tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13769257533301949502024-03-13T07:42:21.889-07:00Best Picture Winnersbestpicturewatcherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08512803324684884985noreply@blogger.comBlogger91125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1376925753330194950.post-5636300734242350542018-05-28T17:53:00.001-07:002018-05-28T18:27:59.841-07:002017: The Shape of Water<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-BWdy2rQ27ak/WwyRTMezStI/AAAAAAAAA-o/UuChScrdTDQxRsaSmvNVeURqh789oPanwCLcBGAs/s1600/shape%2Bof%2Bwater.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="168" data-original-width="300" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-BWdy2rQ27ak/WwyRTMezStI/AAAAAAAAA-o/UuChScrdTDQxRsaSmvNVeURqh789oPanwCLcBGAs/s1600/shape%2Bof%2Bwater.jpg" /></a></div>
Elisa Esposito's life is fairly routine and lonely. Her only friends are her neighbor, Giles, and her coworker Zelda, with whom she cleans at night in a laboratory. All three are rejected by society: Elisa for her inability to speak verbally, Giles for his sexual orientation, and Zelda for her skin color. Then Elisa and Zelda discover a strange humanoid sea creature imprisoned in the lab, with whom Elisa develops a deep connection. Upon learning that the creature is set to be killed and dissected for research, Elisa recruits her friends to free him.<br />
<br />
I have very mixed feelings about this film, as I'm sure many people do. It's an extremely bizarre premise and story, and I can't really tell whether I liked it or not, but I thought it was filmed beautifully. The theme of water was everywhere - in the fluid camera movements, the lighting, the sets, the soundtrack - and it worked quite well. The costume and effects used to bring the creature to life were very effective, and all of the performances were phenomenal. Mainly, I wasn't a huge fan of the strange love story between Elisa and the creature, especially at the end. I would have liked to see more of them getting to know each other and learning to communicate. She brings him eggs and teaches him the ASL sign for "egg", and like four other signs; I wanted more of that. I would have believed in the love story more if the Amphibian Man had more of a personality.<br />
<br />
I'm pretty sure that, like <a href="https://bestpicturewatcher.blogspot.com/2017/06/2016-moonlight.html" target="_blank">the previous year's winner</a>, this film won Best Picture for its representation. Once again, I have mixed feelings about that as well. It was quite refreshing to see a film with a clear female protagonist finally win Best Picture for the first time since 2004. I appreciated that all four of the main characters the audience was supposed to root for were from groups who tend to be under-represented in Hollywood: a disabled woman, an African-American woman, a gay man, and a sea monster. The only problem with that, which I'm sure was not the filmmakers' intent, is that it could potentially be interpreted as equating the first three groups with the last one, implying that they are not fully human. I think the filmmakers were trying to show that the creature was more human than the white male able-bodied human villain who was trying to destroy him, which is a theme that has often been explored by Disney movies: Belle crying, "He's no monster, Gaston; you are!" in <i>Beauty and the Beast</i> and Clopin asking, "Who is the monster and who is the man?" about Frollo and Quasimodo in <i>The Hunchback of Notre Dame</i> come to mind. The difference is, in those cases, the person interpreted as a monster <i>was</i> actually human, whereas the creature in this movie, while pretty awesome, is clearly not human. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for looking beyond outward appearances. I even like the idea of someone falling in love with a person who looks like a monster and isn't going to transform into a handsome prince. All I'm saying is I don't like the implication that Elisa has to end up with Amphibian Man because her disability makes it impossible for "normal" people to fall in love with her. I'm virtually positive that that's not what the film was trying to say, but it's certainly a valid interpretation. I realize that too often people with disabilities are portrayed as having no sexuality at all, which is wrong, but is it really a step forward to show someone with a disability only having sex with a creepy monster thing? Without spoiling too much, I think the ending could have salvaged this questionable message, but if anything it made things worse by not even letting Elisa consent to what happens.<br />
<br />
Overall, this movie has a lot of good things about it, but the whole love story thing just really doesn't work for me. I'm not sad I watched it, but I feel like it could have been better, which is similar to how I felt last year. More representation in Best Picture winners is a great new trend, and I hope it continues indefinitely, but I also hope the execution improves.bestpicturewatcherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08512803324684884985noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1376925753330194950.post-500944468893903972017-06-17T16:49:00.000-07:002017-06-17T16:49:01.440-07:002016: Moonlight<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-TQjbzrQdSno/WUW_zepIPkI/AAAAAAAAA0g/t11Pb1_38VUHBZSLIYapq6xVPHPuCDUcQCLcBGAs/s1600/moonlight.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="146" data-original-width="345" height="135" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-TQjbzrQdSno/WUW_zepIPkI/AAAAAAAAA0g/t11Pb1_38VUHBZSLIYapq6xVPHPuCDUcQCLcBGAs/s320/moonlight.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
This is the coming-of-age story of Chiron, a gay, African-American male, raised by a single, drug-addicted mother, told in three parts: one when he's about 10, one when he's about 17, and the third when he's in his mid-20s. Each section of the movie contains a few key events that shape Chiron's path of self-discovery.<br />
<br />
There are some things I really like about this movie, and others not so much. Honestly, one of my favorite things about it was the lighting. Early in the movie, one of the characters tells a story about an old woman commenting, "In moonlight, black boys look blue," and I don't know if it was mostly power of suggestion, but a lot of the lighting looked blue to me, which added a nice artistic touch. I was also, for the most part, very impressed by the performances, particularly those of Alex Hibbert and Ashton Sanders, who played Chiron in the first two parts. As a child, he doesn't speak very much, and those two actors do a tremendous job of conveying his pain and fear with just their eyes. The third section, on the other hand, seemed like a completely different movie. I didn't think Chiron's transformation was quite believable, and the last third seemed to drag a lot more than the first two. The pacing of the movie as a whole is on the slow side, but the end was almost excruciating, and then nothing really happened. So it was a bit disappointing. Overall, I didn't dislike this movie, but I didn't love it either.<br />
<br />
Personally, I think this movie won Best Picture more for what it represents than for how good of a movie it is. Overwhelmingly - in fact, almost exclusively - mainstream Hollywood tells stories about straight, white people. People of color and LGBT+ people are hardly ever represented in Best Picture winners, let alone LGBT+ people of color. This particular year, the two front-runners for this award were <i>Moonlight</i> and <i>La La Land</i>. I still haven't seen <i>La La Land</i>, although I'm going to have to eventually if I want to keep up <a href="http://bpwbestactress.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">my Best Actress blog</a>, but from what I've heard, I'm 99% sure it's about straight white people. The past few years before this, all the Oscar-nominated actors were white, prompting significant Twitter backlash with the hashtag #OscarsSoWhite. Not to mention that 2016 was the year of the Pulse massacre, the continued escalation of tensions between people of color and the police, an election that emboldened bigots, and a lot of other similarly terrible things. Since Hollywood is, at least ostensibly, extremely liberal, I think a lot of people voted for <i>Moonlight</i> without having seen it, just to make a statement. And like the movie itself, I'm not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand, it seems like the Best Picture Winner should be the actual best movie of the year, not the movie that makes the best statement of the year. On the other hand, if this project has taught me anything, it's that the Best Picture Oscar Winner is almost never the actual best movie of the year, and there are definitely much worse things than shining a spotlight on a movie about people who don't often have the chance to see themselves represented on the silver screen. So while this is not my favorite movie of all time, or even my favorite movie of 2016, I'm glad that it won. And I'm really hoping this year's winner will be a female-centered story. Seriously, it's been way too long.<br />
<br />
Currently I'm making my way through Best Adapted Screenplay Oscar winners, which means I will re-watch this movie again after reading the play, but that will probably take a while since I'm currently in the early 1940s, and it takes much longer to read and then watch than just to watch. But you can check out that blog <a href="http://bpwadaptedscreenplay.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">here</a> if you're interested.bestpicturewatcherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08512803324684884985noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1376925753330194950.post-40040874064658996362016-04-08T20:20:00.000-07:002016-04-08T20:20:13.033-07:002015: Spotlight<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-yRWzizdiKNw/Vwh0zXxShXI/AAAAAAAAAv8/JNQ2xxcHgw4_EmSmlmUSJIXN5PZ2ABmvQ/s1600/spotlight.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="205" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-yRWzizdiKNw/Vwh0zXxShXI/AAAAAAAAAv8/JNQ2xxcHgw4_EmSmlmUSJIXN5PZ2ABmvQ/s320/spotlight.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
It starts relatively small: a Boston priest is accused of molesting children. No one at the Boston Globe is particularly interested in this story, until the new editor-in-chief asks the four-person investigative team known as "Spotlight" to dig deeper. What they uncover is an alarmingly widespread pattern of sexual abuse within a system that looks the other way and enables it to continue indefinitely.<br />
<br />
While I definitely liked this better than <a href="http://bestpicturewatcher.blogspot.com/2015/06/2014-birdman-or-unexpected-virtue-of.html" target="_blank">the previous year's winner</a>, it's certainly not the best film to ever win this award. The pacing isn't ideal. The beginning in particular is very slow and draggy and rather boring, and I couldn't help thinking, <i>Really? THIS won Best Picture? </i>Once the Spotlight team actually starts investigating, it gets much more engaging, but it's still lacking in some respects. The screenplay won an Oscar, but while there was some good writing, much of the dialogue was flat and felt artificial: more than once I thought the characters would have worded things differently than the lines. But I could have been wrong about that because there isn't an overabundance of character development, so I might have gotten a different impression of the characters than intended. However, after the first fifteen minutes or so, I was fascinated enough by the story that the better aspects of the film outweighed these flaws, and I came away with an overall positive opinion of the movie.<br />
<br />
I think the lack of character development actually works somewhat well in that it shifts the focus away from the journalists and onto the story they're covering. The scenes when they're interviewing victims are very well done, and I wanted more of those. On the other hand, I had trouble with the scenes when they were interviewing or talking about people who knew that this was going on and either did nothing or made the problem worse because I kept getting them mixed up, so a little more character development would have been nice. Overall the performances are solid. Mark Ruffalo mumbles a lot, which makes him hard to understand, but I like the way he portrays his character's enthusiasm. The rest of the Spotlight group - Michael Keaton in his second Best Picture winner in a row, Rachel McAdams (halfway through my mom turned to me and asked, "Is that Regina George?"), and Brian D'Arcy James, who I did not recognize with that mustache - all do a good job of portraying slightly different reactions to the story as it unfolds. I like the way the four of them interact; they make a believable team. Personally, though, I found the supporting performances by Liev Schreiber, as the driven, poker-faced new editor-in-chief, and Stanley Tucci, as an eccentric attorney determined to help victims, more outstanding than the leading performances. But again, maybe we aren't supposed to get to know the main characters very well.<br />
<br />
It seems pretty obvious that this film won Best Picture more for the subject matter than for being an exceptional movie. I haven't seen most of the other nominees yet, but I find it hard to believe that this was the best of the bunch. Granted, it <i>is</i> a very intriguing and disturbing story, but the execution is lacking. Some scenes are unnecessary, some need to be expanded upon. Most of the tension in the story feels artificial and forced - was it actually likely that other papers would steal the documents the second they were released, especially since no one else knew they were available? Chill, Mark Ruffalo. I was also confused by the big epiphany that they should use the record books to find priests that followed the pattern of disappearing and reappearing in a new parish every few years, since I'd assumed that was why they'd taken the books in the first place. To summarize: it's a decent movie, and I'm glad I saw it, but it has too many flaws to make it truly deserving of this award.<br />
<br />
I don't have a clue what's coming up next, but in the meantime you should read my blog about Best Actress Winners <a href="http://bpwbestactress.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">here</a>. I'm caught up except for the most recent winner, so now I'm trying to decide what to blog about next. If you have any suggestions let me know. It doesn't necessarily have to be Oscar-related, but it will probably be movie-related.bestpicturewatcherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08512803324684884985noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1376925753330194950.post-55782036473289748662015-06-10T19:12:00.003-07:002015-06-10T19:12:40.564-07:002014: Birdman: Or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-xW_lNfqxmCo/VXjug3endPI/AAAAAAAAAb4/eNlHIdvVg_k/s1600/Birdman.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="180" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-xW_lNfqxmCo/VXjug3endPI/AAAAAAAAAb4/eNlHIdvVg_k/s320/Birdman.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
Actor Riggan Thomson is known for one role: that of the superhero Birdman, which he played in three movies 20 years ago. He decides to write, direct, and star in a Broadway play, just to prove that he can. The film chronicles the days leading up to the play's opening, following Riggan, his ex-wife and daughter, his lawyer, and his fellow cast members.<br />
<br />
I have very mixed feelings about this movie. On the one hand, I kind of hate the plot and all of the characters. On the other hand, I really like the way it was filmed. From the beginning, I noticed that something felt odd about the camera work, but I couldn't quite place it at first. After a little while I figured out what was going on: it was filmed to look like it was (almost) all one continuous shot. It's not like this is the first time this has been done; Alfred Hitchcock used it in his 1948 thriller, <i>Rope</i>. But while <i>Rope</i> takes place entirely in one tiny apartment, <i>Birdman</i> goes all over the place and even includes a flying sequence. Once I realized that that was why it felt weird, I started to enjoy the movie a lot more than I had been. I was less bothered by the characters and story because I could focus on the technique.<br />
<br />
Beyond that, I didn't think this film had much to recommend it. The cast gave very convincing performances, but I couldn't really relate to any of the characters. The few people I was actually interested in were underdeveloped in favor of drawn out conversations between obnoxious characters about boring topics. There were also way too many underwear scenes and instances of unnecessary profanity for my taste. I guess I can kind of see why some people really like it, but it's definitely not my type of movie. Granted, it was very beautifully filmed, so I did enjoy watching it from that perspective. But there were several great movies that came out in 2014 that I enjoyed watching a lot more, so I'm not convinced that <i>Birdman</i> deserved to win Best Picture. Still, I'm glad I watched it. I kind of wish I'd gone into it knowing about the filming like it was one shot thing (although once I noticed it, it did seem vaguely familiar) so I could have focused on that the whole time, but it was also nice going into it knowing very little about it so I wasn't biased one way or the other.<br />
<br />
Coming up next: I don't know, but I hope something with a female protagonist. It's been like 10 years since the last one. It's time.<br />
<br />
P.S. In case you're interested, I'm also blogging about Best Actress Winners <a href="http://bpwbestactress.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">here</a>.bestpicturewatcherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08512803324684884985noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1376925753330194950.post-31240306942482739502015-03-21T15:52:00.000-07:002015-03-21T15:52:45.953-07:002013: 12 Years a Slave<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-TvbvXepEMiU/VQ3zy0iBeLI/AAAAAAAAAWs/RGqHGGLnUSE/s1600/12yas.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-TvbvXepEMiU/VQ3zy0iBeLI/AAAAAAAAAWs/RGqHGGLnUSE/s1600/12yas.jpg" height="213" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
Solomon Northup is a free black man living in New York with his wife and children, until he is abducted and sold into slavery. The film chronicles the horrors he faces as he desperately struggles to regain his freedom.<br />
<br />
I first watched this movie several months ago, but I didn't blog about it then, and it had been long enough that I decided to watch it again before doing so. I'm very glad I did, because I thought it was much better the second time. Part of the reason I didn't want to blog about it right away was because I had heard so much praise for it, heard it called the definitive movie about slavery so often, that I didn't want to admit I didn't think it was that great. The beginning is really confusing. I still don't understand why it starts with scenes from the middle of the story, or what the point of that one sex scene is. The story also drags a lot, with a few too many scenes of nothing but Solomon staring into space contemplatively. But beyond those complaints, overall I think it's a very good film that effectively conveys the evils of slavery.<br />
<br />
I'm pretty sure most people already know that slavery is evil without watching this movie, but there were aspects of it that I hadn't thought about, or at least had never seen portrayed before. The way the one plantation owner kept waking his slaves in the middle of the night to make them dance, just because he could. The way other slaves were expected to just go on with their work while one was being brutally beaten or almost hanged in the background. The way the plantation owner's wife was so jealous that her husband was sleeping with his slave that she wouldn't even let that slave have soap. The way that even the "nice" white people still unquestioningly accepted the privileges they received from such a messed-up system, taking for granted that they were somehow superior. The way that Solomon and the other slaves who knew who he was kept saying that he didn't deserve to be there, as if those who were born into slavery did. This film presents all these and many other sad truths without any ceremony or fluff; this is just how it was. All this comes together under the expert direction of Steve McQueen, with fabulous performances by the entire cast, particularly Chiwetel Enjiofor as Solomon. And then there's Lupita Nyong'o, whose incredible, haunting performance earned her a well-deserved Best Supporting Actress Oscar. The first time I watched this movie, I couldn't really get past the odd beginning, but this time I was able to fully appreciate just how well put together the rest of it is.<br />
<br />
This is based on a true story that I'm not familiar with, so I don't know exactly how accurate the film is, but despite any factual inaccuracies it may have, it still seems brutally honest. Not that I actually witnessed that part of history, obviously, but I am aware that centuries later, our country still hasn't fully recovered from the side effects of slavery, particularly racism and fear of those who look different from us. I'm also aware that slavery still exists, though it seems like people are far less accepting of it now, as long as they know about it, which I guess is something.<br />
<br />
I think it's interesting that of all the Best Picture Winners that dealt with historical issues, this is the first one to deal with slavery directly. The only other one I can think of that really talks about it at all is <a href="http://bestpicturewatcher.blogspot.com/2010/08/1939-gone-with-wind.html" target="_blank">Gone with the Wind</a>, which, while mostly a very good film, does a really terrible job of portraying slavery, implying that people were somehow happy to be enslaved and were only freed because of the meddlesome Yankees who didn't understand the benefits of the system. And somehow, though it's awful and many of us would prefer to forget about it, and though the effects of racism still tear this country apart, the fact that we're talking about slavery in this way at all seems like a step forward, albeit a tiny one.<br />
<br />
Next Best Picture Winner: Birdman<br />
<br />
I'm also planning to watch all the films that won Best Actress in order and blog about them on this account, kind of like this blog but focusing on the actresses' performances rather than the movie as a whole, so look out for that. Also in 2013 I wrote about all the movies I'd watched at least 10 times in the previous 10 years <a href="http://10views10years.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">here</a> in case you're interested in reading more of my movie thoughts. Also thanks for being one of the approximately 5 people who actually read this. You're awesome!bestpicturewatcherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08512803324684884985noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1376925753330194950.post-22958309240348030092013-07-11T22:24:00.002-07:002013-07-11T22:24:20.648-07:002012: Argo<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-zXKfCb1MG4M/Ud-FLk7lbKI/AAAAAAAAAR4/KiPPrnAnOJk/s1600/argo+f+yourself.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-zXKfCb1MG4M/Ud-FLk7lbKI/AAAAAAAAAR4/KiPPrnAnOJk/s1600/argo+f+yourself.jpg" /></a></div>
During the U.S. hostage crisis in Iran, six Americans escape and hide out with the Canadian ambassador. In order to get them safely home before they are discovered and executed, Tony Mendez of the C.I.A. invents a fake movie so they can pretend to be a Canadian film crew looking for a desert location.<br />
<br />
I've heard this movie get a lot of hate. People complain that it's historically inaccurate and that it's a horrible insult to all the brilliant films made in 2012 that this was named Best Picture, but while I will agree that there were a lot of good films in 2012, I actually really liked Argo and was glad it won. After all, this isn't an award for the most historically accurate movie of the year. Part of the point of this film is that Hollywood is fake, so maybe it was inaccurate on purpose to prove its point. I don't know and I don't care, and I know people have valid reasons for disagreeing with me, but I'm going to talk briefly about why I think Argo deserved this award.<br />
<br />
First of all, historically accurate or not, it's a fascinating story. It sounds completely ridiculous to use a fake movie to save people's lives, but sometimes ridiculous ideas actually work. Though I would have liked more character development of the six people being rescued, I think keeping the audience from getting to know them too well was the filmmakers' way of showing us Tony's perspective. He's risking everything to pull off a plan he knows will almost certainly fail to save people he doesn't even know. Yes, that's his job, but that doesn't make it any less heroic. So I was surprised to find myself so invested in whether they were rescued, since I'm usually more interested in characters that I feel I've gotten to know. I'm still not exactly sure how this film managed to pull this off, but for whatever reason I found myself just as invested in the fates of these six people whose names I could barely remember as I'd ever been in the fate of a movie character, which is a lot more than it probably should be.<br />
<br />
As a result, this is just about the most stressful movie I've ever watched. Even though I knew they were going to get out alive, the whole time I couldn't help thinking that there was no possible way that they could. I think the filmmakers did an excellent job of building tension, and the first time I saw it I could hardly breathe during the second half and was literally clutching my sister's hand for most of the airport scene. That, to me, is evidence of good filmmaking. Thankfully, there is a significant amount of comedic relief, particularly in the form of John Goodman and Alan Arkin, but even that is laden with tension. It seems like they're only making jokes so that they don't have to think about the potential consequences of failure, which almost makes the whole experience even more stressful. Just to be clear, I think this is a good thing. I think a movie's job is to transport its audience into the story, and with a story like this it needs to be stressful. So while I definitely wouldn't be able to watch this every day, I think it's a well done film. You can disagree with me, that's your prerogative, but if you've been warned that Argo isn't worth watching, let me urge you to give it a chance. You might be pleasantly surprised as I was.bestpicturewatcherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08512803324684884985noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1376925753330194950.post-87244305485796930032012-09-05T22:04:00.000-07:002013-01-01T23:56:04.186-08:002011: The Artist<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-aqNFOlr68g8/UEgur7aZ_AI/AAAAAAAAAJQ/kdCNX7R_LY4/s1600/artist.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-aqNFOlr68g8/UEgur7aZ_AI/AAAAAAAAAJQ/kdCNX7R_LY4/s1600/artist.jpg" /></a></div>
Silent film star George Valentin is on top of the world...that is, until the talkie era sets in. George refuses to make the transition, and begins to fade into obscurity. On the other hand, Peppy Miller, who got her start as an extra in a Valentin movie, shoots to fame in talking pictures. As George's world spirals out of control, all of Peppy's dreams come true. But Peppy happens to be in love with George, and that might just be all he needs to get his life back on track.<br />
<br />
The Artist is a very unusual movie for many different reasons. Most obviously, it is a silent film from the 21st century. As the film itself portrays, once movies started talking they never looked back. Until now. But even for a silent film it's unusual. It almost feels wrong to call it a silent film, since sound plays such an important role in the story, and there are a few sequences that use sound. When George stubbornly decides to make his own film without sound, he has a dream that everything makes sound except him. It's an eerie scene: the instrumental soundtrack temporarily disappears, and various clunks and thuds are heard, then the barking of a dog and the ringing of a telephone. One could almost say Sound is the villain in this movie, at least until George learns to work with it in the end. This is what makes it so different from other silent films: it's silent by choice. In the same way that <a href="http://bestpicturewatcher.blogspot.com/2011/03/1993-schindlers-list.html" target="_blank">Schindler's List</a> was black and white to emphasize the darkness of the Holocaust, The Artist is silent to emphasize George's struggles with sound. It's a film technique, rather than a medium, as silent film was in the 1920s. And it works beautifully. The lack of audible dialogue aids instead of hinders the telling of a moving story, portrayed by actors with faces that would make Norma Desmond proud. Jean Dujardin is adorable when he laughs and smiles, and heartbreaking when his character is at the end of his rope. And Bérénice Bejo has fabulous, subtle facial expressions, which is rather surprising given the over-exaggerated faces one might expect from a silent film. And I'll never say anything against adding a cute dog to a movie, particularly when he's so much like Asta from the Thin Man movies. The cinematography and soundtrack are equally beautiful, and the story is both tear-jerking and uplifting. In short, this is a wonderful film, and that's coming from a viewer who generally only enjoys movies with witty dialogue.<br />
<br />
If I had to fault this film, I would say that it's a little too much like Singin' in the Rain. Both movies, in a nutshell, are about a self-centered silent movie star who has trouble making the transition until a young, up-and-coming woman convinces him to make a musical. At the beginning of the film, I actually thought, "How odd, a silent remake of a musical." But The Artist delves into much darker themes than Singin' in the Rain, and besides the beginning and the very end, it's very much its own story. And anyway, I like Singin' in the Rain, so I don't mind that this film emulates it to a certain extent.<br />
<br />
Since I loved this and the previous year's winner so much, I can't wait to find out what next year's winner is! Although, now that I've said that, I'll probably hate it, but I'll just have to wait and see.bestpicturewatcherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08512803324684884985noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1376925753330194950.post-19411704500857591972011-06-26T14:42:00.000-07:002011-06-26T14:42:57.752-07:002010: The King's Speech<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TzJtizUwn-g/Tgemjtkro8I/AAAAAAAAAJE/bAgFPf3btD8/s1600/tks.bmp" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" i$="true" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TzJtizUwn-g/Tgemjtkro8I/AAAAAAAAAJE/bAgFPf3btD8/s1600/tks.bmp" /></a></div>Bertie stammers when he speaks. Unfortunately, he is also the son of King George V of England, which means that not only is he required to speak publicly, he must do so on live radio. He tries everything to get rid of the stammer, but nothing works until his wife finds Lionel Logue, an unconventional Australian speech therapist. Although Bertie and Lionel get off to a rough start, they eventually develop a strong friendship. Slowly but surely, Bertie's speech begins to improve, which becomes even more crucial as his older brother seems determined to abdicate the throne, leaving Bertie to become King George VI.<br />
<br />
This was the first Best Picture Winner to be announced after I started this blog, and I was thrilled that it won because I had already seen it and loved it. I think it's a spectacular story told extraordinarily well with a fabulous cast - what more could one ask of a film? The characters are so real, so relatable, so human that they always make me cry, not because the film is particularly depressing, but because it's just so moving. To turn a story about pre-World War II British royalty into something relevant to a modern everyday American like me is no easy task, but the makers of The King's Speech manage it effortlessly. Every aspect of filmmaking works together to achieve this, especially the cast. Colin Firth is so utterly convincing as Bertie that I almost forgot that he doesn't actually stammer in real life. He so thoroughly deserved his Best Actor Oscar that it would have been a crime if he hadn't received it. And his entire supporting cast - especially Helena Bonham Carter as his wife and Geoffrey Rush as Lionel - all develop their own complex characters while strengthening Firth's portrayal of the main character. Almost every actor in this film is well-known for several other roles, but that doesn't detract from the strength of this story, nor are their famous names the film's only draw. Because at its core, The King's Speech isn't just about a speech or a speech defect; it's about friendship and overcoming obstacles, which are two things that everyone can relate to.<br />
<br />
So, when it comes to The King's Speech, I love the story, I love the characters, I love the cast, the soundtrack, the lighting, the script, the camera movement and angles, and pretty much everything else. The one flaw I've found is that although the film takes place over several years, none of the characters really seem to age, which is especially noticeable in the king's young daughters. But that's quite trivial in the grand scheme of the film, which on the whole is absolutely spectacular.<br />
<br />
And on that note, I have completed my watching and blogging of all the winners of the Academy Award for Best Picture! Well, so far, at least. I may be back with some analyses of my favorites and least favorites, and I'll possibly continue this with future winners; I haven't really decided yet. I also have some ideas for other movie blogging projects, which may or may not come to fruition on this account, so stay tuned if you want. I know this hasn't been the most successful blogging venture ever, since very few of the people I told to check out my blog actually did, but while I greatly appreciate those of you who have been keeping up with it, I mostly did it for fun rather than to obtain followers. For those of you who are just discovering this after the fact, feel free to look back and leave comments; I'll probably respond. As of right now I have exactly 1,000 page views, which is not very significant considering how many of those were mine, but I think it's really cool to end on a round number like that. Overall the project's been really fun and I'm glad I did it. So thanks for reading, and I'll quite possibly be writing again before too long.<br />
<br />
Next Best Picture Winner: only time (and the Academy) will tellbestpicturewatcherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08512803324684884985noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1376925753330194950.post-18595677288492291772011-06-25T10:58:00.000-07:002011-06-25T11:00:15.715-07:002009: The Hurt Locker<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-FXF2wNzevO0/TgYhtdZ2Y2I/AAAAAAAAAJA/K87R2RxrhrM/s1600/thl.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" i$="true" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-FXF2wNzevO0/TgYhtdZ2Y2I/AAAAAAAAAJA/K87R2RxrhrM/s1600/thl.jpg" /></a></div>When the leader of an elite bomb-disarming squad in Iraq is killed in an explosion, he is replaced by Will James, whose new subordinates soon discover that he acts as though he is addicted to putting himself in life-threatening situations. While Sanborn and Eldridge just want to get the job done and get out as quickly as possible, James takes his time, savoring the adrenaline rush. War is a drug.<br />
<br />
Although this film may seem similar to a lot of other Best Picture Winners (i.e., it's a depressing war movie), it's actually very different. For one thing, as of when I'm writing this, it's the only Best Picture Winner to have been directed by a woman (Kathryn Bigelow). It also has a very documentary-ish feel to it, as if someone just came in with a hand-held camera and started filming the bomb squad. While the shakiness is fairly dizzying and headache-inducing, it definitely contributes to the sense of realism, as well as the portrayal of the chaotic nature of war. Unlike many war films, which try to show the insignificance of individuals on the battlefield, this film shows the immense importance of three individuals, who quite possibly have the most dangerous job in the world. This ultimately makes the film a character study of different types of people trying to stay alive against all odds, rather than a series of explosions and violent deaths. This movie is intense not just because of special effects, but also because we are genuinely concerned that James's recklessness will get them all killed.<br />
<br />
That said, I don't think I'll be watching this movie again any time soon because, while I thought it was very well done and intriguing, it was way too intense for me. Unlike James, I do not thrive on adrenaline rushes, and would much rather be able to relax a little during movies. In this film, you never know when an unexpected explosion or sniper is going to come out of nowhere, so even the scenes when they're not going on a mission are filled with tension and suspense. This gives a very good idea of what war is really like, which I'm sure was the goal, but it doesn't make it something that can be watched over and over again.<br />
<br />
And last (for now, anyway) but certainly not least will be: The King's Speechbestpicturewatcherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08512803324684884985noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1376925753330194950.post-72707541028365985922011-06-21T23:23:00.000-07:002011-06-26T13:52:09.807-07:002008: Slumdog Millionaire<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-_K7e21T9Pp0/TgGJYvoXEII/AAAAAAAAAI8/GTlZRkW1sVY/s1600/sm.bmp" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" i$="true" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-_K7e21T9Pp0/TgGJYvoXEII/AAAAAAAAAI8/GTlZRkW1sVY/s1600/sm.bmp" /></a></div>Jamal Malik is doing very well on the Indian version of the quiz show "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?" So well, in fact, that officials believe that he must be cheating. How else could an uneducated 18-year-old from the slums answer such difficult questions? Through a series of flashbacks, the audience and the police are shown not only how Jamal knows the answers, but also what his life was like and the reason he wanted to go on the show in the first place.<br />
<br />
This film is very well done. Scenes from the present and the past are edited together perfectly. What the filmmakers decide to show, and when these events are shown, gives a very good idea of what happens in Jamal's life without spoon-feeding it to the audience. Some things aren't perfectly clear, but you can pretty much always at least infer what's going on. Life is confusing and messy, and that is certainly portrayed in this film, both by the story itself and by the way it is told. There are a lot of oblique camera angles, which also add to the feeling of chaos. Plus, this film has amazing character development. I would think that it would be very difficult to keep the characters consistent throughout the movie, especially since the main characters are each played by three different actors, but somehow they manage it. Jamal is Jamal, whether he's a little kid speaking Hindi, a young teenager speaking broken English, or an 18-year-old answering questions on a TV show. Jamal is also an extremely likable character, which is another reason I really enjoy this movie.<br />
<br />
It might not sound that interesting to watch a film about somebody going on a game show. But that's not actually what this movie's about. It's really about what happens to different people when they are put in difficult circumstances. Jamal and his brother Salim grow up together in the slums, but they turn into extremely different people. Salim becomes a gangster, while Jamal spends his whole life trying to find a way to live happily ever after with a girl named Latica. As the film concerns poverty in India, it is inevitably quite depressing, but because Jamal never gives up hope, it's impossible to walk away from this film not smiling. Although that may have something to do with the Bollywood dance during the credits.<br />
<br />
My one major complaint about this movie is that the subtitles when they're speaking Hindi are really difficult to read. This may seem trivial, but it's very frustrating because a lot of what they say is crucial to understanding the plot. But all that - and some of the disturbingly depressing subject matter - aside, I think this is definitely one of the better Best Picture Winners.<br />
<br />
Following this: The Hurt Lockerbestpicturewatcherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08512803324684884985noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1376925753330194950.post-39390035447222673232011-06-16T23:03:00.000-07:002011-06-17T10:30:32.683-07:002007: No Country for Old Men<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-qOSJ1hymoj8/TfruGIxE9jI/AAAAAAAAAI4/vK9Z2fuvT44/s1600/ncfom.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" i$="true" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-qOSJ1hymoj8/TfruGIxE9jI/AAAAAAAAAI4/vK9Z2fuvT44/s1600/ncfom.jpg" /></a></div>A man happens upon the scene of a drug deal gone wrong, consisting of several dead bodies, a truck full of heroin, and a suitcase full of two million dollars. He decides to take the cash, but unfortunately, someone wants it back. And that someone just happens to be a really creepy psychopath armed with a bullet-less but deadly gun.<br />
<br />
I'm sorry to have to say it, but I absolutely hate this movie. It's mostly a string of pointless violence, and I just don't find those kinds of films entertaining. Javier Bardem does a really good job of being creepy, but his character is so profoundly disturbing that it's difficult to appreciate his talent. I do have to say that Tommy Lee Jones has a really amazing speaking voice. During his scenes, I could tune out the disturbing, pointless plot and focus on how awesome his voice sounds. And yes, this movie is so awful that the only positive aspect is Tommy Lee Jones's voice.<br />
<br />
Tempting as it would be to say that I merely dislike the genre - as I said for <a href="http://bestpicturewatcher.blogspot.com/2011/02/1991-silence-of-lambs.html">The Silence of the Lambs</a> - I don't think that's true. I do enjoy suspense thrillers, most of the time. But not when they consist of random scenes of a creepy guy killing nice people with an air gun thing. Those scenes don't make up the entire film, but there are way more of them than necessary. At least during the scenes with Tommy Lee Jones, who plays a sheriff who's trying to catch Javier Bardem's character, the audience can relax a little because they know no one is going to be brutally murdered. But even those scenes are depressing because he's basically talking about how the world is going down the drain and we're all doomed. That part reminds me a lot of <a href="http://bestpicturewatcher.blogspot.com/2010/08/19321933-cavalcade.html">Cavalcade</a> (the Best Picture Winner of 1932/33). Come to think of it, this movie is pretty much a combination of Cavalcade and the end of <a href="http://bestpicturewatcher.blogspot.com/2011/06/2006-departed.html">The Departed</a>, neither of which, as you may recall, I thought very highly of. "The world's going to hell, and let's kill a bunch of people randomly."<br />
<br />
I will never understand why this movie won 4 Academy Awards, is in the top 250 on imdb, or has been lauded as the Coen brothers' best film. This is the second time I've seen it, and I hope that I will never have to sit through it again.<br />
<br />
Next: Slumdog Millionairebestpicturewatcherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08512803324684884985noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1376925753330194950.post-63054031983562753082011-06-09T23:55:00.000-07:002011-06-09T23:55:29.237-07:002006: The Departed<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-WWe7a_vHNkc/TfG_w-fP5YI/AAAAAAAAAI0/EkS5SE10svU/s1600/departed.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-WWe7a_vHNkc/TfG_w-fP5YI/AAAAAAAAAI0/EkS5SE10svU/s1600/departed.jpg" t8="true" /></a></div>New cop Billy Costigan goes undercover to try to catch notorious mob boss Frank Costello, but Costello has spies of his own in the police department.<br />
<br />
Most of this movie is pretty good. The dramatic camera angles and lighting perfectly enhance the suspense of an already intriguing story. The performances are brilliant, which is only to be expected with such talented actors as Jack Nicholson, Matt Damon, and Leonardo DiCaprio (even though he still kind of looks like he's 14). The characters are so real that one can't help feeling for them, even the bad guys. The dialogue has way too much profanity, but it kind of adds to the character development (although using the f-word a quarter of the number of times they did would have been too many). And as soon as the characters are established, the audience is hooked. Who's going to be found out first? What's going to happen next? It's so intense in parts that it's almost unwatchable, but never quite crosses that line until the end.<br />
<br />
I'm just going to be blatantly honest: I think the end of this movie is stupid. I'm sure there's a very good reason why it ends the way it does, but it seems to me like the filmmakers couldn't think of a good ending, so they just decided to kill everyone. After two and a half hours of buildup, we're left with, "And pretty much everybody gets shot, the end." Seriously? I guess the point is that you shouldn't get involved with the mob, and I understand that it makes sense for people to die in this situation, but it kind of happens out of the blue. Since the story is so perfectly orchestrated up to that point, it's incredibly disappointing to be left with the feeling that no one could come up with a good way to end it.<br />
<br />
So if I had made this movie, I would have held back on the profanity and put more effort into the ending. But I didn't. And the vast majority of this film is extraordinarily well-done, and I'm sure that modern action-thriller fans love it. But it's not going on my list of favorite movies of all time.<br />
<br />
Coming up: No Country for Old Menbestpicturewatcherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08512803324684884985noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1376925753330194950.post-51687829008323189642011-06-01T23:10:00.000-07:002011-06-01T23:10:56.810-07:002005: Crash<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-iTHKDfzc7Ck/TecpR_EsTnI/AAAAAAAAAIw/pua96URUC4U/s1600/crash.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-iTHKDfzc7Ck/TecpR_EsTnI/AAAAAAAAAIw/pua96URUC4U/s1600/crash.jpg" t8="true" /></a></div>A bunch of random people in Los Angeles have different interactions throughout the course of a couple of days, during which time they all confront their own personal issues with racism.<br />
<br />
The idea behind this movie is fascinating. It shows racism from multiple perspectives without condemning any particular person or group of people; everyone is equally to blame. This idea transfers to film quite well; it's easy to switch back and forth between people facing very different, yet ultimately quite similar, situations. As a whole, it's a really depressing movie, as the implication is that we'll never be able to work out our differences and overcome the terrible problems that are caused by blind hatred and prejudice. But this film does a really good job of showing that all people are more complex than they seem, even if they appear to be just fulfilling stereotypes. So maybe films like this one will eventually motivate people to change things. I don't know, but I hope so.<br />
<br />
The thing that I like the most about Crash is that all the characters are very realistic. They all have multiple layers, and each is unique. Some learn more from their experiences than others. By the end of the film, some of their problems are resolved, but not all of them. These characters have their own complete lives; audiences get the feeling that they're only seeing brief snapshots. So often, movie characters' lives seem to begin and end with what we see on screen, but that's definitely not the case here. It's also interesting how most of the characters aren't particularly likeable, but one can't help sympathizing with them all because their flaws are what make them seem so human.<br />
<br />
There were other aspects of this movie that I didn't like as well. There's way too much profanity for my taste (although I guess that, too, contributes to the sense of reality). And as necessary as it is to discuss racism's continued presence in our society, this gets a little old after a while. It's as if the filmmakers are trying to say "Racism is bad and it's still around" in as many different ways as possible in two hours. The whole thing is just a little too preachy. It's not very hopeful, either, because it presents racism as a problem that has no solution. Overall, I think it's a well-made film with good character development and an important message, but, like Million Dollar Baby, it's not a movie that I want to watch over and over again.<br />
<br />
Next up: The Departedbestpicturewatcherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08512803324684884985noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1376925753330194950.post-25191503935079859482011-05-31T22:20:00.000-07:002011-05-31T22:20:39.037-07:002004: Million Dollar Baby<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ZotCJDzLqYI/TeXME-e-95I/AAAAAAAAAIs/0FvifaGGPDg/s1600/mdb.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ZotCJDzLqYI/TeXME-e-95I/AAAAAAAAAIs/0FvifaGGPDg/s1600/mdb.jpg" t8="true" /></a></div><span style="font-family: inherit;">Maggie Fitzgerald is a nobody from nowhere who wants to be a boxer. Frankie Dunn is an old boxing trainer who insists that he doesn't train girls. But Maggie's persistance wins him over, and, with the help of a former-boxer-turned-gym-caretaker named Scrap, Frankie turns Maggie into a world-renowned boxer.</span><br />
<br />
This movie is extremely well-made. The casting is brilliant; Hilary Swank is a perfectly relatable Maggie, and Morgan Freeman is simply amazing, as always. But this is pretty much Clint Eastwood's project - he stars in, directs, produces, and even composes music for this film. And it comes together beautifully. It's kind of a dark story, so many scenes take place at night, when there's only a single shaft of light. The mood created by the cinematography is somber yet hopeful, which perfectly complements the story. From the lighting to the soundtrack to the character development, and everything in between, one couldn't ask for a better-crafted film.<br />
<br />
While this movie is incredible, it's also excruciatingly painful to watch. I will never understand why people consider boxing matches entertaining. I wince at every punch, even though I know it's not even real. And then the climax is heart-stopping. This is the second time I've seen this film, and it was much more painful than the first time, since I spent most of it anticipating the horrible things that I knew were going to happen later. This is a fabulous film, but it's definitely not one that can be watched over and over again.<br />
<br />
Stay tuned for: Crashbestpicturewatcherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08512803324684884985noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1376925753330194950.post-68752269231119456412011-05-28T14:18:00.000-07:002011-05-28T14:18:19.661-07:002003: The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-DReg3xe8b7Y/TeFl6F34A0I/AAAAAAAAAHk/9kLgBqRPF7I/s1600/lotr.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-DReg3xe8b7Y/TeFl6F34A0I/AAAAAAAAAHk/9kLgBqRPF7I/s1600/lotr.jpg" t8="true" /></a></div>Frodo, Sam, and Gollum continue into Mordor with the One Ring of Power, while everyone else prepares for an epic battle of good versus evil in Gondor.<br />
<br />
As I mentioned in my last post - a month ago - I read the books and watched the first two movies before watching this one. Mostly, I'm really glad I did, because if I had just tried to watch this knowing what I knew about The Lord of the Rings a couple of months ago (basically nothing), I would have been completely lost. But part of me is kind of sad that I read the books first because I ended up spending most of the movies arguing with the screen, shouting things like, "What?! It's not supposed to happen like that!" Which is almost exactly how I watch the Harry Potter movies, so I should have known better. Why is it that modern Hollywood takes good, epic adventure stories with strong characters and turns them into big fight scenes with intense visual effects? They take some scenes that are briefly important to the story and draw them out and dramatize them, while other equally important scenes with less melodramatic potential are shortened or eliminated entirely. I'm going to try to talk about this movie without comparing it to the book the whole time, but I just had to get this out. The books are infinitely better than the movies.<br />
<br />
Looking at this movie alone is difficult to do. It's not just the third installment of a trilogy; it's more like the third part of one long story. So just watching it on its own would make absolutely no sense. I think it's probably the best of the three, but I honestly believe the main reason it won Best Picture is because all three were nominated and this was the last chance for one to win. It tells a good story about overcoming evil, but it's extremely hard to follow that story. All of the quick switches between subplots are dizzying, and none of the characters are developed enough for the audience to really care about them, with the possible exceptions of Frodo, Sam and Gollum. Their scenes are the most interesting part of the movie; everything else just gets really old really fast. Many of the fight scenes drag on and on until I lose interest, and then suddenly something completely unrelated is happening and I feel like I've missed something. The dialogue is really difficult to understand, particularly when Gandalf speaks in his soft, fading old man voice, which further contributes to the confusion. The main reason I think people like this movie is the visual effects, which are admittedly pretty awesome. Still, as I'm sure I've mentioned before, I don't watch movies for the special effects; I watch them for the characters and the story, which are both somewhat lacking in this movie. It's mostly just a big battle, with a few interesting scenes stuck in.<br />
<br />
So all in all, I didn't think this movie was much to write home about. Lord of the Rings fans the world over will hate me for saying that, but I think it's a shame that Tolkien's masterpiece was reduced to a bunch of visual effects. That's one blogger's opinion at least.<br />
<br />
Next: Million Dollar Babybestpicturewatcherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08512803324684884985noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1376925753330194950.post-35969427948191606762011-04-28T23:45:00.000-07:002011-04-28T23:45:37.464-07:002002: Chicago<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-zOUODs2CdNw/TbpefbMxgRI/AAAAAAAAAHg/TuFG6xVx7uI/s1600/chicago+2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" j8="true" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-zOUODs2CdNw/TbpefbMxgRI/AAAAAAAAAHg/TuFG6xVx7uI/s1600/chicago+2.jpg" /></a></div>More than anything else, Roxie Hart wants to be famous. When Fred Casely promises to get her an act in Vaudeville, she is perfectly willing to have an affair with him...until it turns out that he was lying about his connections. So she shoots him. Then she gets successful lawyer Billy Flynn to build up her defense by making her famous.<br />
<br />
By far the best aspect of this movie is the way the musical numbers are woven into the story. So often in musicals - in fact, almost always - people break out into song for no apparent reason whatsoever. In this movie, most of the songs are in Roxie's imagination. She is so obsessed with show business that in her mind she turns everything that happens into a big musical number. Shots of what she imagines are interspersed with shots of what is actually going on, often ironically, such as when Billy Flynn is first introduced. Roxie pictures him as a man who only cares about love, when clearly all he cares about is money. The flawless transitions between Roxie's dream world and her reality are what make this movie intriguing and set it apart from other musicals.<br />
<br />
Other than that, I really don't care for the message this movie portrays. It paints a very sad picture of our society, implying that the justice system is all about who can give a better performance, and life is all about who can get ahead. It's odd how most of the important characters are so unlikable, yet we cheer for them just the same. Part of this is due to the performances, particularly the spectacular Catherine Zeta-Jones, who won Best Supporting Actress for her portrayal of Velma Kelly, the once-famous murderess from whom Roxie steals the spotlight. I also think it's interesting that many of the actors and actresses cast in this musical were not famous for their singing talents, yet I believe they all did their own singing. Anyway, the only character I really find likeable is poor Amos Hart, Roxie's husband, who just wants to take care of her and love her, and whom she treats despicably. But he ends up with nothing, while the two murderesses get to be famous and Billy Flynn gets a bunch of money. It's really a sad story, but it's presented as an upbeat, colorful musical. Also, the costumes are way too revealing for my taste.<br />
<br />
But somehow, overall I like this movie. I think it's mostly the music and the whole imagination/reality juxtaposition, but there's also some pretty good dialogue, and the story is interesting, albeit far from the crime-never-pays, good-guys-always-win movies of which Hollywood was once so fond. Of course, those kind of movies don't win Best Picture too often. I think, for the most part, Chicago deserves to be on this list.<br />
<br />
Next is The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, and here I have a confession to make. The reason I've done so little Best Picture watching this month is because I was frantically trying to finish reading The Lord of the Rings before I had to watch the movie. So I'm planning to watch the first two movies first, and then watch the third one and blog about it. Bear with me.bestpicturewatcherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08512803324684884985noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1376925753330194950.post-84707594858209940832011-04-20T00:14:00.000-07:002011-06-16T23:10:27.092-07:002001: A Beautiful Mind<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-q1fi_yLWOdk/Ta6E0TcvSrI/AAAAAAAAAHY/Li9xAiyuX7A/s1600/abm.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" i8="true" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-q1fi_yLWOdk/Ta6E0TcvSrI/AAAAAAAAAHY/Li9xAiyuX7A/s1600/abm.jpg" /></a></div>This film tells the (mostly) true story of John Nash, who is socially awkward but mathematically brilliant. At first he just wants to discover a mathematical breakthrough that's enough to get him published, but he soon learns that his mind can be put to much greater use.<br />
<br />
I went into this movie knowing very little about it, and I think that's the best way to see it. Very rarely do I get to watch a film without having already formed some kind of opinions about it. If you haven't seen it yet, and don't know anything about it, my best advice is to stop reading and go watch the movie first, because I don't want to influence you. It's definitely worth watching, so you won't be wasting your time.<br />
<br />
For those who have already seen it, or just decided to ignore my advice from the last paragraph, I'll elaborate. I think this movie is incredible, from nearly every aspect imaginable. It's a fascinating story to start with, and it is told with a brilliant sense of reality that is almost ironic. Everything from the script and soundtrack to the sets and lighting come together perfectly to form a truly remarkable film. But I think the best aspect of the film is Russell Crowe's performance as Nash. After having just seen him play a very different character in Gladiator, I can't help but marvel at his versatility as an actor. He definitely should have won another Best Actor Oscar for this. At least the Academy recognized Jennifer Connelly for her understated performance as Nash's wife, and Ron Howard for directing this masterpiece, but I don't understand why Crowe didn't win. I know they probably wanted to give someone else a chance, but, come on, Tom Hanks won two in a row in the '90s! How could they give Russell Crowe the award for Gladiator and not for A Beautiful Mind? He was way better in this! Oh, well. He won a Golden Globe and several other awards. The Oscars aren't everything. Says the person who's watching all the Best Picture Oscar winners.<br />
<br />
This is the kind of film that challenges audiences intellectually, and I often don't like those because they're too confusing. While this movie is a bit confusing, it's still really easy to follow, which is nice. In a way it's very disturbing, but not compared to many other Best Picture Winners. Mostly it's about love and math, which I think is pretty awesome.<br />
<br />
Next up: Chicagobestpicturewatcherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08512803324684884985noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1376925753330194950.post-39043758867122788642011-04-06T01:24:00.000-07:002011-04-06T01:24:22.622-07:002000: Gladiator<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-tjSDuZcLJd0/TZwjKFUZBRI/AAAAAAAAAHU/-xTZrsIb4TY/s1600/gladiator.bmp" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" r6="true" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-tjSDuZcLJd0/TZwjKFUZBRI/AAAAAAAAAHU/-xTZrsIb4TY/s1600/gladiator.bmp" /></a></div>An aging Roman emperor unofficially appoints army general Maximus to turn the government back into a republic after his death. However, the emperor's son Commodus kills his father in order to become emperor himself. He then orders the slaughter of Maximus and his family when Maximus refuses to swear allegiance to him. Maximus manages to escape death and eventually returns to Rome as a gladiator to seek revenge on Commodus.<br />
<br />
As far as gruesome, epic, disturbing films go, this is one of the better ones. Maximus is a very sympathetic character, so the audience actually cares what happens to him. This turns what could have been a bunch of random bloody fighting into powerfully meaningful scenes. Though I don't like all the violence, it's not too difficult to look past the gore and focus on the characters, especially the contrast between Maximus and Commodus. One is courageous and fights for the chance to avenge his family's death; the other is a disturbed maniac who craves love and power, which no one wants to give him. You can't blame Marcus Aurelius for preferring Maximus over Commodus, despite Commodus's insistence that it's his father's fault that he's the way he is. To a certain extent, Commodus may have a point, but I think he's basically just evil.<br />
<br />
While this isn't really my type of movie, I can appreciate that it's well-made. The soundtrack and special effects are mind-blowing. The script is very good, although the dialogue is at times difficult to understand. And, of course, the intense fighting scenes are filmed and choreographed very well. I personally find it very difficult to get past the fact that it was good entertainment to watch people kill each other, although I guess people still kind of do that today. Of course, it's usually fake now, but on the screen it looks real. In ancient Rome they didn't have television, so actually killing people was the next best thing, I guess. It's all very disconcerting to me, which was probably the point of this film. I think a lot of people like it because they think the fight scenes are cool, which is sad because it means that we are still entertained by watching people kill each other. Between the evilness of Commodus and the whole idea behind gladiators, this is one of the most disturbing films I've ever seen. But in my opinion it is made watchable by the character development, which, as you've probably noticed if you've been following this blog, is something that usually makes or breaks a movie for me.<br />
<br />
Stay tuned for: A Beautiful Mindbestpicturewatcherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08512803324684884985noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1376925753330194950.post-82182344773869776142011-03-29T23:54:00.000-07:002011-05-28T13:44:37.171-07:001999: American Beauty<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ZUZeEWlvaBc/TZLTj1HvUuI/AAAAAAAAAHQ/_WZHJkpAwyA/s1600/ab.bmp" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" r6="true" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ZUZeEWlvaBc/TZLTj1HvUuI/AAAAAAAAAHQ/_WZHJkpAwyA/s1600/ab.bmp" /></a></div>The Burnham family is falling apart. Lester fantasizes about his teenage daughter's friend while his workaholic wife has an affair with her leading real estate competitor. Their daughter is having a relationship with the new next-door neighbor, a drug-dealer who likes to videotape everything and has an abusive father. <br />
<br />
For some reason, this movie has received tons of praise from critics, and is on most lists of the greatest films ever made. I found it postively disgusting, with very little to recommend it. The last five to ten minutes are by far the best part, but even that doesn't make up for the rest of the movie, which is mercifully short for a Best Picture Winner. It's all about people doing whatever they want with no concern for consequences or how they are affecting others. None of the characters are at all likeable or relateable, at least to me. All they do is have sex, do drugs, and freak out because they hate their lives. Maybe if they actually did something worthwhile their lives wouldn't be so pathetic, but that never seems to occur to them.<br />
<br />
There are some very artsy camera shots that are kind of interesting for a while, but then they just get super cheesy. Like the rose petals that float around whenever Kevin Spacey is fantasizing about the teenage girl. That might be kind of intriguing, but it's overdone and gets really boring. There are also some cool little plot twists, but they would be way more effective if I actually cared about the characters. I often found myself rolling my eyes at the screen, which is not something I often do when watching a movie, especially one with a reputation like this one has. At the end, I was pleasantly surprised with how well-done that part was compared to the rest of the film, but I think I was more relieved that it was finally over. How this movie beat The Sixth Sense I'll never know. When I watched The Sixth Sense for the first time, I immediately had to re-watch it. After seeing this movie for the first time, I never want to have to sit through it ever again.<br />
<br />
Next up: Gladiatorbestpicturewatcherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08512803324684884985noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1376925753330194950.post-10609631264721200132011-03-22T22:33:00.000-07:002016-01-12T22:10:22.721-08:001998: Shakespeare in Love<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-SVc0stziL7E/TYmGGcbzsQI/AAAAAAAAAHM/yGt6mF1QaAk/s1600/sil.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" r6="true" src="http://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-SVc0stziL7E/TYmGGcbzsQI/AAAAAAAAAHM/yGt6mF1QaAk/s1600/sil.jpg" /></a></div>
Will Shakespeare has promised several people to give them a new play called Romeo and Ethel the Pirate's Daughter. There's just one problem: he's experiencing the worst writer's block of his life. Then he meets and falls in love with the gorgeous Lady Viola, and the words begin flowing from his quill. But to complicate matters, Lady Viola is engaged to somebody else, and she's also disguising herself as a boy so she can play the lead in Shakespeare's new show. As Will and Viola's relationship evolves, so does the play he's writing.<br />
<br />
I think this is probably the most surprising Best Picture Winner so far. It actually borders on romantic comedy, and the Academy is usually loath to honor films of that genre with this award (with a few earlier exceptions). It's barely over two hours long, and it was also nominated against such depressing, well-made war films as Saving Private Ryan and Life is Beautiful. One can't help but wonder: what in the world possessed the Academy to call this the Best Picture of 1998?<br />
<br />
I don't know the answer for sure, but I have a few theories. It might be the incredible chemistry between the film's leads, Gwyneth Paltrow and Joseph Fiennes. Or the fabulous performances by the talented supporting cast, including Judi Dench, Geoffrey Rush, Colin Firth, and even Ben Affleck. Perhaps the Academy was blown away by the glamorous costumes or the witty dialogue. They might have been intrigued by the story within the story, and the effective manner in which the film showed Will's play and life mirroring each other. Or maybe they just got tired of all the overly depressing movies, and decided this was the year to go in a completely different direction.<br />
<br />
Whatever the reason, I'm glad this film won. Not because I think for a moment that it deserved the award more than Saving Private Ryan did, but because it's much better than I expected, and I probably wouldn't have watched it otherwise. There was way too much sex in it, but that's pretty much my only complaint. I've read Romeo and Juliet so many times, and seen so many versions of it on stage and screen, that it was very fun for me to watch the original idea evolve into what it eventually became. The way the story comes together is truly brilliant, and I don't think you have to be too familiar with Romeo and Juliet to appreciate that. Making 16th-century characters relatable to a 21st-century audience is no easy task, but these filmmakers managed it with ease. This is an entertaining film, and while I'm still kind of confused as to why it's on this list, I think it's well worth watching.<br />
<br />
Coming up next: American Beautybestpicturewatcherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08512803324684884985noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1376925753330194950.post-7118331090613474872011-03-22T01:07:00.000-07:002011-05-28T14:26:52.041-07:001997: Titanic<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-bbeZLCQIeR8/TYhYreE98CI/AAAAAAAAAHI/Cuogclp4Mc0/s1600/titanic.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" r6="true" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-bbeZLCQIeR8/TYhYreE98CI/AAAAAAAAAHI/Cuogclp4Mc0/s1600/titanic.jpg" /></a></div>Jack Dawson is a poor artist who wins a boat ticket to America in a poker game. Wealthy Rose DeWitt Bukater feels trapped with her unloveable fiance and snobbish mother. Jack stops Rose from committing suicide, and they fall for each other. But their love is doomed from the start, by a combination of Rose's determined fiance and a pesky iceburg. This is all told through the eyes of Rose as a 100-year-old woman to a crew searching for the legendary diamond that disappeared with the Titanic.<br />
<br />
It may seem kind of pointless to sit through this three-and-a-quarter-hour movie because obviously, everybody knows how it's going to end. If there's anyone in the world who doesn't know this already, let me spoil it for you: the ship sinks. This movie broke so many box office and award records that it's easy to dismiss it as over-rated. Maybe it is, a little bit. But somehow, for those three hours and fourteen minutes, the filmmakers manage to transport viewers to the night of April 14, 1912. As the film shows, it's one thing to talk about the mechanics of the ship sinking; it's quite another to actually experience it. The movie uses its brilliant script to set up well-developed, realistic characters for us to get attached to, and then lets the disaster strike. With mind-blowing visual and audio effects, we feel as though we are actually struggling to avoid the ice cold water right along with Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet. That, I think, more than anything else, is why this film has gotten so much hype: it truly brings history to life. Many other movies, especially Best Picture Winners, have attempted to achieve this, but very few pull it off as well as Titanic does.<br />
<br />
The best part about watching the movie this time for me, though, was having a group of friends there to watch it with me. This provided both a distraction from how depressing the story was and new insights into plot points. And of course, singing along with Celine Dion during the credits is only truly epic if you have other people there to join in.<br />
<br />
Despite the fact that it's difficult to sit through this whole movie, the soundtrack, script, characters, and special effects make it well worth your time. And although some of its records have since been broken, I am confident that this movie's appeal to a wide audience will make its reputation go on and on.<br />
<br />
Next: Shakespeare in Lovebestpicturewatcherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08512803324684884985noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1376925753330194950.post-90689695806169929982011-03-16T23:31:00.000-07:002011-03-16T23:34:05.047-07:001996: The English Patient<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-Ct-kvTm9pOs/TYGqhD5PPgI/AAAAAAAAAHE/d3Gp29MKjyE/s1600/tep.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" r6="true" src="https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-Ct-kvTm9pOs/TYGqhD5PPgI/AAAAAAAAAHE/d3Gp29MKjyE/s1600/tep.jpg" /></a></div>During World War II, a horribly disfigured man is rescued from a fiery plane wreck and treated by American medics in Italy. When it becomes apparent that he is going to die soon, a nurse decides to stay behind and look after him in an abandoned monastery so he doesn't have to be constantly transported with everyone else. Through a series of flashbacks, the mysterious patient's complex background slowly (very, <em>very</em> slowly) unfolds.<br />
<br />
There are aspects of this movie that I really like. The way the tormented man's memories are interspersed with scenes of his present suffering is very well done, for the most part. There are some really good lines of dialogue, and most of the characters are well-developed and intriguing. Also, Ralph Fiennes's makeup in the scenes that take place after the plane crash is very convincing. However, there are several aspects that I have issues with. I really enjoy Juliette Binoche's performance as the nurse, but I wish that she had more screen time. Way too much of the movie is devoted to love scenes between Kristin Scott Thomas and Ralph Fiennes. The story is difficult to get into at first, then it picks up and actually becomes captivating for a while. But then, pretty much out of nowhere, there are a whole bunch of boring sex scenes, bringing the story to a grinding halt, and it takes a long time for it to regain momentum. We get the point: they're having an affair. We don't have to see every moment of it. We want to know if he's really a German spy. Once again, the movie could have been a lot shorter. Then the end, when it finally comes, is kind of abrupt and disappointing, considering all the buildup of intrigue surrounding the main character. I also find it annoying that the character who's supposed to have lost his thumbs is obviously using his thumbs in all the long shots.<br />
<br />
Watching this movie confirmed that my fears have been realized: I have now reached the point in which every Best Picture Winner contains excessive nudity. Can I please go back to the '40s? The movies are still about the same war, but they've gotten longer and more vulgar. And while I'm ranting let me just ask Kristin Scott Thomas's character (I think her name is Katherine): why would you even consider having an affair with Ralph Fiennes when you were married to Colin Firth?<br />
<br />
Following this: Titanic (long, depressing, nudity...)bestpicturewatcherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08512803324684884985noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1376925753330194950.post-39520768757696671142011-03-15T22:50:00.000-07:002011-03-15T22:50:06.443-07:001995: Braveheart<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-cXygPB-ayWc/TYBOjdHNEHI/AAAAAAAAAHA/8XwckrOz2z0/s1600/braveheart.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" r6="true" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-cXygPB-ayWc/TYBOjdHNEHI/AAAAAAAAAHA/8XwckrOz2z0/s1600/braveheart.jpg" /></a></div>When the King of Scotland dies without an heir, the King of England claims Scotland for his own. He sends his soldiers to oppress the Scottish people because he feels like it, and the Scotsmen can't do anything about it because they are horribly outnumbered and too caught up in fighting amongst themselves. That is, until the British mess with William Wallace. Intelligent, bold and determined to win freedom at all costs, Wallace bands his people together to resist the British tyranny that has been thrust upon them.<br />
<br />
I'm not really sure how I feel about this movie. On the one hand, the story is pretty interesting, many of the characters are inspiring, and the whole thing is very epic. On the other hand, it's just a bunch of random fighting that drags on and on. It's almost three hours long, and could easily have been less than two. I understand that the fighting is necessary to the story, but it doesn't take long for a whole bunch of stabbing, spearing, whacking, ax-wielding, arrow-shooting, and manly war cries to get really old. I do like the costumes, hair and makeup, and how they show a tremendous contrast between the poor Scotsmen and the wealthy noblemen of both Scotland and England. I even like the Scotsmen's random blue war paint that is never explained. However, it annoys me how easy it is to kill the English, but when Mel Gibson gets stabbed in the heart or clubbed by about a dozen soldiers, he's absolutely fine. I'm just sure.<br />
<br />
In true Best Picture Winner form, this movie is incredibly depressing and disturbing. Wallace's whole vendetta against the British starts when British soldiers kill his new wife for fighting back when they try to rape her. The British king is basically evil incarnate, not caring who has to die as long as he expands his territory, and there's a father of a Scottish nobleman who's pretty vile as well. So this film can be seen as an intriguing character study contrasting men who are motivated by power with those who are motivated by freedom. But mostly I saw it as a long, gory, grusome nightmare that would not end. This film will not be going on a list of my favorites, although I am not at all surprised that it is on this list.<br />
<br />
Next up: The English Patientbestpicturewatcherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08512803324684884985noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1376925753330194950.post-45510367688403951892011-03-12T00:40:00.000-08:002011-03-12T00:40:38.673-08:001994: Forrest Gump<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-94FguKu8tlM/TXswxjnqdnI/AAAAAAAAAG8/le347XAp2Ts/s1600/fg.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" q6="true" src="https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-94FguKu8tlM/TXswxjnqdnI/AAAAAAAAAG8/le347XAp2Ts/s1600/fg.jpg" /></a></div>Forrest Gump is not smart, and many people call him stupid, but he tries not to let that get him down. As he goes through life, he witnesses many historic events - actually causing some of them - and ends up becoming very successful financially. But the only thing he really wants is for Jenny, his childhood best friend and the love of his life, to settle down with him.<br />
<br />
I absolutely love this movie. It's a touching story told remarkably well, with perfectly developed characters and witty dialogue. Forrest's narration throughout the film helps put an entirely new perspective on familiar situations, which makes this movie unique. Tom Hanks is positively brilliant as Forrest. His costume and haircut help create the image, but Hanks makes the character real. He thoroughly earned his Oscar. And of course there's the rest of the cast. Gary Sinise is amazing in his intense portrayal of Forrest's commanding officer, "Lieutenant Dan," who loses his legs in Vietnam. Sally Field, while she's not in too many scenes, is the perfect Mama for Forrest, and Robin Wright gives a heartbreaking performance as the troubled, messed up Jenny. It's fun to see a very young Haley Joel Osment make an appearance as well.<br />
<br />
A lot of people say this film shouldn't have won Best Picture because The Shawshank Redemption was better. I can't speak to that because I haven't seen The Shawshank Redemption yet, but I will say that Forrest Gump is a really, really good movie, and it's also uplifting, so I was more than happy for an excuse to watch it. Forrest is one of my favorite movie characters ever. He's so incredibly likeable and adorable that I have to think the world would be a better place with more Forrest Gumps in it. Naturally, it doesn't hurt that he's played by Tom Hanks, who is one of the most fabulous living actors. This film combines great characters with good acting, a fascinating premise, an intriguing script, and a fantastic soundtrack. If The Shawshank Redemption is better than this, I can't wait to watch it someday. And that's all I have to say about that.<br />
<br />
Next: Braveheartbestpicturewatcherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08512803324684884985noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1376925753330194950.post-50601779658186620502011-03-10T23:56:00.000-08:002011-03-12T17:13:10.805-08:001993: Schindler's List<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-ylcrzmRYCDw/TXnVjBPG9UI/AAAAAAAAAG4/PAPsUnaFy2I/s1600/sl.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" q6="true" src="https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-ylcrzmRYCDw/TXnVjBPG9UI/AAAAAAAAAG4/PAPsUnaFy2I/s1600/sl.jpg" /></a></div>After the Germans take over Poland and force the Jews into ghettos, a Nazi named Oskar Schindler decides to take over a metal factory that makes pots and pans, appointing Jewish accountant Idzhak Stern to run it for him. In order to maximize his own profit, Schindler hires Jewish workers because they are the cheapest. While he is initially only concerned with making money, eventually Schindler decides to do everything he can to keep his workers, even when he ends up having to spend everything he has made. In the process, he saves the lives of 1,100 Jewish people, pretty much single-handedly. And yes, this is based on a true story.<br />
<br />
Long, disturbing and depressing don't even begin to describe this movie: it's over three hours long and about the Holocaust. But a more moving and well-made film would be difficult to find. It's powerful and very real, not only because the audience presumably knows that the depicted events actually happened, but because the filmmakers take us there and help us relate to the characters. While the film's primary focus is on a few main characters, there are several supporting characters who are equally important to portraying the message. Schindler's List isn't about 1,100 Jews; it's about individuals. Each life has worth and meaning, which goes along with the whole premise that one person can make a world of difference.<br />
<br />
The depth that is given to the character of Oskar Schindler is incredible. I think it would be tempting, in a film like this, to portray him as an extraordinary hero who saved people out of the goodness of his heart. Instead, he is - or at least, begins as - a selfish, greedy, adulterous Nazi. He could very easily have turned out like the film's villain, Amon Goeth, whose idea of a good time is standing on his porch and shooting at Jewish prisoners who walk by. But Schindler is disgusted by the killing, and eventually his entire world view shifts, so that by the end he is furious with himself for not saving more people. Schindler insists at one point that war brings out the worst in people, but in his case, it brings out the best.<br />
<br />
In addition to the character development and the way the story unfolds, which are phenomenal, virtually every other aspect of this film is fantastic as well. The soundtrack, dialogue, camera angles, and lighting are brilliant. The choice to film primarily in black and white greatly aids the portrayal of the dark, harsh reality that the characters are facing. When occasional colors are used, like the red of a little girl's coat or the flame of a candle, they stand out, giving them emphasis that adds to the meaning of the story in ways that would not have been possible if the whole thing had been filmed in color. The acting is all superb, led by Liam Neeson's incredible portrayal of Schindler. Ralph Fiennes is fittingly horrifying as Goeth (it's a toss-up whether he's more creepy in this or in the Harry Potter movies), and Ben Kingsley plays a very convincing Itzhak Stern - which is even more impressive when you recall that he also made a convincing Gandhi in a different Best Picture Winner. And of course, Steven Spielberg's direction brings the whole film to life.<br />
<br />
I apologize for the length of this post, but it's difficult to do this movie justice in a few paragraphs. Far from being just another long and depressing Best Picture Winner, this film epitomizes the long and depressing Best Picture Winner. This is what all those other long and depressing films I've watched were striving for. Some of them got closer than others, but I can't think of any that are quite this good.<br />
<br />
Coming up next: Forrest Gumpbestpicturewatcherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08512803324684884985noreply@blogger.com0