable, is Hailee Steinfeld, only 14 at the time, she shows levels of worldly understanding that you just don't expect. They certainly make a compelling cast.

Then there is the script. I love the Coen brothers, much for the same reason I like Quentin Tarantino, they do of course give us very different views of the work, but I feel they are both obsessed with attempting to show us the ordinary in the extraordinary. By doing that they allow their audience to believe the story being told. It makes the settings and the story relatable while also making it something exciting; something new that a viewer would want to witness.

Also the cinematography and the art direction make very clear choices in setting the scene. It is in color saturation and the focus of the camera where we gain our appreciation for the world that these story takes place. A commendable job to the both of them.

I feel like I can't end this post without mentioning....I have not seen the John Wayne version... much to my embarrassment. However, to the purist I say, perhaps without right, that I think this provides a different angle on the story. It gives it a modern pacing, not to replace the first movie but simple to provide a different just as viable answer.

Overall: I really enjoyed this film. It made me appreciate the American western all over again.  Which is always a good thing. Pop some popcorn and  Happy Watching!

Breaking Away (1979)

Nominee

You have seen this film before. No really... you may not have watched this one specifically but you have seen it. Have you ever watched a film with:

1.) A bad father/son relationship?

2.)An underdog athlete that dreams big?

3.) A boy that meets his idol then its not all it cracked up to be?

4.)A guy who pretends to be someone else to get the girl he likes?

5.) Midwest small town America?

6.) Small town boys versus rich college kids?

Yeah I mean its all there. It is because of this list that I thought I would hate this film...but it is because of this list that I ended up liking it.

 Now you may be saying how can I call out Four Weddings and a Funeral for being so typical and then turn around and like this movie? It's because as it turns out I am a sucker, but not for schmaltzy films, I am a sucker for underdog success stories. I will always like a story where the improbable or even impossible is achieved because those movies are heartwarming on the basic human level.  We all have dreams and movies like this make us want to go make them happen. It feels just as corny as chick flicks in some ways, but also so incredibly more worthwhile.

So if I haven't made the plot clear enough yet here goes: We have a group of small town American boys who, while trying to make the transition between being a teen and being adult, are faced with an oppprtunity to show their worth through a bicycle race against students from the local university.

The story was clean, it was basic and because of that it hit home. The acting was what was required from it. I found the main characters relatable and distinctive. Also some good laughs here and there, boys will be boys and there is nothing more funny then watching them do it.  A job well done.

Something else that stuck out for me was the music. Here they contrast the essence of Midwest America with Italian opera. You can see why David Stoller longed for the richness of Italian culture while living in mundane simplcity. A striking and effective choice.

Overall: You'll like it, you kinda have to. Who wouldn't root for the smalltown American boys to win against all odds? Watch and be inspired. Happy Viewing.

Four Weddings and a Funeral (1994)

Nominee

Nope. This movie was cute and yes at times it was funny and at others it was touching but...nominated for best picture?... really? It is clear to me right now that I am sounding like a movie snob that only likes pretentious artsy films...if you need evidence to the fact that I am not please click on this link:

http://whatmakesagreatmovie.blogspot.com/2011/07/lost-in-translation-2003.html

For those of you that have been reading from the beginning that is in fact my Lost in Translation post...definitely shows how I feel about to much artiness ;).  

So I will now stop defending my ego and continue with the movie at hand. To be an Oscar nominee I expect either something surprisingly new, or something classically old and beautiful. Or do something new to something classically old! What I got here was something that was new in all the wrong places and classical in a boring sense.

So lets discuss what made it old first. We have a guy, Charlie, who is resistant to commitment and a girl,Carrie, who is looking for love in all the wrong places. They meet, they have sex, they are clearly going to get together in the end but it takes them forever to do it! And when they do they stand drenched in the rain after much humiliation and chaos has ensued. A la basic chick flick plot. Then we have the surrounding group of characters who yes are endearing and fun, but they have to be it's a chick flick! Oh wait and of course don't forget the group of ex's that come back to haunt our leading man...but of course...it's a click flick...Is there an echo in here? I think you get the idea.

As for new... Well they decide not to get married but still have a life together!! ...uuhhh okay? I mean I guess that's new but isn't that kinda what you were already doing? That is the ending I am supposed to get excited about?...Count me as under enthused. Also this movie had a gay couple. I was not aware of that until one of them died but you know being progressive with content is nice, unless it comes of as gimmicky. Here it toed the line. The only really emotional moment of the film was the eulogy during his funeral, which I actually liked very much. Yet it was clouded by me racking my brain for some evidence that they were together before hand, I think they should have established that first, so it felt less like a gimmick during the eulogy.

Overall: If you have watched any chick flicks then you really have already seen this film. This one does have british accents though which is always a plus. (And Hugh Grant is gorgeous) And yes some parts were funny. However I have really no idea why this was nominated. If you know please tell me. In short its just not my cup of tea.

Anne of the Thousand Days (1969)

Nominee

If we are listing some of the most overdone stories in mass culture the life of Henry the VIII is certainly up there. I mean there's a Shakespeare play, a TV show, and a ridiculous number of movies. In Best Picture history alone there are three separate films that talk about events revolving around Henry the VIII. (Besides this one we have A Man for All Seasons (1966) and The Private Life of Henry the VIII (1933)).  We, as a public, are simply fascinated with this passion ridden historical period. This rash man whose motivations and wants would change in a second. Yet what makes this story refreshing? Its not about him, in actuality it is about Anne Boleyn.

Anne Boleyn the reason Henry VIII separated from the church. The young girl who would mother one of the most prolific rulers in history. The wife who would lose favor with her erratic husband and in turn lost her head for it. This is what this movie looks to examine and to my surprise it did it exquisitely.

I honestly thought this film was going to drag its feet for a two and a half hour historical lesson. What I found instead were strong interesting characters placed into a vibrant world telling a story of passion and power. This world they establish relies mostly on three things the actors, the script and, believe it or not the costuming. These three things alone are able to make this movie worth the watch.

The script as a whole brings the right level of passion, and wit between our two main characters. It showed how they both hated each other and desired each other throughout the entire film. In addition it brings the moments of high drama where it is needed to keep the movies pace going.

The acting by Richard Burton is wonderful. He shows Henry's commanding unhinged personality, while also making him surprisingly relatable at times. Also Genevieve Bujold won the Oscar for best actress that year and I can see why. She goes through a tremendous character arc throughout this film. From hatred to love to jealousy to reflective, she plays all the roles that make up Anne Boleyn.

In addition, I would be in poor form if I did not say something about the costumes. They are detailed and beautiful. My femininity is showing, but at times I kept watching just to see what they would be wearing next, another well deserves Oscar win. They definately aid in placing these characters in their time period.

 My only real complaint is from a style perspective, and its less of a complaint and more just a personal preference. The film is primarily in the style of classical film, therefore having invisible style in order to not distract from the narration. Which is fine I love classical Hollywood, but I do also like when the shots give something more to the story.  I did like the few times they did become prominent stylisically, for example when she is being led to her execution we switch to POV shots (aka Point of View shots). This was a very effective use, making us sympathetic to Anne one more time before she is executed. Also I like the dialouge of Anne speaking over young Elizabeth walking in the end. It gives Anne the final victory in this game she played with Henry.

Overall: Are you a history buff? Do you like dramatic movies involving great characters in complex situations? Then you will like this film. Happy Watching.

Only Vote

This is what the history of the Best Picture Winners would look like if I had the only vote:
(I will add the years as I complete them and if I have dethroned the winner I will put it in parenthesis next to my winner)

1. 1928
2. 1929
3. 1930
4. 1931
5. 1932
6. 1933
7. 1934
8. 1935
9. 1936
10. 1937
11. 1938
12. 1939
13. 1940
14. 1941
15. 1942
16. 1943
17. 1944
18. 1945-Mildred Pierce (Lost Weekend)
19. 1946
20. 1947
21. 1948
22. 1949
23. 1950
24. 1951
25. 1952
26. 1953-From Here to Eternity
27. 1954-On the Waterfront
28. 1955
29. 1956
30. 1957- Bridge on the River Kwai
31. 1958
32. 1959
33. 1960
34. 1961
35. 1962
36. 1963-Lilies of the Field (Tom Jones)
37. 1964-Mary Poppins (My Fair Lady)
38. 1965
39. 1966
40. 1967-In the Heat of the Night
41. 1968-A Lion in Winter (Oliver!)
42. 1969-Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (Midnight Cowboy)
43. 1970
44. 1971-Fiddler on the Roof (French Connection)
45. 1972
46. 1973
47. 1974
48. 1975
49. 1976
50. 1977
51. 1978
52. 1979
53. 1980
54. 1981-Raiders of the Lost Ark (Chariots of Fire)
55. 1982
56. 1983
57. 1984
58. 1985-The Color Purple (Out of Africa)
59. 1986-Platoon
60. 1987-Nobody! Go home '87 you are drunk...but if I had to I suppose: The Last Emperor
61. 1988-Rain Man
62. 1989-Dead Poet's Society (Driving Miss Daisy)
63. 1990-Goodfellas (Dances with Wolves)
64. 1991-Silence of the Lambs
65. 1992- Unforgiven 
66. 1993-Schindler's List
67. 1994-Pulp Fiction (Forrest Gump)
68. 1995- Apollo 13 (Braveheart)
69. 1996-Fargo (The English Patient)
70. 1997- Good Will Hunting (Titanic)
71. 1998-Life is Beautiful (Shakespeare in Love)
72. 1999- American Beauty
73. 2000-Gladiator
74. 2001-A Beautiful Mind (Although Moulin Rouge deserves a very large nod)
75. 2002-Gangs of New York (Chicago)
76. 2003-Lord of the Rings: Return of the King
77. 2004-Million Dollar Baby
78. 2005-Crash
79. 2006-Babel (The Departed)
80. 2007-There Will Be Blood (No Country for Old Men)
81. 2008-Slumdog Millionaire
82. 2009-Up (Hurt Locker)
83. 2010- The King's Speech (*but The Fighter and Winter's Bone gets a close second*)
84. 2011-Tree of Life (The Artist)
85. 2012-Lincoln (Argo)
86. 2013-Nebraska (12 Years a Slave- Although this was my second favorite) 
87. 2014-Birdman 
88. 2015- Room (Spotlight)

The Artist (2011)

Best Picture Winner 2011

Hi everyone! Sorry I have been MIA, but I am back at school and I need to be a good student...yay studiousness!!  Anyways on other topics...THE OSCARS WERE LAST NIGHT!!! Honestly I haven't seen most of the nominees this year but I was not suprised by The Artist and Hugo taking home most of the gold....that being said its time to dive into the winner itself.

I love silent films, specifically comedy. So when I heard that the french were making a black and white silent film....my pretentiousness alarm went off. I mean come on...we are talking about the FRENCH...making a BLACK AND WHITE...SILENT FILM...needless to say it sounded very forced. However I also hoped for the best...a chance for someone of my generation to go to the theater and laugh at something that has the potential to be as genuinely funny and clever as Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton? I am down.

So off I went to with both apprehension of the worst and aspirations for the best and what I think I received was something in the middle. So here is the deal...FILM GEEKS: You will be dissapointed (with varying levels of severity) if you are looking for a modern Charlie Chaplin film. GENERAL MASSES: I think you will be suprised at how much you will actually enjoy a silent film.

Here we have the story of the film industry transitioning from silent to sound and how one generation gets lost in the mix, while another rises. (a la Singing in the Rain, Sunset Blvd)  The acting is infectious, you can't help but smile at the facial expression and the physicality of the actors. Jean Dujardin, Berenice Bejo, and Uggie (the dog), carry the film well. Lets face it, the dog is half the charm and cuteness of this film.

What I found the most fun though was actually the sound! Ironic, I know, but it was the soundtrack and the sound editing that created the cleverness that I appreciated the most. The soundtrack is ridiculously catchy and then beautiful, I was left humming it for hours after the film. Also when sound enters the film it creates jokes and enters for a purpose. The only thing I didn't like is when they brought sound in at the end...I did feel that was a sell out.

Also the editing was quite smart. They got to use some old time tricks with the sound cards which I thought was fun, creating suspense and confusion.  I am sure they had fun doing it.

ONE BIG HOWEVER ON THIS WHOLE POST: This film made me chuckle and some points were cute but this was not the flat out comedies that silent films were or the high drama. It is some kind of ambigous mix that feels like they did not want to commit to either side of the issue. I guess you can argue they were trying to do something new to something old, but I would have prefered to see a true tribute to what silent films were, instead of some confused mixture of genres.  Then, I suspect,  as a whole this movie would have been less gimmicky.

Overall: Watch it. Its only an hour and forty minutes long and its good to branch out and try new things. Especially when they have cute moments and some sharp technical aspects.  I however also implore you to then reach out and watch some actual silent era films. They do stand the test of time and I know you will like them. If you need any reccomendations ask! Happy Watching :)