Playoff hockey has been keeping me from watching and writing as often as I should so bear with me for a bit, I definitely get back on track here soon. Sadly, this is the last of the 10 Best Picture nominee groups I'll do for a very long time. I am glad they opened up this category to allow for other films that wouldn't ordinarily get nominated because there are some really good ones lately. Now on to the movies!
2009 Best Picture
The Hurt Locker
I like this movie for an Oscar win. This movie is almost like a TV show or play with its different episodes/acts. I think that kind of vignette format works really well here. It captures the different things that the EOD unit can go through and deal with, without getting bogged down in telling a story with one or two events. It allows everything about the movie to stay fresh and you don't get worn down by the constant tension. The movie is a thriller and the edge-of-your-seat tension is heavy but done in such a way that you can almost feel the sand fly by you when a bomb goes off - it's that real. My issue with this film is the plausibility of some of the events that go on. For a civilian that hasn't experienced the military life, I'm sure the movie comes off as a strong one and wholly believable, but I've been there and experienced the craziness firsthand and the believability has to be suspended for me to really enjoy it. When the main guys turn into expert snipers or Renner's character goes off base alone to find any info about a little boy's murderers, it's just too ludicrous for me to even try to get past. It dampens what is otherwise a very good movie.
Avatar
I can't believe that there were people that were very vocal about this movie actually winning Best Picture, let alone being nominated. It deservedly won some technical awards and is a landmark film for special effects, but it's a borderline terrible movie when you get past the aesthetic. And to be honest, the big blue Na'vi still look a bit stupid and out of place in a live action movie. The story borrows heavily from many other movies and I'd compare it as an updated, better looking version of Fern Gully. The story itself is nothing new or compelling, the characters are all of the stock variety, there's no tension because everything is spelled out for you, you're never in doubt of what's going to happen next, and the political messages throughout the movie are grating to anyone with half a brain. Good special effects does not forgive bad characters and storytelling.
The Blind Side
I think this would have been better served as a movie of the week or a Lifetime movie because that's about as much substance as this movie has. While the actual inspiration for the story is compelling, The Blind Side manages to botch it by pandering to a white, suburban, middle-class audience. How this was even nominated is beyond my comprehension. It praises Bullock's character as saving the young, virtually homeless, large black kid all the while ignoring and treating him like a second-class citizen in a movie that's supposed to showcase his overcoming a rough life. The movie teeters on the brink of devolving into a sappy, cloyingly saccharine pap fest and Bullock's performance is a big reason why. It's just not a movie I can ever see myself watching again even if it's on whatever station I left my TV on.
District 9
This is one of the best recent sci-fi movies in a long time. It's certainly way better than Avatar and signals an independent sci-fi movement with movies such as Moon and Monsters. I love how the movie is built around the faux-documentary style which gives it a realism that serves the movie so well. The effects are real looking and the story is one that can and should resonate with the regular viewer. It's one of discrimination and the parallels to the apartheid are obvious and though some critics felt this part of the story was heavy handed, I think they are wrong because it really let the viewer bring their own thoughts and feelings into the movie. Wikus is portrayed brilliantly as the innocent man that turns into an alien and we can identify with him which engrosses us entirely in the film. And his growing relationship with the aliens as he begins to change is incredibly compelling, especially with the xenophobia as the backdrop to the film. An outstanding piece of science fiction cinema.
An Education
What I didn't like about this movie was the way all the adults acted completely unlike adults seemingly to make Carey Mulligan's character Jenny look way more mature and grown up than she really was. I think it severely hurt the movie because the viewer is unable to fully give themselves to the story presented. Jenny does well in school and is trying to get into Oxford and her dad keeps pushing her to study for the entrance tests but then when she meets a much older man and he visits the home and charms the family, the dad easily okays that she give up school and marry him. Many times I wanted the adults to be more than empty characters for Jenny to interact with but was routinely letdown. The movie really lacked drama where there should have been some and undercut the drama that was there by too neatly wrapping up the ending and basically saying she did a foolish thing but that in the end it was no big deal. Mulligan's performance was good but the rest of the movie left me wanting, no, begging for more.
Inglourious Basterds
Tarantino can't really do much wrong in making his movies and this one is no exception. It's phenomenal and such a wild, fun experience to watch. I love that the foreign speaking parts all go to foreign actors because it gives the film some authenticity and makes for some much stronger scenes and acting. The story is fantastic in each sense of the word and the alternate history idea is one that's fresh and rarely done. The characters are memorable and excellent, although I question casting his buddy Eli Roth as the Bear Jew since it was easily the weakest character and performance in the movie. There's not much else to say besides this is a really cool movie that everyone should see.
Precious: Based on the Novel "Push" by Sapphire
The acting from the two main characters really helped push this movie to a higher level, no pun intended. I think without those two, it wouldn't have received as much attention and praise as it did. The story is your basic sort of empowerment story: girl is constantly put down by her own mother and made to do everything for her and the mom resents her when she starts doing well in school and eventually breaks free of her tyrannical reign and becomes her own person. There are times when the movie underwhelms as during the school scenes when we feel as if we've already seen this done a million times before. The real compelling story is between Precious and her mother and the movie is fun to watch at these times. There is also these weird daydream scenes that Precious imagines that really feel out of place in the movie with the way they are shot and look. I can understand what the director was going for but I think it fails and detracts from the overall pace of the movie.
A Serious Man
On the first watch, I hated it. I felt the movie really had no point, suffered from any real drama, and was overall pretty boring to watch. On my second viewing for this blog, I loved it! This movie is a total grower and probably does need multiple viewings to "get it" unfortunately. Obviously, I don't think this is a movie for everyone. The Coen Brothers have crafted an incredibly subtle movie. I love subtle humor a lot and for whatever reason I must not have been paying as close attention as I should on my first viewing. But with the second, I thought it was hilarious in such a reserved and understated way. Nothing hits you over the head and says laugh; it's bleak, dark, weird humor. The movie is ultimately about a Jewish man from Minnesota's life crumbling around him leading him to question his faith. Most of the other characters seem very one-sided but it works for me because the movie is about how the main character reacts and deals with the issues these characters present. This is a wonderful movie that I don't think everyone will like.
Up
Sometimes I wish Pixar would reign in the sappy moments in its movies a bit. The sappy scene in the beginning where Karl and his wife grow old seems very forced and sudden and as I said in my Toy Story 3 review, I don't like being told to feel a certain way especially right from the start! I understand that it sets up the basic premise of the movie since his wife wanted to go on a trip to South America but I feel it could have been done in a different manner that didn't yank on the heartstrings so hard and still remain poignant. There are plenty of times they do it right as the story progresses. Otherwise, it's a fantastical story that is quite funny at times and visually fun to watch. The relationship between Karl and the boy is fun to watch develop as they teach each other about life, which is really something when Karl is pretty old. Up has a great mix of adventure, humor, drama, and mystery.
Up in the Air
This movie had some great acting, good characters, and a decent story. Clooney again charms the pants off the viewer but the movie feels both like it's missing something and trying too hard at the same time. It's able to capture the zeitgeist of the economic collapse and the massive job loss that happened really well. But as we follow the unlikely likable Clooney through the movie, we get hit over the head with these out of place documentary like interviews with real people that totally kills the flow and feel of the movie. And as we start to root on the romance between Clooney and Farmiga, we get THAT ripped out from under us in a way that made me angry. It was clearly done to get Clooney's character to "change" his outlook on life, but it felt so contrived and preyed on the audience's feelings that it brought the movie down with it. I wish the movie would have stuck to either being a comedy or drama because the mixing of the two at times didn't quite work and undercut the movie. With all my griping, though, it's still a decent movie worth a watch.
I love that this year was a pretty historic year for Best Picture nominees. First winning female director, first black director nominated, animated feature, sci-fi nominated again, and a Tarantino film. The expansion to 10 nominees was the best thing the Academy could have done for the sagging Oscar ceremonies. It gets people to watch movies they may not have initially seen and gets them tuning in to see movies they are rooting for. It's brilliant and I'm glad they decided to expand. I'm sad that I have to go back to just 5 nominees in 2008 knowing that movies such as The Dark Knight missed out on what would have been easy nominations. I like the choice of The Hurt Locker for the win and I'm especially glad they didn't reward that huge mess Avatar. I chose District 9 because it's an instant classic sci-fi movie to me and it blew me away in theaters and was still amazing on subsequent watches. I'm glad this year is finally ending because school and NHL playoffs has severely disrupted my reviewing process. But fear not, as I will get back into my groove soon enough. Also....please leave comments!
Oscar Winner: The Hurt Locker
My Winner: District 9
Inglourious Basterds
The Hurt Locker
A Serious Man
Up
Up in the Air
Precious: Based on the Novel "Push" by Sapphire
An Education
Avatar
The Blind Side
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Monday, April 18, 2011
Leading Actor 2009
By name alone, this is a really strong group. I have a feeling I'm not going to dislike any of the performances. The Wild Card in the group is Colin Firth since I don't really know too much about that movie. Very interested in reviewing these performances.
2009 Best Actor
Jeff Bridges - Crazy Heart
Some might just go ahead and write this win off as the Academy doing what they do best and rewarding a lifetime of work rather than the single performance. But, honestly, I can see why Bridges received his first Oscar for this role. He is completely believable as Bad Blake and if someone told me he actually was a country singer, it wouldn't be much of a shock. He can sing (and from what I've read has a CD coming out or is out) and has that weathered look of someone who has spent his life on the road with too much smoke, booze, and women. He desperately wants a family before his time is up but only when it's convenient for him, which makes it a rollercoaster ride of emotion. Bridges smoothly operates the ride without causing us to want to vomit. It's not overdone and you can really feel for him as he tries to figure out his mix match of emotions and problems. Watching him sort them all out is where we can see why he won. Interesting to note that Robert Duvall (who is great in this film) plays a friend of Bridges, won his only Oscar for a 1983 movie, Tender Mercies, that has essentially the same exact premise.
George Clooney - Up in the Air
How can you not like Clooney? This is a perfect George Clooney role and he definitely excels in it and drives this movie. He plays Ryan Bingham, a man who travels the country firing people for bosses who don't want to and who enjoys his almost 300 days a year spent traveling and living in hotels. He meets his match at work when a young woman comes up with a way to fire people over the Internet meaning less travel and in his love life when a woman challenges his ideas on no commitment. This role really becomes an extension of Clooney in the slick, suave, and sophisticated ways his character goes about his job and daily life. The character and Clooney are extremely charming and you really buy into the idea that he is content living his life sheltered from regular relationships and start to believe that way of life might not be so bad. But when the two women enter his life, you see his aversion to change and facing a life where he is grown up and settled down. The audience's attitude shifts with Clooney's and is a testament to his charm and acting ability that even though we're supposed to kinda not like his character we end up fully behind whatever decisions he makes. It does work against him at the end, however, when his transformation into a better person isn't much of a transformation at all. He's still doing many of the same things he was before, so his becoming a nicer, better person rings a bit hollow.
Colin Firth - A Single Man
There wasn't a whole lot in this role that really grabbed my attention. The movie overall is kinda boring and I don't think Firth's character does all that much to make it any more compelling. The director relies way too much on close-ups of Firth looking sad or melancholy, and while I understand that is part of the theme of the film, it comes off as a bit much. And while Firth may be a good actor, it takes more than seeing him glum for me to like his performance. Firth's character is a gay, British professor in Southern California whose partner has died recently and he is now putting in motion plans for suicide but throughout the day he meets random people and remembers random memories that make life seem better. On paper it's a great idea but the execution of the character leaves a lot to be desired for me. It's an alright performance but there just needs to be something more to it, it needs a soul to come alive and endear itself to the viewer. I think what holds it back is that it remains on the same level throughout the film and it's nothing that memorable to begin with.
Morgan Freeman - Invictus
I think Freeman does a good job in playing the part of Nelson Mandela. Much like Meryl Streep's Julia Child character, this role isn't just imitation. Yes, Freeman has the look down, has the slow vocal delivery down, the way Mandela walks and waves down, everything about the look and feel of Mandela down. But like Streep, Freeman is able to insert parts of himself into the role so that it becomes a combination of Morgan Freeman and Nelson Mandela and not just a flat out imitation. Unfortunately, the script leaves a lot to be desired from the character and some of the blame can be shifted to Freeman. Every time Mandela speaks, it's as if it were written specifically to be played as an introduction to Freeman at the Oscars and nothing more. It's all too important every time and the speaking in soundbites really detracts from the overall power of the performance and the film. Maybe Freeman saw this as his chance at an Oscar and decided to forgo subtlety in favor of the grandiose approach. The character is nonetheless believable and likable even if the world and problems within that world are too easily solved with no real tension.
Jeremy Renner - The Hurt Locker
As a character, Renner is pretty fantastic in this film. When we first meet him, we wonder if we're actually going to like him as he seems like an ass. But he commands our respect and attention every time he's on screen after his introduction. He's disarmingly calm when it comes to his dangerous job and this imbues in him a badass quality which serves Renner well. You realize his dedication and attention to detail allow him to be a little more reckless but you also start to wonder if Renner wasn't in the Army would he maybe be a sociopath in the real world. It's a very fine line and the mix of compassion and rage he shows makes for a very compelling performance. As the movie progresses, we get to experience his private moments of pain that seemingly shape his persona when out doing his job. It's a good performance that does more than the usual stereotyping of soldiers, which is a nice breath of fresh air.
This is a very strong group. The one that doesn't really do much for me is Colin Firth's role, but all the others are worthy of their nominations. The win for Bridges is probably overdue at this point if you look at his body of work, but I think it was well deserved. I had trouble choosing between Bridges and Renner for my winner since both created very memorable characters. I chose Renner because I'm a little biased for good Iraq/Afghanistan movies but really you could call it a tie. Glad to see a strong group after the mediocre Actress one.
Oscar Winner: Jeff Bridges - Crazy Heart
My Winner: Jeremy Renner - The Hurt Locker
Jeff Bridges
George Clooney
Morgan Freeman
Colin Firth
2009 Best Actor
Jeff Bridges - Crazy Heart
Some might just go ahead and write this win off as the Academy doing what they do best and rewarding a lifetime of work rather than the single performance. But, honestly, I can see why Bridges received his first Oscar for this role. He is completely believable as Bad Blake and if someone told me he actually was a country singer, it wouldn't be much of a shock. He can sing (and from what I've read has a CD coming out or is out) and has that weathered look of someone who has spent his life on the road with too much smoke, booze, and women. He desperately wants a family before his time is up but only when it's convenient for him, which makes it a rollercoaster ride of emotion. Bridges smoothly operates the ride without causing us to want to vomit. It's not overdone and you can really feel for him as he tries to figure out his mix match of emotions and problems. Watching him sort them all out is where we can see why he won. Interesting to note that Robert Duvall (who is great in this film) plays a friend of Bridges, won his only Oscar for a 1983 movie, Tender Mercies, that has essentially the same exact premise.
George Clooney - Up in the Air
How can you not like Clooney? This is a perfect George Clooney role and he definitely excels in it and drives this movie. He plays Ryan Bingham, a man who travels the country firing people for bosses who don't want to and who enjoys his almost 300 days a year spent traveling and living in hotels. He meets his match at work when a young woman comes up with a way to fire people over the Internet meaning less travel and in his love life when a woman challenges his ideas on no commitment. This role really becomes an extension of Clooney in the slick, suave, and sophisticated ways his character goes about his job and daily life. The character and Clooney are extremely charming and you really buy into the idea that he is content living his life sheltered from regular relationships and start to believe that way of life might not be so bad. But when the two women enter his life, you see his aversion to change and facing a life where he is grown up and settled down. The audience's attitude shifts with Clooney's and is a testament to his charm and acting ability that even though we're supposed to kinda not like his character we end up fully behind whatever decisions he makes. It does work against him at the end, however, when his transformation into a better person isn't much of a transformation at all. He's still doing many of the same things he was before, so his becoming a nicer, better person rings a bit hollow.
Colin Firth - A Single Man
There wasn't a whole lot in this role that really grabbed my attention. The movie overall is kinda boring and I don't think Firth's character does all that much to make it any more compelling. The director relies way too much on close-ups of Firth looking sad or melancholy, and while I understand that is part of the theme of the film, it comes off as a bit much. And while Firth may be a good actor, it takes more than seeing him glum for me to like his performance. Firth's character is a gay, British professor in Southern California whose partner has died recently and he is now putting in motion plans for suicide but throughout the day he meets random people and remembers random memories that make life seem better. On paper it's a great idea but the execution of the character leaves a lot to be desired for me. It's an alright performance but there just needs to be something more to it, it needs a soul to come alive and endear itself to the viewer. I think what holds it back is that it remains on the same level throughout the film and it's nothing that memorable to begin with.
Morgan Freeman - Invictus
I think Freeman does a good job in playing the part of Nelson Mandela. Much like Meryl Streep's Julia Child character, this role isn't just imitation. Yes, Freeman has the look down, has the slow vocal delivery down, the way Mandela walks and waves down, everything about the look and feel of Mandela down. But like Streep, Freeman is able to insert parts of himself into the role so that it becomes a combination of Morgan Freeman and Nelson Mandela and not just a flat out imitation. Unfortunately, the script leaves a lot to be desired from the character and some of the blame can be shifted to Freeman. Every time Mandela speaks, it's as if it were written specifically to be played as an introduction to Freeman at the Oscars and nothing more. It's all too important every time and the speaking in soundbites really detracts from the overall power of the performance and the film. Maybe Freeman saw this as his chance at an Oscar and decided to forgo subtlety in favor of the grandiose approach. The character is nonetheless believable and likable even if the world and problems within that world are too easily solved with no real tension.
Jeremy Renner - The Hurt Locker
As a character, Renner is pretty fantastic in this film. When we first meet him, we wonder if we're actually going to like him as he seems like an ass. But he commands our respect and attention every time he's on screen after his introduction. He's disarmingly calm when it comes to his dangerous job and this imbues in him a badass quality which serves Renner well. You realize his dedication and attention to detail allow him to be a little more reckless but you also start to wonder if Renner wasn't in the Army would he maybe be a sociopath in the real world. It's a very fine line and the mix of compassion and rage he shows makes for a very compelling performance. As the movie progresses, we get to experience his private moments of pain that seemingly shape his persona when out doing his job. It's a good performance that does more than the usual stereotyping of soldiers, which is a nice breath of fresh air.
This is a very strong group. The one that doesn't really do much for me is Colin Firth's role, but all the others are worthy of their nominations. The win for Bridges is probably overdue at this point if you look at his body of work, but I think it was well deserved. I had trouble choosing between Bridges and Renner for my winner since both created very memorable characters. I chose Renner because I'm a little biased for good Iraq/Afghanistan movies but really you could call it a tie. Glad to see a strong group after the mediocre Actress one.
Oscar Winner: Jeff Bridges - Crazy Heart
My Winner: Jeremy Renner - The Hurt Locker
Jeff Bridges
George Clooney
Morgan Freeman
Colin Firth
Monday, April 11, 2011
Leading Actress 2009
It's been taking a bit longer for me to watch and review movies than I initially thought, but some of that is due to being busy. Once I watch a few and get in the groove I start knocking out the categories pretty quickly. Bear with me. Part of doing the most recent years first allows me to automatically know which movies/performances I think are going to be tough to make it through. I'm excited for when I start getting into years I don't exactly know much about the movies/performances so I keep a fresh perspective.
2009 Best Actress
Sandra Bullock - The Blind Side
Ugh, how did Sandra Bullock win an Oscar? Seriously. I honestly do not understand the love and accolades she got for this role. Her southern accent is terrible, the acting is better suited for a TV movie, and her character is too perfect and can seemingly do no wrong. The performance suffers in that it feels like Bullock merely played dress up and acted in cliches. When she's interacting with her high society friends, she doesn't even pretend that she likes them and it's hard to imagine they are actually friends. It's as if there's a big neon sign over her head that says "Hate these ladies!" There's no subtlety (and by now you should know I LOVE subtlety in my acting haha) and Bullock just lumbers through the movie and we're only left with the impression that her character is so badass, strong, and independent that there's no room for anything else. Which is why this win boggles my mind. It teeters on the brink of being a Lifetime movie performance and a caricature of sorts, truly a misstep for the Academy.
Helen Mirren - The Last Station
"I don't understand why this performance was nominated. Again, all I can think of is that the Academy is rewarding her past (this is her 4th nomination)..." I wrote this about Annette Bening in the following year's Best Actress category and it could honestly be said of Mirren in this performance as well. In the beginning of this film, Mirren's character was feisty and boisterously voicing her unfavorable opinion of her husband's (Leo Tolstoy) political movement/ideology. I really thought she was going to continue being the voice of reason and the opposing force in this movie but sadly her character fell victim to a terrible script and lost its way. Mirren eventually lacks any direction and becomes a farce as Tolstoy's wife. She cries a lot, rolls around on the ground, and basically becomes such a melodramatic and unlikable character that the movie overall loses any impact it possibly could have had. The fact that Mirren felt no need to take the character in the obvious direction of the strong, matronly way she initially was going in solidifies this as an undeserved nomination.
Carey Mulligan - An Education
Mulligan is clearly a good actress and I hope to see her in better movies down the line. In An Education, she plays a young, naive schoolgirl who thinks she's smarter and more mature than she really is. She becomes enamored with and seduced by an older man before realizing that life isn't quite that easy. I left out some of the details so as not to ruin the film, but the actual plot is pretty preposterous and certainly doesn't allow Mulligan to give as good of a performance as she could. Her character is one of the saving graces of the film, however, with her layered and compelling performance. Throughout the film, you believe that Mulligan is actually 16 (she was 22) and you become emotionally involved in her character when you see the moments she remains a giggling schoolgirl followed by trying to remain the worldly mature adult she thinks she is. These different sides of hers would be hard to balance and remain believable on both levels but Mulligan is able to transition between the two without losing any sort of grasp on her character. It's unfortunate that the other characters in the movie are more or less one-sided so that Mulligan appears more mature, because it would have been much more compelling if Mulligan faced her anxieties of the future instead of being coddled by the supposed grown ups around her. Despite all of this, Mulligan is able to pull off a good performance in an otherwise disappointing movie.
Gabourey Sidibe - Precious: Based on the Novel "Push" by Sapphire
At first, I was worried about where this performance would go and if it would go anywhere. The character of Precious initially comes off as one without any real emotion or seemingly any real personality. Everything is delivered deadpan and her demeanor is one of pure moroseness. Part of me wondered if there was any actual acting going on because I could easily see Sidibe being this downtrodden, depressed, gloomy girl (even though that's not the case at all since she has a bubbly personality in real life) and it certainly didn't seem like any real acting was taking place. But as the film went on, it was quite evident that there was a lot more to Precious and Sidibe was giving us glimpses of the true character hidden beneath that stony exterior. When she finally stands up to her mother or when she's opening up to her teacher and classmates about her life, we really get to see why Sidibe was nominated and it's fun to watch.
Meryl Streep - Julie & Julia
There's an old debate about whether imitation is acting or not. To me, it is because whether it's good or bad that just means it's good or bad acting. Streep is the darling of the Academy (this being her 16th! nomination) but unlike some others, most of her roles are deservedly nominated. In this film, Streep offers more than just an imitation, she embodies Julia and infuses the character with her own soul to create a mix that is distinctly her own version of the culinary icon. She nails the look, the voice, the body movements and even the flippant, buoyant personality. She plays the few serious moments well without being too serious, which is how you'd think Julia Child would react. The character of Julia Child is something that would be easy to overdo and I think if the character were in the hands of someone else that's probably what we would have seen, but Streep is able to effectively balance the inherent loudness and ebullience of the character with relative ease. That's what makes this performance so much fun to watch.
I can't really say that this is a strong group by any means, especially with Bullock winning. I think that the Academy got it wrong again and this will be one of those performances we look back on in a few years and wonder why it won. Streep was Streep and you can't say much about her besides that. She's consistently good. Sidibe and Mulligan gave good performances, although I don't think we'll see Sidibe challenge for another award again. Mirren and Bullock were in some terrible movies and gave some very lackluster performances on top of it. Makes 2010 look even better, in my opinion.
Oscar Winner: Sandra Bullock - The Blind Side
My Winner: Meryl Streep - Julie & Julia
Carey Mulligan
Gabourey Sidibe
Helen Mirren
Sandra Bullock
2009 Best Actress
Sandra Bullock - The Blind Side
Ugh, how did Sandra Bullock win an Oscar? Seriously. I honestly do not understand the love and accolades she got for this role. Her southern accent is terrible, the acting is better suited for a TV movie, and her character is too perfect and can seemingly do no wrong. The performance suffers in that it feels like Bullock merely played dress up and acted in cliches. When she's interacting with her high society friends, she doesn't even pretend that she likes them and it's hard to imagine they are actually friends. It's as if there's a big neon sign over her head that says "Hate these ladies!" There's no subtlety (and by now you should know I LOVE subtlety in my acting haha) and Bullock just lumbers through the movie and we're only left with the impression that her character is so badass, strong, and independent that there's no room for anything else. Which is why this win boggles my mind. It teeters on the brink of being a Lifetime movie performance and a caricature of sorts, truly a misstep for the Academy.
Helen Mirren - The Last Station
"I don't understand why this performance was nominated. Again, all I can think of is that the Academy is rewarding her past (this is her 4th nomination)..." I wrote this about Annette Bening in the following year's Best Actress category and it could honestly be said of Mirren in this performance as well. In the beginning of this film, Mirren's character was feisty and boisterously voicing her unfavorable opinion of her husband's (Leo Tolstoy) political movement/ideology. I really thought she was going to continue being the voice of reason and the opposing force in this movie but sadly her character fell victim to a terrible script and lost its way. Mirren eventually lacks any direction and becomes a farce as Tolstoy's wife. She cries a lot, rolls around on the ground, and basically becomes such a melodramatic and unlikable character that the movie overall loses any impact it possibly could have had. The fact that Mirren felt no need to take the character in the obvious direction of the strong, matronly way she initially was going in solidifies this as an undeserved nomination.
Carey Mulligan - An Education
Mulligan is clearly a good actress and I hope to see her in better movies down the line. In An Education, she plays a young, naive schoolgirl who thinks she's smarter and more mature than she really is. She becomes enamored with and seduced by an older man before realizing that life isn't quite that easy. I left out some of the details so as not to ruin the film, but the actual plot is pretty preposterous and certainly doesn't allow Mulligan to give as good of a performance as she could. Her character is one of the saving graces of the film, however, with her layered and compelling performance. Throughout the film, you believe that Mulligan is actually 16 (she was 22) and you become emotionally involved in her character when you see the moments she remains a giggling schoolgirl followed by trying to remain the worldly mature adult she thinks she is. These different sides of hers would be hard to balance and remain believable on both levels but Mulligan is able to transition between the two without losing any sort of grasp on her character. It's unfortunate that the other characters in the movie are more or less one-sided so that Mulligan appears more mature, because it would have been much more compelling if Mulligan faced her anxieties of the future instead of being coddled by the supposed grown ups around her. Despite all of this, Mulligan is able to pull off a good performance in an otherwise disappointing movie.
Gabourey Sidibe - Precious: Based on the Novel "Push" by Sapphire
At first, I was worried about where this performance would go and if it would go anywhere. The character of Precious initially comes off as one without any real emotion or seemingly any real personality. Everything is delivered deadpan and her demeanor is one of pure moroseness. Part of me wondered if there was any actual acting going on because I could easily see Sidibe being this downtrodden, depressed, gloomy girl (even though that's not the case at all since she has a bubbly personality in real life) and it certainly didn't seem like any real acting was taking place. But as the film went on, it was quite evident that there was a lot more to Precious and Sidibe was giving us glimpses of the true character hidden beneath that stony exterior. When she finally stands up to her mother or when she's opening up to her teacher and classmates about her life, we really get to see why Sidibe was nominated and it's fun to watch.
Meryl Streep - Julie & Julia
There's an old debate about whether imitation is acting or not. To me, it is because whether it's good or bad that just means it's good or bad acting. Streep is the darling of the Academy (this being her 16th! nomination) but unlike some others, most of her roles are deservedly nominated. In this film, Streep offers more than just an imitation, she embodies Julia and infuses the character with her own soul to create a mix that is distinctly her own version of the culinary icon. She nails the look, the voice, the body movements and even the flippant, buoyant personality. She plays the few serious moments well without being too serious, which is how you'd think Julia Child would react. The character of Julia Child is something that would be easy to overdo and I think if the character were in the hands of someone else that's probably what we would have seen, but Streep is able to effectively balance the inherent loudness and ebullience of the character with relative ease. That's what makes this performance so much fun to watch.
I can't really say that this is a strong group by any means, especially with Bullock winning. I think that the Academy got it wrong again and this will be one of those performances we look back on in a few years and wonder why it won. Streep was Streep and you can't say much about her besides that. She's consistently good. Sidibe and Mulligan gave good performances, although I don't think we'll see Sidibe challenge for another award again. Mirren and Bullock were in some terrible movies and gave some very lackluster performances on top of it. Makes 2010 look even better, in my opinion.
Oscar Winner: Sandra Bullock - The Blind Side
My Winner: Meryl Streep - Julie & Julia
Carey Mulligan
Gabourey Sidibe
Helen Mirren
Sandra Bullock
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Supporting Actor 2009
I'll keep an open mind when watching the three movies I haven't already seen but I am pretty sure I already know what my favorite is going to be. (Yes, I write this intro before I review the movies to keep it interesting!) The thing with reviewing the performances is that while I can totally hate a movie the one redeeming factor could be a stellar performance in it. I think that keeps reviewing these performances to be rewarding since it's like finding diamonds in the rough.
2009 Best Supporting Actor
Christoph Waltz - Inglourious Basterds
Right from the beginning you can see why this performance won the Oscar. It's absolutely brilliant and will be one of the most highly regarded characters in film for decades to come. And that's not some hyperbolic bullshit either. Waltz plays the character of Colonel Hans Landa with a gleeful evil, he's an astute detective that revels in toying with his victims. His face and mannerisms and the way he delivers his lines are so expressive and so memorable that he completely owns the character and is easily the best part of this movie. And it's another great movie from Tarantino with many memorable characters of which Waltz is in a league of his own. There's a mixture of disgust and awe and complete, intense interest at what Waltz is going to do next. In the beginning he's slick and conniving and witty and gains our respect. The next time he's a purely evil Nazi that turns on the charm to get his information. And then he is intuitive and hilarious and evil all at the same time. Waltz does a magnificent job balancing all the different nuances expected of him.
Matt Damon - Invictus
This is a Matt Damon role: a quiet, unassuming guy that becomes a leader/winner/better person. He excels at these roles and does a good job as the captain of the South African rugby team here. Even if the film is a bit too straightforward and neat in showing the nation coming together, Damon plays the role with an intense sense of duty to his country and it comes off as being very genuine. It just doesn't come off as anything extraordinary or special. Inspirational, yes, but it follows the long line of cliche sports movie heroes we've seen many times before.
Woody Harrelson - The Messenger
Even if Harrelson's character doesn't wear his beret correctly, he does a good job as the Casualty Notification Officer delivering bad news in The Messenger. I liked this performance because the character seems completely human, faults and all, much like regular Army officers that I've known. There's no superhuman, Army robot, killing machine here, just a man who values his job and what it entails. There's no bravado, no loud overdone performance. You really believe in the character and can identify Harrelson with someone you know/knew in the military. That's why the performance works for me because Harrelson comes off as human and not someone's idea of what a soldier is which hurts another movie from this year that I'll get into later.
Christopher Plummer - The Last Station
Let's just say this movie was not very good and go from there. The script does no one any favors in this movie and the story suffers dramatically from it. So in saying that, I don't know what Plummer could have done to make this a memorable performance. I really don't know how he and Helen Mirren were nominated for this poor film. There's just not much going on for Plummer's Tolstoy other than walking around looking content or dying. I guess you can say he does both well, but that's about all he does in this film. There's no subtleties or nuances, no layers, no emotional depth. Everything is superficial and, well, frankly boring. It's as if he put on some Russian-y clothes and was filmed doing so. Much of the fault for such a boring character (and movie) goes to the director, but a veteran actor like Plummer should be able to do something more than this.
Stanley Tucci - The Lovely Bones
Surprisingly, Tucci's first nomination comes in this terribly directed movie. Tucci does a superb job as the creepy serial killer, which is a testament to his acting ability. I've seen him in too many Meryl Streep movies and seeing him play something that goes against those types brings a little fresh air to my overall view of him. There's not much else to say about this performance besides it's completely believable. You can imagine this man living next door to you and never thinking anything of it and certainly not thinking he's a little girl serial killer. He plays the character with such an understated, quiet, repressed evil that it adds an extra layer of creepiness and really adds to the character, making him difficult to stomach. An interesting nomination on the Academy's part.
This was an alright group buoyed by Waltz's amazing performance. The rest of the men all gave some pretty average to good performances and it surprises me that some of these were in fact nominated. I again agree with the Academy and I'm not sure how anyone could not agree with them. I'm also wondering if I should lower my standards for these supporting awards since I've been wanting to be wowed by not just the winners but the other nominees as well and have so far been wholly underwhelmed. I have a feeling that will continue as I go back in time. Not saying I don't enjoy watching these films, though, because I definitely do. Even the bad ones. Really you can flip Damon and Tucci and Harrelson and I'd have no problem.
Oscar Winner: Christoph Waltz - Inglourious Basterds
My Winner: Christoph Waltz - Inglourious Basterds
Woody Harrelson
Stanley Tucci
Matt Damon
Christopher Plummer
2009 Best Supporting Actor
Christoph Waltz - Inglourious Basterds
Right from the beginning you can see why this performance won the Oscar. It's absolutely brilliant and will be one of the most highly regarded characters in film for decades to come. And that's not some hyperbolic bullshit either. Waltz plays the character of Colonel Hans Landa with a gleeful evil, he's an astute detective that revels in toying with his victims. His face and mannerisms and the way he delivers his lines are so expressive and so memorable that he completely owns the character and is easily the best part of this movie. And it's another great movie from Tarantino with many memorable characters of which Waltz is in a league of his own. There's a mixture of disgust and awe and complete, intense interest at what Waltz is going to do next. In the beginning he's slick and conniving and witty and gains our respect. The next time he's a purely evil Nazi that turns on the charm to get his information. And then he is intuitive and hilarious and evil all at the same time. Waltz does a magnificent job balancing all the different nuances expected of him.
Matt Damon - Invictus
This is a Matt Damon role: a quiet, unassuming guy that becomes a leader/winner/better person. He excels at these roles and does a good job as the captain of the South African rugby team here. Even if the film is a bit too straightforward and neat in showing the nation coming together, Damon plays the role with an intense sense of duty to his country and it comes off as being very genuine. It just doesn't come off as anything extraordinary or special. Inspirational, yes, but it follows the long line of cliche sports movie heroes we've seen many times before.
Woody Harrelson - The Messenger
Even if Harrelson's character doesn't wear his beret correctly, he does a good job as the Casualty Notification Officer delivering bad news in The Messenger. I liked this performance because the character seems completely human, faults and all, much like regular Army officers that I've known. There's no superhuman, Army robot, killing machine here, just a man who values his job and what it entails. There's no bravado, no loud overdone performance. You really believe in the character and can identify Harrelson with someone you know/knew in the military. That's why the performance works for me because Harrelson comes off as human and not someone's idea of what a soldier is which hurts another movie from this year that I'll get into later.
Christopher Plummer - The Last Station
Let's just say this movie was not very good and go from there. The script does no one any favors in this movie and the story suffers dramatically from it. So in saying that, I don't know what Plummer could have done to make this a memorable performance. I really don't know how he and Helen Mirren were nominated for this poor film. There's just not much going on for Plummer's Tolstoy other than walking around looking content or dying. I guess you can say he does both well, but that's about all he does in this film. There's no subtleties or nuances, no layers, no emotional depth. Everything is superficial and, well, frankly boring. It's as if he put on some Russian-y clothes and was filmed doing so. Much of the fault for such a boring character (and movie) goes to the director, but a veteran actor like Plummer should be able to do something more than this.
Stanley Tucci - The Lovely Bones
Surprisingly, Tucci's first nomination comes in this terribly directed movie. Tucci does a superb job as the creepy serial killer, which is a testament to his acting ability. I've seen him in too many Meryl Streep movies and seeing him play something that goes against those types brings a little fresh air to my overall view of him. There's not much else to say about this performance besides it's completely believable. You can imagine this man living next door to you and never thinking anything of it and certainly not thinking he's a little girl serial killer. He plays the character with such an understated, quiet, repressed evil that it adds an extra layer of creepiness and really adds to the character, making him difficult to stomach. An interesting nomination on the Academy's part.
This was an alright group buoyed by Waltz's amazing performance. The rest of the men all gave some pretty average to good performances and it surprises me that some of these were in fact nominated. I again agree with the Academy and I'm not sure how anyone could not agree with them. I'm also wondering if I should lower my standards for these supporting awards since I've been wanting to be wowed by not just the winners but the other nominees as well and have so far been wholly underwhelmed. I have a feeling that will continue as I go back in time. Not saying I don't enjoy watching these films, though, because I definitely do. Even the bad ones. Really you can flip Damon and Tucci and Harrelson and I'd have no problem.
Oscar Winner: Christoph Waltz - Inglourious Basterds
My Winner: Christoph Waltz - Inglourious Basterds
Woody Harrelson
Stanley Tucci
Matt Damon
Christopher Plummer
Monday, April 4, 2011
Supporting Actress 2009
Feels good to finally be done with 2010 (well, besides Javier Bardem's movie I can't find) since I've been watching those movies since Jan/Feb and thinking about what to write for the blog entries since then, too. On to new movies I haven't seen yet which will hopefully be a nice breath of fresh air.
2009 Best Supporting Actress
Mo'Nique - Precious: Based on the Novel "Push" by Sapphire
Mo'Nique is an evil, terrible person in this movie. She owns the character of Mary Lee Johnston and delivers a completely unlikeable performance which is far from a bad thing. She is seething with contempt and hostility at her daughter Precious for seemingly just being born. Any time she puts on a demeanor of niceness, it's only to keep her welfare checks coming or the social workers at bay, and that demeanor looks like it's ready to fall off at any moment. She lashes out at her daughter to deflect away any sense of vulnerability and we witness a mother who is unwilling to change because she blames her daughter for everything wrong in her life. My one complaint is that the performance feels too one-note. Mo'Nique plays evil well but there's not much depth to the character. We get a small peak at the end of the movie when she begins to let down her guard a bit, but then we realize it's not a breakthrough so much as it is another ploy to get her money.
Penelope Cruz - Nine
Not gonna lie, I saw this movie in theaters and enjoyed its aesthetic and some of the songs but will admit it's not that good of a movie. I wonder if Cruz's win the previous year and the Weinstein factor in an otherwise weak group led to this nomination. Cruz is basically eye candy as the woman Daniel Day-Lewis is having an affair with. The character seems more like a caricature than anything else and doesn't do anything to help the movie from looking and feeling like one big joke. The movie seems made to win Oscars and not much else and Cruz's role reflects this idea perfectly. All style, with no substance.
Vera Farmiga - Up in the Air
This performance isn't all that exceptional or powerful, it's sort of basic and run-of-the-mill. Farmiga produces a decent enough performance as George Clooney's love interest but ultimately she lacks any real oomph. I think a lot of that is due in part to the director/writer of the movie. As the viewer, we enjoy her character as a fit for Clooney and root on their blossoming romance only to have all of that interest in the character suddenly and unceremoniously pulled out from under us when we find out she isn't who she says she is. That scene really seems like it's there to provide some jarring, serious moment to get Clooney's character to change but it comes off utterly ridiculous and the movie suffers from that point on. There's just nothing really special about Farmiga's role here, though she does try to match Clooney's charm and almost comes close. Being able to keep up with Clooney doesn't really make the performance any more compelling than it already isn't.
Maggie Gyllenhaal - Crazy Heart
Honestly, I had to watch his again because I could not remember a thing about her performance. Watching it a second time, I really think she was miscast. The romance between her and Bridges isn't believable and her Southern accent is pretty bad. At first, there is a wariness for Gyllenhaal's character in going for a relationship with Bad Blake and she does a good job in showing her hesitation in beginning the romance but gives in to her loneliness and need for a fatherly figure for her child. But the actual relationship part and the tribulations that come after just fall flat and seemed rushed to move the plot along. Why is this young aspiring journalist falling for an old, usually drunk, chain smoking country singer? There's no real chemistry or believability and that is due in large part to Gyllenhaal.
Anna Kendrick - Up in the Air
At first, Kendrick annoyed me a bit in this movie. Her character was just this insufferable, know it all, corporate do-gooder in the beginning and coupling that with Kendrick making the performance look like she was acting, well, I thought I was going to hate this one. But luckily her performance got better and better and added some depth which was much needed. She plays feisty yet vulnerable, self-assured yet doubting her life choices, independent yet still needing people and these can play out in the same scenes with minimal effort. I was glad I was wrong with my initial thoughts because I enjoyed whatever scenes she was in and thought she was a perfect foil to Clooney in this movie. I wish at times she acted with more power (not saying louder or overdone) and had been able to steal the movie away from Clooney, which I thought she was easily capable of doing.
Not a very strong group at all in my opinion. I'm satisfied with Mo'Nique winning because she gives such a searing performance, one that I think will be looked at fondly in years to come. I give the same performance the edge over Anna Kendrick, which I also liked. From there I feel there's a drop off into the more average to below average range and I know that there were probably more deserving actresses out there. I have a feeling this category is going to be the one I least want to watch and review. Hopefully I am proven wrong in the coming reviews.
Oscar Winner: Mo'Nique - Precious: Based on the Novel "Push" by Sapphire
My Winner: Mo'Nique - Precious: Based on the Novel "Push" by Sapphire
Anna Kendrick
Vera Farmiga
Maggie Gyllenhaal
Penelope Cruz
2009 Best Supporting Actress
Mo'Nique - Precious: Based on the Novel "Push" by Sapphire
Mo'Nique is an evil, terrible person in this movie. She owns the character of Mary Lee Johnston and delivers a completely unlikeable performance which is far from a bad thing. She is seething with contempt and hostility at her daughter Precious for seemingly just being born. Any time she puts on a demeanor of niceness, it's only to keep her welfare checks coming or the social workers at bay, and that demeanor looks like it's ready to fall off at any moment. She lashes out at her daughter to deflect away any sense of vulnerability and we witness a mother who is unwilling to change because she blames her daughter for everything wrong in her life. My one complaint is that the performance feels too one-note. Mo'Nique plays evil well but there's not much depth to the character. We get a small peak at the end of the movie when she begins to let down her guard a bit, but then we realize it's not a breakthrough so much as it is another ploy to get her money.
Penelope Cruz - Nine
Not gonna lie, I saw this movie in theaters and enjoyed its aesthetic and some of the songs but will admit it's not that good of a movie. I wonder if Cruz's win the previous year and the Weinstein factor in an otherwise weak group led to this nomination. Cruz is basically eye candy as the woman Daniel Day-Lewis is having an affair with. The character seems more like a caricature than anything else and doesn't do anything to help the movie from looking and feeling like one big joke. The movie seems made to win Oscars and not much else and Cruz's role reflects this idea perfectly. All style, with no substance.
Vera Farmiga - Up in the Air
This performance isn't all that exceptional or powerful, it's sort of basic and run-of-the-mill. Farmiga produces a decent enough performance as George Clooney's love interest but ultimately she lacks any real oomph. I think a lot of that is due in part to the director/writer of the movie. As the viewer, we enjoy her character as a fit for Clooney and root on their blossoming romance only to have all of that interest in the character suddenly and unceremoniously pulled out from under us when we find out she isn't who she says she is. That scene really seems like it's there to provide some jarring, serious moment to get Clooney's character to change but it comes off utterly ridiculous and the movie suffers from that point on. There's just nothing really special about Farmiga's role here, though she does try to match Clooney's charm and almost comes close. Being able to keep up with Clooney doesn't really make the performance any more compelling than it already isn't.
Maggie Gyllenhaal - Crazy Heart
Honestly, I had to watch his again because I could not remember a thing about her performance. Watching it a second time, I really think she was miscast. The romance between her and Bridges isn't believable and her Southern accent is pretty bad. At first, there is a wariness for Gyllenhaal's character in going for a relationship with Bad Blake and she does a good job in showing her hesitation in beginning the romance but gives in to her loneliness and need for a fatherly figure for her child. But the actual relationship part and the tribulations that come after just fall flat and seemed rushed to move the plot along. Why is this young aspiring journalist falling for an old, usually drunk, chain smoking country singer? There's no real chemistry or believability and that is due in large part to Gyllenhaal.
Anna Kendrick - Up in the Air
At first, Kendrick annoyed me a bit in this movie. Her character was just this insufferable, know it all, corporate do-gooder in the beginning and coupling that with Kendrick making the performance look like she was acting, well, I thought I was going to hate this one. But luckily her performance got better and better and added some depth which was much needed. She plays feisty yet vulnerable, self-assured yet doubting her life choices, independent yet still needing people and these can play out in the same scenes with minimal effort. I was glad I was wrong with my initial thoughts because I enjoyed whatever scenes she was in and thought she was a perfect foil to Clooney in this movie. I wish at times she acted with more power (not saying louder or overdone) and had been able to steal the movie away from Clooney, which I thought she was easily capable of doing.
Not a very strong group at all in my opinion. I'm satisfied with Mo'Nique winning because she gives such a searing performance, one that I think will be looked at fondly in years to come. I give the same performance the edge over Anna Kendrick, which I also liked. From there I feel there's a drop off into the more average to below average range and I know that there were probably more deserving actresses out there. I have a feeling this category is going to be the one I least want to watch and review. Hopefully I am proven wrong in the coming reviews.
Oscar Winner: Mo'Nique - Precious: Based on the Novel "Push" by Sapphire
My Winner: Mo'Nique - Precious: Based on the Novel "Push" by Sapphire
Anna Kendrick
Vera Farmiga
Maggie Gyllenhaal
Penelope Cruz
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)