Best Picture 2007

2007 was definitely one of the best years for film in a long time. All 5 of these nominees are great and should absolutely be watched and studied for years to come. As is usual with the Best Picture category, I've seen most - if not all - nominees while doing the 4 other categories, so I've already got my mind made up as to how my rankings will play out. Read on and find out!

2007 Best Picture

No Country for Old Men

In a year that brought back the Western, it's fitting that a film like this would win. Obviously it's not a typical Western film, but the vibe is there and it's amazing that 2007 produced so many great Western movies. No Country for Old Men is an instant classic. The Coen Brothers adapted Cormac McCarthy's indelible novel into a film that latches onto your brain and burrows itself deep into your psyche. It strikes the perfect balance between being too simple and too complicated. The writing is exceptional and there are many scenes that I wish would go on forever because they are absolutely brilliant. The writing never panders and is whip smart, and the dialogue is measured so that none of it feels too fake. The casting as well is perfect. Javier Bardem turns in one of the greatest villain characters of all time. His Anton Chigurh is memorable and incomparable. Josh Brolin and Tommy Lee Jones both make their characters and the rest of the cast does a terrific job -  from the stars like Woody Harrelson to the no-names who play hotel owners. When I saw this film for the first time, the one thing that immediately stood out for me was the beautiful cinematography. Roger Deakins captures the tone of the movie so very well. His photography is all at once foreboding, bleak, independent, and jarring. The slow, building tension throughout keeps the viewer engaged and on the edge of their seat and tightens it's grip as it moves along. For me, there were no dull parts. I was hooked from the beginning and it only got progressively more interesting as time went along. It's unrelenting and uncompromising in its depiction of the story and the treatment of the characters. No one is safe, which is one of the main reasons I like this film so much. When I first saw the ending in theaters, I turned to my Army buddies I went with and we all had an expression of "what do we make of that?!" but in less vulgar terms. I can see how the ending might turn some people off, but for me it worked. And it kept us talking for literally two or three days as we made sense of it. Truly the sign of a great ending and a great movie.

Atonement

I love that you see two different sides to what really happens. As both are real but tell two different stories to different people. It shows that we can sometimes see what we want and the lasting effects it can cause - the main point of Atonement. The movie creeps along at times, even with the flashbacks and mystery elements involved, but director Joe Wright has crafted a period piece that feels fresh and exciting. The first act has constant simmering sexual undertones that, coupled with some extraordinary acting, defies the usual stuffy English estate fluff we see from most period pieces. The second act Dunkirk scenes are especially brutal to watch and the long one shot tracking scene is utterly amazing and gorgeous to look at. It's a scene that would make Alfonso Cuaron and Emmanuel Lubezki proud. The third act loses some steam and the "twist" at the end comes off a little hokey to me even though I understand the moral questions it's trying to ask us. Can art atone for moral inequities? It's an interesting question that ultimately feels tacked on at the end of a film that was already asking interesting moral questions. I personally would have done without that as the ending. James McAvoy was exceptional and dynamic as Robbie and added a sincerity and honestness to his role that was refreshing to see. He deftly portrayed the complex character with the perfect amount of nuance and he really was the highlight for me. The film itself had such a quiet, understated seriousness to it that it never felt like you were watching period film or a British film and kept me involved as a viewer despite it's slow parts. Especially when you read the description and think "oh no - another boring, critically hyped film that will take a few viewings to get through," it was far from the film I was initially expecting. It was beautifully shot and the score that seemed to live just underneath every scene was quite remarkable (it won Best Original Score) and lent itself to a Mad Men-esque opening credits sense of movement and foreboding. Atonement helped add to an incredibly strong year for film in 2007 and would have been a leading contender in almost any other year.

Juno

I'll admit that the first time I saw this when it came out, I loved it. It was very much a movie for the younger generation and it hit all the right notes for me at that time. Watching it again....it's apparent that Diablo Cody just tries way too hard with her writing and there are way too many cringe worthy moments for me to truly call this a great film. Some of the dialogue is so affected that it grates the ears since no kid ever talks in that way (and I wasn't all that far removed from high school when this came out). Sometimes it skates by on its assuredly unique premise but gets bogged down in being too hip and cute and independent. The somewhat decent script falters at points where the witty, fast paced dialogue of teenagers dealing with a life changing event becomes the all too unbelievable mouthpiece of an adult writer. Time and again this would take me out of the movie but I'd get sucked back in because the characters are fun to watch interact with each other. It has both the comedic and poignant moments that make this film transcend the laughable dialogue and take on a frighteningly real moment in life that happens to many teenagers with a sense of understanding and care. You feel for Juno and when she lets her guard down we can see she really is just a scared kid on the inside despite her casual demeanor. The film never really probes too deep into the societal and personal ramifications of teen pregnancy and misses it's chances to deliver some truly dramatic moments in favor of trying to make the audience happy with jokes and a feel good ending. Despite the great music selection and the ever present charm Ellen Page exudes, Juno is a bit too neat in appealing to movie goers and not pushing the boundaries it thinks it has set up. It is still a film worth watching and it's not as terrible as I've made it seem, but there were other more deserving films that should have taken its place.

Michael Clayton

This film is the one I always forget about when trying to remember the Best Picture nominees for 2007. That's due mostly to it flying under the radar for me when it actually came out - I'd never heard of it and I wasn't really paying attention to movies much back then, preparing for a deployment and all that. So when I first watched this one in 2009, it was like finding a $20 in your jacket pocket from last year. That is to say a real hidden gem. Michael Clayton is a tad bit complicated, one you have to watch intently to figure out the different converging stories but it pays off in the end. What I liked about it was how grown-up it felt. It's a smart movie that never panders to the audience, it has such an adult feel to it that it's like a breath of fresh air for Oscar type films. Sure, 2007 has quite a few nominees that fit this standard, too, but you'd expect that from the Coen Brothers and Paul Thomas Anderson. You don't get the hand holding that a lot of other corporate thrillers use to make the story more easy to digest and it makes watching this film a rewarding experience. The cast does an amazing job and rightly deserved their acting nominations for it. Those characters all seem plausible and real and are never dumbed down to their basest one note qualities. The story is suspenseful and exciting from the very beginning (even though I wish it wouldn't have shown the ending at the start, but it still works) and builds to a satisfying end even if everything isn't completely spelled out for the viewer. This is how Best Picture nominees should look.

There Will Be Blood

This is simply a modern masterpiece. One that I think will probably recognized as one of the greatest films of all time from the 2000s. Try as I might to find a flaw worth writing about, there's just nothing that stands out to me in that regard. The cinematography is breathtakingly brilliant, the score is so unique and doesn't hand hold the viewer through the film and tell them exactly what to feel, and there are so many iconic images that can be taken from this film that it's really hard to pick just one.Daniel Day-Lewis gives what I believe to be his best performance ever and one that should surely go down in history as an incredible achievement in acting. Paul Dano shines in his breakout role and makes the interaction between his character and DDL's such a rewarding battle of wills to watch. Eli and Plainview are very similar and I really enjoy how Paul Thomas Anderson connect the two as people. The first time Plainview beats Eli, Eli then goes home and acts the exact same way to his father that Plainview acted towards him. It's remarkable stuff and PTA deserves most of the credit for keeping the script from sounding too hokey, which is a problem for most period pieces. The slow building of the film to it's final scene with the milkshake discussion in the bowling alley (my favorite part) never felt labored and it always felt important from the very beginning which helped keep me hooked for 2 and a half hours, quite the achievement. PTA's direction as well was phenomenal, so many brilliant angles and interesting set ups. There are so many classic scenes and moments that will no doubt be cribbed from ad nauseum for decades to come. My one gripe would be that the end feels like a few different vignettes stuck together at times. However, those "vignettes" are masterfully done and don't detract from the overall story or tone -- I just wish they were connected a little better. Love how it's somewhat of a mystery.The film never feels too one note, either, and has elements of mystery, Westerns, horror, dramatic period piece - all kinds of different influences that create a distinctively American Classic.




I feel as if this group is the best out of the 5 years I've done so far. Every film is great even though I would probably bump Juno for one of Zodiac, Gone Baby Gone, or The Assassination of Jesse James. It would have made for a very intense bunch of nominees, though. I definitely wish that 2007 was a year of 10 nominees because there were tons of other films that had a legitimate shot at making an 8-10 slot. I really can't say enough about how great this year was for film. I waffle between giving my top spot to No Country or TWBB and I'd probably give it to whichever movie I've seen last. A very slight edge to TWBB for now since I believe it'll be the film that shows up on the Sight & Sound poll in the future. I really liked how Atonement wasn't what I was expecting the first time I watched it and it completely shattered my expectations. Michael Clayton is close behind that one with Juno bringing up the rear. Juno really had no chance in a year where 4 serious films knocked it out of the park unfortunately for it. All in all my favorite year so far.

Oscar Winner: No Country for Old Men
My Winner:  There Will Be Blood
No Country for Old Men
Atonement
Michael Clayton
Juno

Leading Actor 2007

My favorite category is here again! I've had the pleasure of already watching all of these performances prior to this project and by name alone this is one hell of a group. With 3 previous Oscar winners in Day-Lewis, Clooney and Jones and a previous multiple nominee in Depp, it's almost surprising that this is Mortensen's first nomination. So needless to say I will enjoy writing about these since all of them are great with the exception of Tommy Lee Jones' film, which I'm interested in watching again.

2007 Best Actor

Daniel Day-Lewis - There Will Be Blood

What else can be said about Daniel Day-Lewis besides that he is probably the greatest living actor we have today. He is known for diving headfirst into his roles and staying in character even off set and it shows in all of the films he does, even those that aren't as good. This is no different for his Daniel Plainview, an oil-man looking to strike it rich. Day-Lewis' character starts out strong while digging for gold and silver deep in a hole in the middle of nowhere. There is no dialogue for over 15 minutes in the beginning, yet DDL carries the action so well that one hardly realizes not one word has been spoken. Everything that makes Daniel Plainview work perfectly is in all those tics, hunched over looks, sideways glances, the intense bouts of violence that come out of nowhere, the sounds he makes with his mouth. There's a lot of thought and effort put into Plainview that fully enriches the experience for the viewer. He can easily slip between the seductively persuasive and the intensely terrifying in order to get his way. He's ruthless and relentless and it can be hard to discern if he's a decent man infatuated with making it rich at the expense of everything else or an evil man  that uses any means at his disposal to get what he wants. It's an incredibly fascinating character that is wholly iconic due to the utterly amazing talents of Daniel Day-Lewis.

George Clooney - Michael Clayton

Watching Clooney over the years, two different types of character have emerged that best describe to me the bulk of his roles. There's the serious, sullen, straight to the point so we can get things done kinda guy who is trying to work through the problems in his messy life. And then there's the smooth talking, uber charming, good-natured, funny man that you can't help but like regardless of the situation. Both of which are Classic Clooney. Clooney is mostly the former in Michael Clayton as the eponymous "fixer" from the law firm representing an agrochemical company whose tainted product has killed many and are now bogged down in legal battles. His job is to come in to help make legal messes more manageable which is ironic since his own life is in turmoil as a divorced father with a son he can't relate to and money problems stemming from bad investments and a gambling addiction. He's great at being able to switch between his roles as the fixer who can walk into a room, command authority and begin mitigating damage almost immediately usually over the the protestations of whoever he is helping and then become the man whose worn and tired face betrays the confidence the other man possesses. He's a man whose current place in life has left him unhappy, dissatisfied, and depressed. And once he stumbles on the secret Tom Wilkinson's character did and becomes embroiled in the situation as well, Clooney seizes on his chance for a way out. There is nothing smarmy, slick, or GQ about this performance. Unlike his last 2 nominations, this one feels more like it was well earned off the strength of the acting alone, instead of his name. This is Classic Clooney.

Johnny Depp - Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street

This is a perfect role for Depp. Sure he could be a serious leading man and do Oscar-y dramas year in and year out but I'm glad that Depp has decided to forgo all that and make movies that are risky and fun and entertaining at the same time. Depp just looks good in dark pictures, whether it's Edward Scissorhands or Dark Shadows, and he excels at these quirky roles that other actors would no doubt have trouble with. The realistic singing is a nice touch as well. Not Broadway, belt-it-out quality but real and visceral and full of the same emotion found on stage. Depp expertly plays a man consumed by revenge and watching him slowly descend into madness is great fun. He has a superb supporting cast to work with and they all match each other step-for-step, effectively grounding Todd into a somewhat humanistic character and never letting him rise to be the garish and overblown character he could be in lesser hands. Tim Burton does a great job tempering the volatile moments with the lighthearted and thus gives the audience hope that Todd may exact his revenge and be absolved of his hatred. Depp never betrays his director's vision which most likely comes from their years of working together. Depp is the perfect Sweeney Todd and a welcomed oddity in the Best Actor pantheon.

Tommy Lee Jones - In the Valley of Elah

So this was not the movie I was thinking about when I wrote the introduction. I must have mixed it up with one of the other Iraq war movies. This film plays out more like a detective movie with military undertones than anything else and Tommy Lee Jones delivers a solid performance. Jones definitely portrays his character, a father searching for his missing Army son, as very straight and proper. Jones comes off a little too good and no nonsense in a way, as if he's the quintessential father and veteran combo. This comes off slightly aggravating but it's done no doubt to establish that Jones' character is a worrisome dad out to seek justice and find truth even through the military bullshit - something he was once a part of. It's a solid performance because Jones is wholly believable in his role, unafraid to ask questions others might shy away from and steadfast in his devotion to finding out what has happened with his son. He does at times seem to be too good at figuring out things others have missed in the investigation, obviously done to move the plot along, but it's done in a way to not take the viewer out of the film. Jones just has that harsh paternal air to him that works wonders in roles like these. This is almost like a forebear to Jones' role in No Country for Old Men, as their are definite similarities between the two. He's convincing and natural and definitely worthy of his 3rd nomination.

Viggo Mortensen - Eastern Promises

What a quietly strong performance. Mortensen delivers a rich yet subtle take on a Russian mobster. He's a very calculated man of very few words but Mortensen can convey so much with his facial expressions and the way he delivers his lines - even those in Russian. His character, Nikolai, is a driver working for the London based Russian mob and is being groomed to take on more responsibilities by the family. Mortensen gives a calming and heartfelt performance of what is naturally a violent and cold-blooded profession. We see Nikolai's benevolent, humanistic qualities peek through his mobster facade now and again and are forced as the audience to reconcile the two extreme sides. Can we like a man who doesn't seem to fit our ideal of someone who may be a crazed, psychotic killer even though we know he works for such a violent and dangerous criminal organization? Mortensen makes that an easy yes, which is a tremendous accomplishment of his acting ability. The twist at the end seemed a bit obvious, but you were never quite sure of the real Nikolai until this point. He could have easily been one or the other and would have definitely convinced the audience this was true. The fight scene in the bath house is remarkable and makes both Viggo and his characters come off as absolute badasses. Probably one of the best fight scenes in film in recent years and one that is neither flashy or gimmicky; just straightforward, plausible real world violence. It amazes me that this is only Viggo's first nomination because he has turned in some incredible performances in the past and I'm glad to see him recognized here.


Another year, another amazing group of Best Actor nominees. I would say that 2007 was a watershed year for film and this group of men really hammer home how truly great it was. There were tons of great films, some of which will be thought of as classics years from now. And great individual performances, some of which will be held aloft as some of the best work ever put on film. These 5 men all help contribute to that and I'd say that Daniel Day-Lewis' is one that will be remembered for all time. He's had many incredible performances and this is just the feather in that cap. As for who would be my second choice one might as well flip a coin because they are all worthy of that distinction. I'd say the order below is fine for now but I could change my mind if I wrote this 5 minutes from now. Viggo should be more recognized by the Academy so I'm putting him as my second but Clooney gave an intense performance that I really liked and Depp was perfectly cast in a role he was obviously meant to play and Jones delivered an earnest character that may have had just a few faults. This was a really fun category to watch and write about.

Oscar Winner: Daniel Day-Lewis - There Will Be Blood
My Winner:   Daniel Day-Lewis - There Will Be Blood
Viggo Mortensen
George Clooney
Johnny Depp
Tommy Lee Jones

Leading Actress 2007

Even though I haven't seen 3 of these performances yet, I'm not all that excited by the choices. Hopefully I'll be pleasantly surprised and enjoy a banner year like the rest of the categories. However, I am worried that this category might drag on if the films themselves turn out to be boring - which I know isn't very fair to say - but none of these stand out like in the other categories. I will keep an open mind, though, since that's what this project is all about!

2007 Best Actress

Marion Cotillard - La Vie en Rose

I'll start off by saying that I knew nothing of Edith Piaf coming into this film other than she was a French chanteuse. Watching Cotillard's intense, passionate, feverish, and technically virtuosic performance made it clear even without ever seeing Piaf in action that this was not just simple mimicry. Cotillard inhabits Piaf's soul and wraps herself up in Piaf's tragic and heartbreaking life to a degree that is rarely seen in film today. It's apparent the skill with which Cotillard can act and what's great about her turn here is that it doesn't look or feel like acting. Most actresses would have overdone this role but Cotillard strikes all the right notes. It's certainly a powerful and emotionally resonant performance, one that looks effortless. Impressive, too, is that Cotillard plays a few different roles of Piaf throughout her life and changes to fit each one into her own style. I wish that I could compare Cotillard's version to the actual Edith Piaf, so for me this is just another character to judge, which I think works out better than a compare and contrast anyway since I don't get stuck on minor details. This is easily one of the best female performances I've had the pleasure of seeing so far in this project and that gives me hope as I go back in time that not every actress category will let me down. This was a tremendous performance and one that was probably not appreciated enough by the general public since it was a French speaking role of a singer most people know nothing about. Cotillard was brilliant and I'm glad I was able to watch this film.

Cate Blanchett - Elizabeth: The Golden Age

The second of Blanchett's TWO nominations this year which really showcases her acting ability, going from Queen Elizabeth to playing Bob Dylan is no easy feat! Unfortunately, Elizabeth thinks it is more important than it really is, but it's simply a puff period piece, peppered with faux seriousness. Blanchett doesn't have much to do but look good as Queen Elizabeth I, though she does a good job of that. It's not her fault that the material doesn't allow her to flex her acting muscles that are clearly evident in I'm Not There. It's unfortunate, too, because she could have easily given a very memorable performance as Elizabeth if the film would have taken itself seriously and not been an excuse to play dress up. Even the serious moments ring hollow because they don't seem to fit with the tone of the film and thus are wildly out of place. Interestingly, Blanchett was nominated for the same role back in 1998 for the first Elizabeth film, which helped bring her into worldwide prominence. By all accounts that role dwarfs this one and that's disheartening because the original showed how much better Blanchett's Queen could be, especially after a second go around.

Julie Christie - Away from Her

One of the things I like about going backwards in time with this blog is that I don't always have the history of an actor to influence me. By that I mean, Christie is regarded as a great actress and has a few nominations and a win under her belt already but this is my first time watching her in a leading role. All the reviews of this film I read begin with how good she was in the past which almost seems to explain why some people liked this performance, instead of just liking the performance and not the name attached to it. Christie plays a woman dealing with Alzheimer's and is put into a nursing home which strains the relationship with her husband as her memory fades. The film itself can be a little treacly at times which causes the performance to teeter on the edge of melodramatic. Christie is capable in the role, however, I did feel the portrayal was rather light, for lack of a better adjective. Though she is firmly in the grips of Alzheimer', I felt a lot of her acting was merely mugging for the camera and trying to keep the stately and sophisticated demeanor going. Once in her depressive and forgetful state, there seems to be little depth and it doesn't feel like an accurate representation of an Alzheimer's patient to me. It's built up for the dramatic effect and that leaves me wanting a whole lot more. It's obvious Christie has the talent, but I don't think it is put to the best use here.

Laura Linney - The Savages

It's interesting that the Best Actress group would have two performances from films dealing with Alzheimer's/dementia. To me, this is the better and more realistic of the two and a much better performance as well. Linney plays a woman dealing with her father suffering from dementia and the effect it has on her and her brother (Philip Seymour Hoffman - a big year for him). Linney's neurotic character was really believable. She portrayed the anxious, worrisome daughter that desperately craves her dad's affection after a lifetime of emotional neglect and abuse perfectly. Her character is a scarred person that is trying to find the right path in life to set a course to and you can see those levels easily in Linney's performance. She wants to please and be loved but is easily annoyed and still somewhat guarded and these multi-layers is what makes watching Linney so much fun. She and Hoffman have great brother-sister chemistry and the two make the message that coping with a loved one with dementia can be tough more relatable than Away From Her's take on this subject. Linney does a tremendous job and is quite deserving of her nomination.

Ellen Page - Juno

There is no doubt that Ellen Page owns this role and this film. She delivers a mesmerizing, extremely likable performance as Juno MacGuff, a pregnant 16 year old who has decided to give her baby up for adoption. Page is believable in the role and infuses the character with a bit of heart and soul, even when the script tries to let her down. In the beginning, Juno comes off as obnoxious and it's hard to become emotionally invested in her life. However, Page does a remarkable job reigning in that blase attitude and acerbic wit by injecting some realism and honesty into the character. There's always an underlying juvenile vulnerability evident in the cracks of Juno's tough, cool exterior and Page does a great job in balancing the two sides. Juno is a strong girl by nature and the character really shines when Page is able to show that she is not just a small adult, but a young kid dealing with a life changing event. This is where the writing sometimes fails Page and her character but she is able to rescue Juno from becoming too much of a one dimensional, movie caricature of an adult's idea of an independent young woman. The scenes where Juno realizes her love for Paulie, even if they are force fed to the audience to elicit a tear jerker reaction, are layered with such an honesty and hopefulness thanks to Page. Where Page succeeds for me is in not letting the character take over and become the sole focus of every scene she's in. Page does well to allow the supporting cast equal time to shine instead of giving a loud, overstated performance which the script surely allows (and maybe even wants). Page's delicately nuanced performance really stood out in a strong way, it really and easily deserved the nomination.

Marion Cotillard's win was the first time a French language role had won an Oscar. Quite impressive. She was my clear favorite because her performance really was all the superlatives you can throw at it. And to think that her win was considered a semi-upset as many wanted/expected Julie Christie to win. I didn't much care for Christie's performance and thought that Linney's film had a more realistic take on caring for a loved one afflicted with Alzheimer's/dementia. Linney was a sort of surprise for me as I wasn't sure what to expect, but her earnest performance was absolutely deserving of a nomination. Ellen Page was probably hamstrung from the start for being young and acting in a comedy of sorts but was my second favorite by far. If not for Hollywood's obsession with its older actors, Page may have won in a year where Cotillard wasn't in the mix. And Blanchett was basically just there, not terrible but not given anything great from which to work with. I'd take her Supporting nom over this one any day, though. Overall a decent year for Best Actress.

Oscar Winner: Marion Cotillard - La Vie en Rose
My Winner: Marion Cotillard - La Vie en Rose
Ellen Page
Laura Linney
Cate Blanchett
Julie Christie

Supporting Actor 2007

Only one of these (Casey Affleck) I've never actually seen, so I basically already know that this group is going to be a really wonderful year to review. I love when I know that all the nominees are going to be fun to watch again for one reason or another. I'm excited for Affleck's performance and can't wait to see how it ranks among the other 4!

2007 Best Supporting Actor

Javier Bardem - No Country for Old Men

Javier Bardem's portrayal of Anton Chigurh is one of the greatest instances of a "villain" being portrayed onscreen in the history of film. I truly feel that is an accurate statement. It's an absolute instant classic in the same vein as Chistoph Waltzs' Hans Landa from Inglourious Basterds (to name a contemporary comparison). It's an instantly memorable character from the voice, to the haircut, to the cattle stungun with which he kills some of his victims. We remember his scenes the most out of this film, like when he flips a coin to decide the fate of a gas station owner and calls him 'friendo,' all of which leave a mark on the viewer. The tension throughout the movie is so taut that we don't root for anyone to succeed - not Llewellyn or Chigurh. We only wait to see what happens next and that usually means what Chigurh does next, as he is the catalyst for moving this film forward. Bardem transcends and breaks down what is a typical villain role because he sets his own new standard. He is evil and bad but also somewhat funny. He acts without conscience or hesitation and calmly does his job at a plodding, but sincere, pace. Bardem forces you to admire his character, whether you want to or not, due to his workman-like attitude. There is no doubt that Bardem's character will be looked at as a paragon for villains for years, and maybe even decades, to come.

Casey Affleck - The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford

I will admit that this movie is my most anticipated one since I began this blog. I've heard great things about this movie and know the cast is really incredible and that the cinematography is excellent. I just wanted to say that I was really excited about this one going into it. Having now finally watched it, I'm not sure why this wasn't a Best Picture nominee. That's how much I liked it. The acting was brilliant and Affleck absolutely deserved this nomination even if you throw out his other good performance of the year in Gone Baby Gone. Affleck conveys so much emotion just by moving his eyes and it was incredible to watch. He could show us embarrassment, absolute hatred, child-like glee and wonder, and apprehension among what was seemingly an endless display of human emotions without saying a word. And even though we know what happens in the end with him killing Jesse James, Affleck is able to resonate with the viewer and gain some understanding of his action, if not a little sympathy or pity. I can understand what it must be like to meet a childhood idol only to have them not live up to expectations and, ultimately, end up hating them because they are not the idealized version you had dreamed up. Affleck is terrific at maneuvering through the complexities of portraying a desperate and needy fan boy who only wants to fit in and be somebody while still dealing with being tormented, sometimes by James himself, and reconciling with his lofty ambitions he so desperately clings to. It's a unique and in depth look at how people strive for and deal with fame that is truly magnified by Affleck's great performance.

Philip Seymour Hoffman - Charlie Wilson's War

After wondering why the Academy would nominate Hoffman for this role I came to two conclusions: they like going back to the well with their darlings (past winners/nominees) and Hoffman was being rewarded for an incredible 2007. To take nothing away from his role in this film, he had a few good performances a la Jessica Chastain in 2011 that may have secured this one for him. He plays a CIA agent who helps a hard partying, embattled Congressman from Texas fund the mujahadeen in their fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan. You can tell Aaron Sorkin's hands are all over this because at times it feels like a TV series, and Hoffman's dialogue is whip fast and too perfect. Hoffman himself plays the role ideally, with a gravitas you'd expect from an Oscar winner. However, you can't help but feel like you've already seen this type of character from Hoffman before. It reminded me of a mix of Along Came Polly, Punch-Drunk Love, and The Ides of March characters all rolled into one. Which I admit is a bit unfair since the latter film only just came out last year (2011). So I can't knock him too hard for that. He's a kind of director of the action and he is excellent at moving a scene along or shouldering the tough bits without letting us down. It's a treat to watch Hoffman do his thing - even in a film like this.

Hal Holbrook - Into the Wild

This is a very inspired performance from Hal Holbrook. I don't see it as inspiring, however, but I can certainly appreciate and respect the effort. It's incredibly obvious to me that Holbrook was so thrilled and elated to have a final shot at turning out a memorable movie role that he put his all into this one. Or at least that's what I think every time he's onscreen. His joy is palpable and his ease with which he inhabits his character speaks to an actor that has totally fused himself to the role. I liked watching his scenes because he really injected some life into a film that went long stretches of being too serious and inward. You can tell he cherished his time onscreen and the audience was definitely better for it. I do think this nomination has a bit of the usual Academy rewarding a career type sheen to it but I can see half the voters really loving the performance because it's easy to become infatuated with. Though Holbrook's character becomes a sort of father figure to the main character, Chris, it's mostly forced and seems like a dull tool with which to humanize him. This is no fault of Holbrook as the script and directing do their best to neuter him. It's unfortunate that the film did his energized performance no favors as it could have truly shined in better company.

Tom Wilkinson - Michael Clayton

Wilkinson's initial intro monologue is full of force and power and is a capsule of his whole performance. It's almost fun to watch him during this film because everyone else is so serious. He's had a mental breakdown and is able to have fun with his character since it means acting like a child at times. He's a man who's guilt has eaten at his insides and taken over his body and possibly made him go off his manic-depressive meds leading to his break. When Wilkinson is onscreen, the breakdown feels like an excuse for him to atone for his 6 years of defending the agrochemical company even though his law firm has no plans of settling or going to trial in order to make more money.Wilkinson is at the top of his acting game here and in fine form. He's like a man possessed, he inhabits his character and fully owns his performance. Wilkinson is the catalyst for Clooney's character questioning his role as a "fixer" and Wilkinson's litigator makes the audience question the tactics of U North and the firms they hire. Wilkinson does a great job of instantly getting the audience on his side despite the fact that we don't really know the particulars of the case. It's fascinating to watch because he's come undone just as he's found his conscience which I think is the main point of the film -- the truth will set you free, but at what price? It's great acting in a wonderfully cerebral film.

The Supporting Actor category continues to be an amazing group of men and one that I enjoy watching for this blog. No one here is undeserving of their nomination and each role was a lot of fun to watch. Bardem's role was easily the best and it stood about 100 times better than the rest. It was a classic character that blew the rest out of the water, though Affleck did give him a run for his money. I really, really like Affleck and I feel that in most any other year he would have won. It was that good to me and my clear second. Wilkinson was also really good and really helped elevate this year's Supporting into a stronger category. Hoffman and Holbrook bring up the rear but not because they were terrible. Both made their respective films that much better because they were in them. All in all, 2007 was a great year not only for film but for individual acting as well.

Oscar Winner: Javier Bardem - No Country for Old Men
My Winner: Javier Bardem - No Country for Old Men
Casey Affleck
Tom Wilkinson
Philip Seymour Hoffman
Hal Holbrook

Supporting Actress 2007

Finally continuing to move back in time as I move on to 2007. As I've said before, I'm super excited for this year due to the extraordinary amount of great nominees and hopeful that the few I haven't seen can be on the same level. For what has typically been the category I dislike the most, I know this year upends that notion with some great performances. I've already seen 4 of the 5 and the last one is the inimitable Cate Blanchett - she of the TWO acting nominations this year. So you know it's a strong year when the category I usually love to hate ends up being easy to love.

2007 Best Supporting Actress

Tilda Swinton - Michael Clayton

Swinton is a stalwart, no nonsense, company woman trying to appease the big bosses of the agrochemical company she is a lawyer for. She is almost like an assassin in her somewhat cold, uncompromising, yet ruthless demeanor. She rehearses answers to an interviewer's questions to perfection so she comes off as strong and a leader during the actual interview. She values her career and works diligently at it no matter what. She wants to quickly put an end to the class action lawsuit against her company which would surely result in being put in a favorable position for promotion and increased responsibility later on down the line. She has a much smaller role than I remember from my first watch years ago which says a lot about her performance. It's intense and incredibly believable. One could easily picture Swinton walking around in a power suit doling out legal advice. Her performance was memorable enough to stand out in my mind when thinking of this film even though she doesn't get a ton of screen time. However, she is but one cog in the machine that is Michael Clayton. Without her costars, her performance would feel out of place or too serious since everyone else delivers career defining performances and this only serves to help buoy Swinton's portrayal along with the rest of the film. Not to say she would sink without the others but she would definitely look out of place, most likely as the lone bright spot. So this is definitely a moment where the actors fed off each other's energy and challenged everyone else to up their game. What we got as a result was one of Swinton's best performances in her career.

Cate Blanchett - I'm Not There

Blanchett encapsulates the persona of Dylan more so than the other big names in this film and she does it with relative ease -- but that could be because she seems to have the easiest role. It's one that is a little more fun and less brooding. She represents the controversial years of Dylan's life as she plays the character Jude Quinn and thus isn't completely pigeonholed into being simply a one note version of Dylan. The looks, mannerisms, and voice are unnervingly accurate and highlights his vulnerability as a person. The carefree demeanor she exudes adds to Dylan's notion at the time that not one person can change the world and being at peace with that. It's almost a comical portrayal that treads ever so lightly around devolving into a caricature. But this is a film where the subject really has to connect with the viewer to make an impact and I just am not a fan of Dylan even if I did like a few songs in the movie (though sung by other people which is probably why). So while the performance obviously shines in the scope of the narrative it doesn't really stay with me after it's over. It was like an appetizer for something that could have been a lot greater than it was. I'd be interested in a film of only Blanchett as Dylan.

Ruby Dee - American Gangster

This is a token nomination and nothing else. One of those nominations where the Academy rewards a body of work and long history in film instead of the actual acting being any good. Of note is Dee being the second oldest nominee ever for Best Supporting Actress -- with one of the shortest screen times ever, just over 5 minutes. That alone should tell you all you need to know about this nomination. The majority of critic's online don't even mention her in their reviews. So how is her actual performance? To me, the performance is a bit labored. It has the air of acting which is never a good sign. Her delivery is hurried and the only real moment is when she slaps Denzel, but that role could have been filled by anyone. From my mom to my grandmas to any woman over 30. Unfortunately, what we are left with is maybe a one minute scene at most, but none of which ever leave their mark or leave you riveted to your seat while she is on screen. Did her 3% of the film leave an indelible mark? Simply...no.

Saoirse Ronan - Atonement

This is the role that brought Ronan to international prominence and began her as to date impressive film career. She plays Briony Tallis, a young privileged English girl during WWII who enjoys writing plays for her family. She is intense and mature beyond her years at times but naive and juvenile at others. Her precociousness can be easily read on her face alone, which is impressive that she can emote a sense of wonderment so willfully at such a young age. You can see the wheels turning in her head as she surveys the grown-up world around her and tries to figure out what's going on and what to do about it. She definitely has a writer's sense of understanding of the world and the people around her, even if it initially is the wrong impression. Briony's childish crush on Robbie, a son of their housekeeper who is in love with her older sister sets in motion the whole plot based on the confusing notions of her budding sexuality and fervor for petty revenge. It's all a misunderstanding because she doesn't understand what she sees (and reads) between her sister and Robbie. Ronan is able to expertly display all of these conflicting emotions with reserve and subtlety, especially during some of the more serious moments. And while she is the forefront of a lot of scenes - hell, most of the movie - she never really takes over and overacts. I actually find it nice that she can be as young as she is here and resist the urge to show off her acting "ability" as many young actors would. This role really demonstrates how ahead of her time Ronan is and why she is an emerging young movie star.

Amy Ryan - Gone Baby Gone

Amy Ryan is authentic. She is incredibly convincing as a drug addled mother who has lost her daughter. Ryan's Southie accent is on point and the viewer can't help but look at her with disdain and sympathy. I don't agree with those that view this as a movie to not like because there is no happy ending and it's grim. It seems immensely real because of this, so the non happy ending feels legit. It's raw and a slice of Boston life that grabs the viewer and doesn't let them go. While all of the other characters in Gone Baby Gone suffer from being too literary (Affleck becomes a super detective, Ed Harris is too stereotypical), Ryan is the only one who feels fully realized and much of that is because of her powerhouse acting. In between her drugged out phases, Ryan's Helene McCready plays up her grieving mother role for the cameras and to get away with her illicit behavior. It's impressive that she can be so manipulative even when high but when one thinks about it, it's obvious that she would have to be to stay alive and never own up to her actions. At times, she almost seems glad for the tragedy to have occurred, but the greater tragedy is knowing that if the child is found she would be returned to her junkie mom. And this makes it hard to hope for the little girl's survival and demonstrates just how utterly disgusting Helene can be, an attribute to Ryan portraying both sides of the woman with equal fervor.


Probably the best Supporting Actress categories I've yet to cover and it's a nice feeling not having to slog through awful films to watch borderline performances. Of note is that Cate Blanchett was nominated for both Supporting and Lead Actress in 2007. That makes her the 11th actor to have two acting nominations in the same year. Minus Ruby Dee, watching the remaining 4 was a lot fun and I'd rank them all close together. Right now my winner would be Ryan but I have a feeling I could put Swinton or Ronan in that spot when I look back at this in 6 months. And that is part of what makes doing this project and blog so much fun. Swinton's win was actually a bit of a shock back in 2008, both to the audience and to Tilda herself (though not a huge shock by any means). Ruby Dee won the SAG Award (gag) and Blanchett had the buzz and the Golden Globe, so even back then it was up in the air.

Oscar Winner: Tilda Swinton - Michael Clayton
My Winner: Amy Ryan - Gone Baby Gone
Tilda Swinton
Saoirse Ronan
Cate Blanchett
Ruby Dee

Best Picture 2011

I'm going to try and keep this short. I'm still suffering the post-Oscar burnout, so I'm extremely glad to end 2011 and move on to 2007. Following the Oscar race this year was quite an experience and I can't wait for next year! I have watched some of these films more than a few times and that will wear down anyone. Just as writing about a film after not having watched it for awhile can be quite difficult. This year's field is a little less provocative but still interesting. On to the films!

2011 Best Picture

The Artist

How fitting that for a year that will probably be known for being nostalgic and introspective that a black and white mostly silent film about the birth of talking pictures would win Best Picture. There's no doubt good word of mouth helped buoy this film all the way to a nomination and win. I feel it's a deserving win in a noticeably weaker year, but that's not to say The Artist is sub par or anything. I would best describe it as light, airy, and feel good-y with some serious moments that don't feel forced and fit within the structure of the film quite well. It follows George Valentin who is one of the biggest male movie stars in the silent era as the silent films get supplanted by the "talkies" and a young female star takes his place as the most beloved. His transition is a joy to watch as Dujardin is completely spellbinding and really brings his character to life. We feel his frustration as the world starts to favor the new talkies over silent films and his despair once he is cast aside is very palpable. Even the threat of suicide when Valentin feels he is at rock bottom feels real and natural and gives the film some tangible human emotion. It makes his comeback even more delightful and the film captures the ups and downs of life itself really well. There are times when style wins out over substance in The Artist, but it never detracts from the overall product. I loved the minimal use of sound at different parts to bring tension and a sense of triumph to various scenes - it was a clever touch. For a film that is very much a love letter to Hollywood, it evokes all the great things we love about cinema and helps us forget some of the things we don't want to remember.

The Descendants

Firstly, I love that Jim Rash (Dean Pelton from Community) received an Oscar for Screenwriting for this film because he is hilarious. However, my biggest beef with The Descendants is that it tries it's hardest to be a dramedy but fails at balancing the comedy and dramatic parts. It would have worked better for me if it was more of one or the other. But unfortunately the comedy undermines the dramatic scenes and vice versa, making for a hodge podge of scenes that you feel inappropriate for laughing at on one hand and weirded out on the other. There are some truly funny and serious moments but they never fully mesh and we're left with two separate versions of this film. From what I understand, Alexander Payne re-wrote the screenplay that Nat Faxon and Rash had worked on and it seems that maybe Payne added the more serious moments since the other two were Groundling members (a comedy troupe). This is pure speculation on my part because it seems as if two hands were guiding this film but it would explain a lot. I do think that Shailene Woody's character shines throughout the film as a reasonable version of today's American teen. There was talk she might be nominated for Best Supporting Actress but ultimately did not, though I think she may have been 5th or 6th overall. The character of Sid brings some legitimate funny moments and Clooney excels during his comedic moments, struggling at times to be convincing as a loving, caring, sad father/husband. For a film that should be full of emotion, there's very little here save for the ending which tries to for an emotional gut punch but comes up too little, too late. Add a bunch of unlikable characters and you get a film that underachieves big time.

Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close

I had this review all written out in my head before I even watched it which wasn't fair at all. But I watched with an open mind and I'm glad I did. Not because I love this movie but because I didn't hate this movie. Is it manipulative? Absolutely. It pulls at the heartstrings about a subject that is still all too raw for America and doesn't feel any shame for doing so. It makes the audience sad and want to cry at specific times because of the way the director has presented things and never lets the story do its own talking. The story could have been quite powerful without the bit where Oskar's mom is shown to have followed him around before he got to all the places so as to get a better response for him. If you leave that part out and you end it with him learning a lesson about how grieving is unique for each person and that one's journey for discovery can be another person's end to theirs -- well, that would be a fantastic message. Not everything has a happy ending and certainly a movie about 9-11 should bear that fact but doesn't here. I can agree that Oskar is quite an annoying character at times, Asperger's or not, and understand the dislike leveled his way. However, I feel as if I can relate on the most basic level with him in that he has his obsessions (for me: movies, hockey, music) and confronts them head on with an envious determinism. I don't feel his character ever takes me out of the movie or detracts from the experience in any way. Now I do think the endless voice overs by Oskar can be a bit much. I'm firmly in the show, don't tell camp and I think it could have been used to great effect here instead of hitting us over the head with his inner monologues. And the movie can be incredibly cloying at times (hell, most times) which does a disservice to its actual story. We don't need to be pandered to about 9-11 because most of us can summon the emotions we had that day with ease, so a more subtle approach may work better. For a subject that may still be raw for many, many viewers -- Extremely Loud doesn't do enough, say enough, or care enough to balance such a delicate time in our nation's history without simultaneously being overly sentimental and too insular for everyone involved.

The Help

This seems to be 2011's entry for movie that might be better suited for the Lifetime channel much like The Blind Side was, albeit with much better acting which helps save it. The Help is a weak film that does an injustice to the subject it covers. Racism in the Deep South is not something to sugarcoat and I'm sure it was never intended to come off so flippant but the fact remains you can't make a film about racism and not ruffle some feathers along the way. To completely gloss over the tumultuous and violent nature of the time is missing the opportunity to tell an honest, straightforward story about how relations among the white society women and black help were strained but that the help could have their moments of catharsis and empowerment, too, much like the country as a whole. I think what I'm trying to say is that I really wanted this film to be more than it was: a feel-good, banal piece of white guilt that panders to its audience. It had the ability to really say something about race but chose to dumb it down to a dull story about Emma Stone's character trying to find love and make her big break into writing. Shoe horned in are the arcs about Davis and Spencer, though the material never takes them as seriously as it should. It comes off as a young white girl solves racism in Jackson, Mississippi which I hope many found insulting. It's fitting then that once Stone gets published she takes off to her perfect world in NYC while the women whose stories helped her get there are left to pick up the pieces of their world which is sure to be hard to put back together again. There is some good to great acting in this film that just begged for elevated material.

Hugo

"Like watching beautiful paint dry." A great quote I read that I feel really sums up this film, albeit very harshly. I don't find it as boring as watching paint dry but the sentiment is the same -- a beautifully shot movie that lacks a strong story to back up the visuals. The story about orphan Hugo Cabret and his life in a Paris train station (to put it rather simply) is mediocre at best and stretched too thin over the 2 hours of run time. It's quite evident that the 3D imagery and the history lesson take over where the story slacks. But unfortunately, none of those three things is strong enough to wow me and allow me to forgive the others. I didn't see this in 3D but I've never felt that 3D effects have really ever added to a film (even in Avatar) and made an experience better. It's purely a money thing and cool for the first few times but seems mostly a tool for a director to play around with to satisfy their own curiosities. There are quite a few scenes and sequences that linger a little too long to accommodate the effects but this serves only to slow the pace down and ultimately neuter the film as a whole. Hugo's story is not all that interesting to begin with and George Melies' story loses any importance it might have if the viewer isn't aware of his actual historical significance. Sacha Baron Cohen's character has the only story that I was genuinely interested in and wished Scorsese had developed it further. For a film about the love of the beginning of movies and with a message of film preservation, Hugo lacked the imagination it wanted to honor and created no magic of its own it so desperately craved. I could sense the passion with which Scorsese undertook this film, however, I was never moved by Hugo to feel his passion and I really wanted to.

Midnight in Paris

I was pleasantly surprised that I liked this movie as much as I did. For me, it hit most of the right notes except for a few missteps here and there. I was worried because I had hated Vicky Cristina Barcelona so much and wasn't sure if my 3rd Woody Allen film would satisfy. But satisfy it did! I actually watched this one a few times on my own because it was such a joy to watch and almost everything about it was genuinely pleasing. It's not a film that will so much wow you as it will make you feel good -- so that alone makes it successful to me. Owen Wilson is the perfect stand in for Woody Allen because he captures the neurotic, self effacing, can't-help-but-love funny guy extremely well. And without Wilson's performance, I think this film might have suffered badly. You can't help but like him and get pulled into his world which means appreciating the sights of Paris (on film for us, of course) and wanting to figure out life and where/who we are supposed to be. That's the basic gist of the story with midnight excursions through Paris with some of the early Twentieth Century's literary elite thrown in. I've heard of people not liking the cartoonish portrayals of Ernest Hemingway, Salvador Dali, and Man Ray to name a few, but I ultimately understood it as being Wilson's character's version of these famous people. We aren't entirely sure if the midnight rendezvous are real or all in Wilson's mind, so it makes sense we would get Gil's ideas of who these people were. Adrien Brody is fantastic as Dali and Corey Stoll is completely brilliant and deserved the Best Supporting Actor award in my opinion for his Hemingway. Unfortunately, Wilson's relationship is the main thing I dislike about this film because it's wholly unbelievable. I can't for one second believe Wilson and McAdams would be dating let alone engaged. It never worked and almost pulled me out of the story each time they were on screen. The theme that Woody puts forth about nostalgia being a dangerous idea for the present is something that really resonates and pushes the film into being more than just a quaint comedy. Obsessing on all things nostalgic can prevent someone from living a rewarding and gratifying present and we experience this with Gil taking his current situation for granted. Eventually we see how people from his perfect era (1920's) long for the past just the same as Gil does. It's an interesting idea for a movie to explore, especially since 2011 was such a nostalgic and introspective year for film. Sometimes it's good but it doesn't always work out well as we've seen. All in all, a great little film that will probably be remembered as one of Woody's best.

Moneyball

This was a hard review to start because I wanted to say a lot more than just an I liked this and didn't like that kind of thing. Moneyball is such a different movie to each person that watches it. As a fan of the Rays and living in a "small market" sports area, I can easily connect with the ideas of moneyball and of the unlikely team trying to beat the odds idea. That's why this is more than just a simple baseball movie, it transcends conventional genres and connects with some on a deeper emotional level. To me, it's such an understated movie. There's nothing flashy or over the top about the visuals, the script, the acting, or the "big sports moments" that you see in other sports movies. That's why I think Moneyball belongs as a Best Picture nominee. I can relate as a fan in feeling angry when a team spends more money for the prized players and translates that into wins and championships just as I can relate to how good it feels to take an "inferior" product or lesser payroll from a smaller area and compete and sometimes beat those traditional powerhouses. Moneyball is more about the story of Billy Beane - the once promising baseball player who never amounted to much than it is the actual Oakland A's, but the paralleled vindication and ultimate failure should resonate with most people, not just sports fans. Only a few sports franchises win a championship every year, so many fans understand the letdown of a team that captures your heart and soul only to never fully realize the ultimate goal/dream. This is the same in life as we all have goals that we haven't obtained or cannot reach for some reason. So I can relate to the story of Moneyball on a more personal level, about the ups and downs we all go through, and the trials and tribulations that we face -- whether we succeed or not. That's why I think Moneyball works, because it can be viewed as an accurate description of life itself. Not everyone with the best intentions or plans succeeds and not every team with record winning streaks or pioneering GMs win championships. It's a wonderful movie that keeps growing on me.

The Tree of Life

The beginning of this film is one giant, self indulgent mess. Sean Penn's character seems to be told to look as miserable and tormented as possible in his scenes and his inclusion really serves no purpose and is a waste of his talent. The 20+ minute universe beginning/earth forming/dinosaurs/nature wankfest is pretty insane. It would make a killer documentary series as the visuals are spectacular (and Malick is supposedly going to release a film with all the extra scenes filmed from this part) but it absolutely would have made me leave the theater if I had paid to see this. This is exactly what non film buffs are afraid of seeing when it comes to Best Picture nominees. It's a bloated, artsy, overwrought piece of pseudo-intellectual "film." And one can't blame people for being turned off by films like this since it seems to satisfy only critics and those that want to seem like they know movies. But then once that is out of the way, it becomes a really intense and poignant look into family dynamics and, of course, life itself. The look into the life of a 1950's family did feel like it went on a little too long to get to it's ultimate point that birth, life, and then death is inevitable and something that everyone must go through. The whispered voice-overs throughout speaking deep one-liners got very tiring pretty quickly and reminded me of something a young film student might include to make the work seem more deep and mature or those Levi Strauss commercials from a few years ago that evoked Americana. I can imagine this being a very personal film for Malick as it conjures up emotions of one's own family and childhood while watching which does give it some appeal besides the brilliant editing and cinematography. The acting is also something that I personally liked because everyone seemed so natural and not as if they were acting and being filmed in takes. It had the feel at times of a home movie and it was easy to identify with any of the characters since they were very familiar. Overall, I would not want to watch this one again as the first 30 minutes or so is totally unneeded but I can understand why it was nominated for Best Picture since it was a critical darling.

War Horse

To me, this is an appalling choice for a Best Picture nomination. It seems one film every year somehow makes it in over far better films that actually deserve the recognition. It irritates me that everyone instantly loves the horse without any reason or provocation and that the whole crux of the movie is that everyone who encounters the horse does everything they can to save it in some way whether it be in war or from being bought by a mean land owner or from falling into the Germans' hands. It's an absurd plot device that is repeated many times over. The movie looks great and sounds great but the story is overly sentimental and tells you how to feel in almost every scene. Not to mention the saccharine soundtrack that leaves little emotion up to the viewer. The best part of the film that Spielberg actually gets right is the when Joey is caught in barbed wire in No Man's Land and a soldier from each side come out to help free the horse. It's incredibly intense and punctuated by bleak, black humor that gives it a very post-modern feel. It's an amazing, yet all too brief scene that captures the absurdity of war and is a better metaphor than everyone instantly loving and trying to save an innocent horse. The audience is bludgeoned over the head with the ideas of what is right and wrong and this scene is a nice, cold respite from that. The film tries to appeal to everyone and instead loses it's focus and ends up being a mash of different genres that appeals to only those who love sickeningly sweet sentiment without any hint of intelligence. It's painfully obvious this was first a children's story and then a successful stage play (more so because of the impressive mechanical horse used) because the film really lacks depth and only scratches the surface of the many topics it touches on such as death, war, love, loss. There's no reason for this film to be nominated for Best Picture. Chalk that up to Spielberg having his name attached and 2011 being one of the most "safe" years I've featured so far.


An interesting year to say the least. 2011 will definitely not be remembered as a strong year and you can tell why from these nominees. A few are completely underwhelming as choices or straight up head scratchers. I remember when the nominees were being unveiled and Extremely Loud was the last one to be named and it sent a shock through those gathered and I was shocked while watching at home. I don't think the Academy's new rules helped any, either. Besides being generally confusing, it seems to favor those movies who garner first place votes instead of overall top 5 or top whatever places. So War Horse may have had lots of cronyism involved but amazing films like Drive and Dragon Tattoo were ignored because while they may not have been first place vote getter's in almost everyone's eyes, they were probably top 10 or so on most ballots. I was extremely disgusted with the new rules and the results therein. Either do 5 or 10, don't say well 5 or 6 or 7 or 8 or 9 or 10 can be voted into Best Picture. The previous 2 years worked well in rewarding films from atypical Best Picture genres from getting nominations, popular films that bring in the audiences on Oscar night, and indie films that deserved some recognition. By now I've understood that I'll never actually understand the Academy and I can only hope that they become more integrated and young so as to better capture what represents great films in a given year. The Artist was my favorite this year because it was simply a wonderful and enjoyable film that probably will become a classic. Moneyball and Midnight in Paris were my next two favorites that I could probably watch over and over. Everything after that is a crap shoot besides my dislike for War Horse. An incredibly weak year but I am excited for 2012 already! It's looking like it could be a year to remember much like 2007.

Oscar Winner: The Artist
My Winner:  The Artist
Moneyball
Midnight in Paris
The Descendants
The Tree of Life
Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close
Hugo 
War Horse

Leading Actor 2011

Well I have definitely been suffering from post-Oscars burnout which is why it's taken a little bit for me to finish the last two categories. I actually had most of this written by Oscar night but trying to finish it after a few months of watching tons of movies and then re-watching the nominees sapped some fun out of it. But it's been highly educational and rewarding to experience the awards season with a more focused eye. So with the Actor category now here, I can anticipate another strong year as the last few have been. It's quickly becoming my favorite one to look forward to because usually they are all strong performances and/or from good films. This year was no different and the only one I haven't seen until now is Gary Oldman and I know that he's going to be great like he always is, so it should be fun to write about!

2011 Best Actor

Jean Dujardin - The Artist

It's hard not to like Dujardin in this movie. From the very first scene he oozes charm and charisma and you can't help but get sucked into it. His face is classic and legendary and would have no doubt made him a bonafide Hollywood star back in the 20's and 30's. He's dashing and disarmingly funny and he knows exactly how to make an audience feel good. I have read that his performance is merely emoting and this makes me laugh. Of course it's emoting, that's the point! He's a silent film star who has to convey his emotions and comedy through exaggerated faces and movements. He doesn't have the benefit of language and syntax and tone to move the story along. He does a great job of expressing the point while engaging the audience and not coming across as superficial. He displays a depth and nuance that is envious and is far from the one note actor some have said Dujardin is in this film. Sure he hams it up for effect and dances around and smiles his (soon to be) iconic smile, but he also plays the serious parts after the talkies take over and leave him by the wayside with a sincerity to match the former. We experience just how deep Dujardin's despair is right along side him and realize his serious acting is just as good as his lighter side which speaks to the broad range of his talent. The performance never feels too cloying or treacly and never gets out of hand when transitioning from light to serious to light again. Dujardin wins us over in the first few minutes and keeps us fully engaged in George Valentin for the rest of the film to the point where we are openly rooting for him to make his triumphant comeback. That is the mark of a truly great actor.

Demian Bichir - A Better Life

Bichir gives a quiet and understated performance as an illegal Mexican father raising a son in LA trying to provide while working as a lawn worker/gardener. There is nothing flashy or overly sentimental about Bichir in this role. He gives the performance an honest, hard working quality that makes the role feel extremely real -- as if watching a documentary. At times the character (Carlos) comes off as a bit hokey to me and the writing/directing verges on the melodramatic in the first half of the film. But the film and Bichir hit their stride in the second half as the desperation to retrieve his truck and get his life back on track becomes palpable and intensely compelling. The story and character can seem somewhat formulaic and cliche, since the immigrant story is one that always seems to play the same notes. But in the same respect, Bichir is then a jazz musician giving his own take on the same notes and beats, one that feels like wholly his own.The sentiment is heartfelt and the heartache is real thanks to Bichir.

George Clooney - The Descendants

After first watch, the issue I had with Clooney's performance was that it was simply another Clooney playing Clooney role. I really thought this character was Clooney's role from Up in the Air having moved to Hawaii and settled down but with most of the similar traits. It really is disturbing how accurate that description is! At times there doesn't seem to be much acting and that is both good and bad. Good because Clooney has reached a level of effortlessness where he can show up and pull off detailed characters with ease but also bad because it can be misconstrued as Clooney sleepwalking through a performance. Here it seems to be a mix of both in my opinion. He's so good at playing this type of character and it shows. The comedic moments are his best and the serious moments are when I feel he struggles. I laughed at the crying scene because it really did come off as a farce you might see on SNL or some other show making fun of Clooney. This all sorta works in the context of the film because his character deals with his wife being in a coma and the realization that she has been cheating on him and Director Thomas Payne doesn't dive too deep into the serious side; striking a light balance between comedy and drama which Clooney is able to pull off. It's a worthy depiction, but I wish that Clooney would challenge himself with roles that deserve a lot more than this one gets.

Gary Oldman - Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy

One word to sum up Oldman's performance in this film would be solid. It's an effortless take on a character that had already been developed in the mind of the general public through a BBC show starring Alec Guinness as Oldman's George Smiley. The fact that Oldman was able to take a character already established and leave his own mark on it speaks volumes to his ability as an actor. In this film, I likened Oldman as a judge presiding over a courtroom with a quiet, yet stern presence. It's not flashy or gimmicky, but when he speaks you perk up and pay attention. It is surprising that this is Oldman's first ever nomination because he has been in so many great roles and that also helps add to Oldman being at complete ease with his craft and character. You never doubt him as a dignified spy and he quietly without notice gets you on his side trying to solve the mystery of the mole. It's a wonderful performance that really highlights Oldman's ability to wow us in many different ways.

Brad Pitt - Moneyball

The first time I watched this film, I felt as if I were watching Brad Pitt as Brad Pitt playing Billy Beane. Meaning we were seeing more of Pitt than we were of Beane. After my second watch, I've grown to appreciate the performance a lot more than after my initial viewing. There's no doubt Pitt does a very solid job in what is basically a star vehicle for him. But instead of the movie being built around Pitt to showcase his stuff, he injects himself into every part of this film making it his own. It's a steady performance that at times can feel slick, which I think is due in part because of the writing, and Pitt can sometimes tiptoe the line of chewing the scenery, though never fully crossing it. I think that second point is also due to Pitt just being a flat out great actor and being able to take over scenes without really meaning to or even really trying. He makes the role look natural and believable and there are times when you can forget you are watching Pitt the actor because Pitt the baseball GM just seems to make sense. The movie is most effective when he is able to bring you into his world, making you think it's your own reality. He is able to play the role with a depth that is refreshing to see instead of being overly flashy or mawkish. We can see the conflict, the worries, the responsibilities, the frustration, and the joy all in his demeanor and that is what great actors are able to show us without being overwhelming.


Overall, this is another awesome group of Best Actor nominees. This is why I wanted to do this project! Every role is compelling in some way and worthy of the accolades. It's great to see 3(!) newcomers here even if it feels like Oldman has been nominated 5 times already. Dujardin and Bichir came out of nowhere (Bichir especially) to wow me and the voters. And no, Bichir's nomination does not feel like a token one at all, which I have seen online. Clooney and Pitt give their, arguably, best and most Oscar-y roles of their careers. I feel both men have been in better films and done much greater work but these are definitely two of the more buzzworthy roles with the voters. I was glad I liked Oldman's take on an already established character because he was the only potential wildcard once I started and really he was never going to be a wildcard anyway! A great group of actors that I hope continues as 2007 is the next one I'll touch on in this category. I loved, loved, loved Dujardin as he was my runaway favorite. I've really warmed to Pitt's GM and would rate Oldman and Bichir as about equal. I did like Clooney, although, it wasn't my favorite of the 5 here.

Oscar Winner: Jean Dujardin - The Artist
My Winner:   Jean Dujardin - The Artist
Brad Pitt
Gary Oldman
Demian Bichir
George Clooney

Leading Actress 2011

By name alone, this is a strong group of leading ladies with Mara being the wildcard. And though the Supporting roles proved to be mostly mediocre or middling or not strong enough to wow me, the Leading roles almost all look to impress in one way or another. I am definitely excited to watch these performances and see how well they stack up not only against each other, but versus the previous few years that I've done as well. Is the Academy getting these right or setting themselves up to be questioned in the future for their choices? There were some other strong roles to choose from during the lead up to the nominations this year with Tilda Swinton (We Need to Talk About Kevin), Kirsten Dunst (Melancholia), Charlize Theron (Young Adult), and Elizabeth Olsen (Martha Marcy May Marlene) and a few others with legit shots at being selected. A good year for the Best Actress race!

2011 Best Actress

Viola Davis - The Help

Davis is one of the only actresses in The Help that eschews the stereotypes this film is plagued with and she comes out better for it. Though her character can be a bit broad at times, she is able to overcome the writing and directing to deliver one of the finer performances of the year. Her Aibileen is a kind, gentle woman but can focus her anger and indignation in a powerful and constructive way. Helping to speak out about the help's treatment is courageous, especially when she knows what can happen in the racist Deep South. Her character had essentially resigned herself to help raise white babies after her own son died in an accident and Davis portrays the tired, defeated house maid ably. Helping out on the book allows her optimism to grow that her life can be more than just a second class citizen and her burgeoning courage is a sight to behold. Davis' weighty performance, however, demands a film that doesn't pander to white guilt and gloss over a volatile time in our nation's history and is almost wasted on something that never takes its subject too seriously. One thing I don't really like about this role and performance is that it reminds me way too much of her Doubt nomination. The two are very similar in tone and I hope Davis can avoid delivering the same performance in her future movies because she certainly is talented enough.

Glenn Close - Albert Nobbs

This nomination is an absolute travesty, especially considering that there were a few other more deserving actresses who were left out because of this bogus nod. I have absolutely nothing good to say about her performance here or the movie in general besides McTeer's role. I feel like the Academy was too enamored with the fact that this has been Close's passion project for almost 30 years and that it has been 23 years since her last nomination. None of those are good reasons for her to be here and it's a shame she is. Her role as a woman playing a man who works as a hotel waiter in 19th-century Ireland is a cold, uninspiring, boring one. Not much happens in the movie and Close's title character does nothing to involve the viewer and certainly nothing to make you root for her/him in trying to woo one of the hotel staff girls. Close exhibits a blank expression and soft, manly voice that only grates the more you experience it. I will say the make-up is convincing enough and I can appreciate it's Best Make-Up nomination. However, it's a truly awful performance and it blows my mind that she was included in a Best Actress list.

Rooney Mara - The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

This was the one role I was looking forward to most because of everything I had read about the film, character, and Mara herself. I had no real expectations, but I'm glad she was nominated for sure. Mara totally inhabits the character and gives a brutally honest portrayal of Lisbeth. Lisbeth is all at once a stoic, quiet, brilliant young woman who has led a rough life and makes her living as a for hire computer hacker. She has an emotionless face and eyes that betray the rage and intensity that simmer just beneath her hard exterior. We are able to read the pain she has on every inch of her body and soul which might make her come off as cold and unlikeable, yet Mara is able to give Lisbeth a humanistic quality at times that dares the viewer to feel for her. She is a strong and independent woman who knows that life can and will be truly awful to her at times, but still powers forward and takes no shit. She is a fascinating character and we don't get to learn as much about her as we want to, though Mara doesn't let this denigrate her performance or our view of Lisbeth. The depth and complexity in which Mara portrays Lisbeth makes this one of the most interesting and involving characters I've seen in quite some time. I love that she can bring the viewer to her side without us getting overly sentimental about her -- we feel for her at a distance which is how she keeps the rest of the world but we know she can take care of herself despite the horrible things going on. It's a mesmerizing performance that has me wanting to see more from Mara.

Meryl Streep - The Iron Lady

Another year, another Streep nomination. And for another impersonation, this time of Margaret Thatcher. There's nothing new that needs to be said about Streep and her acting ability, as she is fantastic as ever. You know you are going to get a believable and honest performance when you watch whatever she is in. This rings true for her role here. She is utterly convincing and shines whether or not she is portraying Thatcher in her golden years or in her old age. Streep during the older years is actually where some of her better acting is in this film. It almost seems to be a completely different character and one that is not built off of mimicry, which is quite refreshing to see. Sometimes it's easy to forget she can be a powerful and dynamic actress when not just portraying a real life person. Sometimes, however, the old age scenes ring a bit melodramatic, as does much of the film itself. But she does make the dementia and visions of her dead husband feel authentic and treats the subject less as an acting tool to showcase herself and more as an honest look at how growing old can be so frustrating. The scenes of the golden era Thatcher land with considerably less force mostly due to the writing and directing. Streep does her best to get the look and voice down which helps to forgive any weak spots in the film of which there are many. So really Streep is the only reason to watch The Iron Lady as it is another in a long line of solid performances.

Michelle Williams - My Week with Marilyn

Williams does an amazing job of mimicry when it comes to Marilyn Monroe. She dances and talks and looks almost exactly like her silver screen doppelganger. She is able to play the sex kitten, needy little girl, and competent actress role on all levels without missing a beat. Monroe definitely does her best to actually embody the role of Marilyn. She gives the little details in the role such as facial movements and body language her all and it is absolutely clear Williams did her best to replicate these things. But Williams stumbles into stereotype territory, betrayed by a weak script that puts more focus on her looks and sexiness than is necessary. Essentially, this film is nothing more than a star vehicle for Williams to sink her teeth into and while one might like her performance in it, the rest of the film itself is easily forgettable. And after getting some distance from the film, Williams' performance begins to feel a little light -- a sugary feast for the eyes that ultimately doesn't satiate one's appetite.


In full disclosure, I watched and wrote all the reviews except for Rooney Mara before the actual Oscar night. So I didn't have the benefit of knowing the winner so as better to compare the the roles against each other, which actually made it a little more fun to write about not knowing who was going to win. The race was always only between Streep and Davis. And by the time the ceremony arrived, it was widely thought that Davis would win for her performance. Obviously that was not the case and I think a lot of the prediction aspect had to do with bloggers pimping Davis in hopes that enough buzz would cause her to win as if the voters were listening. The bloggers also lead a small backlash against Streep and all of this was interesting to watch play out but somewhat sickening that that racism and hatred had to come into play instead of letting the acting do the talking. I think we might see more of this in the future if there is no clear cut favorite like this year, though I'm not against the actual debate -- just the gossip-like nature of some of the discussion. So Streep won her 3rd Oscar after almost 30 years of going home empty handed even with her tons of nominations. I totally understand the award and don't necessarily see it as lifetime achievement award since her performance was pretty good. Davis was under served by her film but gave a heartfelt performance even still. I was less enthused about Williams, though I would never say it was bad, and in total disbelief over Close being here. Mara's role was a pleasure to watch because it was the wildcard and I would have preferred her being the winner. I loved her character and she did a tremendous job with it. I really hope we see more from her in the future and she doesn't become another one-hit wonder.

Oscar Winner: Meryl Streep - The Iron Lady
My Winner: Rooney Mara - The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
Meryl Streep
Viola Davis
Michelle Williams

Glenn Close

Supporting Actor 2011

I'm not exactly thrilled by any of these choices by name alone. I actually would have loved to see Albert Brooks nominated and win for his role in Drive, which was fantastic. I have only seen 2 of these prior to my reviewing and both were kinda average. Plummer's nomination is intriguing because he is the clear cut favorite and will most likely win the Oscar, so it'll be interesting to see if it is actually worthy. 2011 is shaping up to be the year of the mediocre nominees in every category.

2011 Best Supporting Actor

Christopher Plummer - Beginners

We don't get to see enough of Hal (Plummer's character) in my opinion, as we are force fed these endearing moments in his later life as he embraces his homosexuality with a zeal and vigor of a much younger man. You can't help but like Hal as he is far from flamboyant, taking a more earnest approach as if coming to terms with his new found out-ness is like finding he really enjoys making pottery or playing the tuba. We are immediately aware that Hal has passed away since the story is told in flashbacks and we are told he is gay in the very beginning, which unfortunately doesn't allow the audience to organically form their own opinion of Hal. Plummer is a man in complete control of his craft and embodies the role perfectly. His portrayal of Hal is honest and believable, if lacking in true originality, and he plays the character with a sweet sincerity. Unfortunately, we never get past the face value of Hal, never dive into his soul to see who he really he is and why he is that way. This keeps the performance from being truly well-rounded and makes it feel a little one-note at times.

Kenneth Branagh - My Week with Marilyn

I can't say that I know all that much about Laurence Olivier and what he looked like but I do know Kenneth Branagh from all his Shakespeare productions and I can't envision him as one of the most beloved British actors of all time. He plays the character like another Shakespeare creation and really goes full earnest. What it really reminded me of is Kenneth Branagh playing whoever and being perturbed that Monroe dares to screw up her lines and get the scene wrong. This grew to a hot indignation at her diva-like behavior that he ultimately wasn't able to do anything about. He would let Monroe take as much time as she wanted before she galloped out to do her thing while the rest of the cast and crew scrambled to get in place. Branagh is an amazing talent to be sure and does a requisite  job for getting his character of Laurence Olivier across but it never delved into depth or nuance and never asked anymore of Branagh, especially when his character demanded it of Monroe. It's painfully obvious, too, that Branagh wants so very much to be the acting royalty Olivier is and while he may be inspired, his performance is not inspiring to us the viewer.

Jonah Hill - Moneyball

Hill's role as Peter Brand is used essentially as a character for which Pitt to act against and bounce his snappy dialogue back and forth with. That's not to say that Hill's superbly understated role as the geeky, nervousy, computer whiz is underutilized. The character does a great job of balancing Pitt's hyper and somewhat manic-y Beane and acts as the comic foil to what could be some of the more serious, yet boring, moments. Hill understands when to hold back and let Pitt do his thing and when to turn up the acting volume and hold his own. There's times when Hill (and his character) come off timid when going up against Pitt, but Hill is able to nicely settle into his role, and eventually by the end of the film -- own it. Hill allows the character to dictate how things go and his decision to not ham it up when the opportunities present themselves (which must be hard for a comedic actor) speaks to his acting ability. The subtlety of his character and his actions helps buoy this performance into another level.

Nick Nolte - Warrior

I've read in various places that this is the quintessential Nolte role and while I haven't seen enough of his stuff to say so otherwise, I know of his issues and reputation. It would seem Nolte is playing a version of his actual self with this role and that it's not exactly much of a stretch. Where does one draw the line for acting and reality? And should the fact that we can't tell the difference mean it is good or bad? I tend to side with it's good because I assume most actors act from experience or at least by studying someone like their character. To say Nolte is believable in Warrior would be an understatement, as he is effective as the recovering alcoholic father who once physically abused his two sons before they left him. While it's clearly a good performance, it's not exactly as powerful as it should be - especially given the subject it's dealing with. It should have been a chance to really wow the audience and steal scenes but that doesn't really happen. Maybe I'm being a bit harsh because I actually did like Nolte in this film (which is a lot better than I thought it would be), I just would have liked a little bit more from him.

Max von Sydow - Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close

An interesting year for silent performances. Max (because it's shorter than typing out von Sydow) does an admirable job in this 9-11 weepy about a boy coming to grips with the loss of his father. He plays an old mute who travels with Oskar as he tries to find where a key he found in his father's closet belongs. Max has a very tired and weathered face that is extremely expressive and it helps add to his charm throughout the film. Max becomes a pseudo father figure for Oskar during their time together and plays his character with a genuine aloofness that can be somewhat endearing. But his emoting begins to lose its luster after a while and the scenes begin to feel a little repetitive. And even though this is Oskar's story, we never get a chance to delve into Max's character and why exactly he turned mute besides an all too brief scene in a bar that only scratches the surface. There's way more to this character than is presented here and for that reason this performance only satisfies a tiny bit of my hunger for a role that could be more fulfilling.

Overall, these nominations are pretty underwhelming. Nothing stands head and shoulders above the others and it really seems to be the theme for this year. I'm not sure what that says about film in 2011 or the Academy, but I think they may have made more than a few mistakes in their nominations. Which just gives more fuel to the fire that the Academy is out of touch with what the current public and critics love. If and when Plummer wins, he will be the oldest Oscar winner ever at 82. Neither Nolte nor Branagh did all that much for me and both von Sydow and Plummer gave performances that were about equal in my estimation. They didn't exactly wow me, especially Plummer who will probably win, which I was really hoping one them would. Hill is my favorite just due to me liking the character and the subtle performance he gave. I don't really understand the derision Hill has received for being nominated and how badly he has been put down in some blogs and prognostications sites. I can only think that his comedy background is the reason anyone would hate on him because his role really speaks for itself. Maybe it has to do with others wanting von Sydow or Plummer to get their first Oscars as nods to their careers. If I had my way, Albert Brooks from Drive would have been nominated and would have been my winner. Sadly, I have no Academy vote.

Oscar Winner: Christopher Plummer - Beginners
My Winner: Jonah Hill - Moneyball
Christopher Plummer
Max von Sydow
Nick Nolte
Kenneth Branagh

Supporting Actress 2011

This is my first time doing my reviews in the midst of the Oscar race and it's really been a lot of fun. Seeing the race develop from the very beginning has been eye opening. And reading all the many different blogs and articles about which person or movie would and/or should be nominated was interesting to see just how wrong our predictions can be. I love knowing how the race shaped up and knowing that when I look back on this year that I'll have a more in-depth, personal knowledge of it instead of relying on Oscar history books and wikipedia! Normally I might have already seen 1 or 2 performances and would need to see the rest to make up my mind, but of course all of them were new so this has been refreshing and let's me know what it'll be like when I get deeper into this.

2011 Best Supporting Actress

Octavia Spencer - The Help

The presumed front runner, it is all but assured that Spencer will win. But does she deserve to? I'm inclined to think otherwise, but her performance is by no means bad. Her character, Minny, is very broadly written and comes off very much like a stereotype at times. Minny is the strong black woman who takes no shit when it comes to her daughter, her work, her friends but suffers violent abuse at the hands of her (presumed) husband. Spencer does act with an earnestness that is refreshing at times but during others, you half expect her to snap her fingers in the air three times and say "Mmhmm" and a laugh track to start playing. A lot of the issues stem from the actual story which is far from being Best Picture worthy, but Spencer does her best to give Minny the depth the character deserves. However, for what should have been a fully fleshed out role, it falls victim to the kid gloves treatment the whole movie is subjected to and that's a shame for Spencer.

Berenice Bejo - The Artist

It is no small feat to be able to steal scenes from the uber charming Jean Dujardin and uber cute Uggie the Dog, but steal scenes Bejo did. She plays the role with pitch perfect simplicity. From the first time we see her getting her picture taken with Dujardin's character and parlaying that into working on silent films as an extra, she deftly conveys the shy, young, demure girl trying to break into Hollywood. As her roles increase and she becomes a major star with the advent of the talkies, we see her remain gracious and pure from the stain of Hollywood's brutality. She even shows concern for her former inspiration, George Valentin, as he fails to adapt to a movie business with sound drowning out the silent era he reigned over. Bejo does this all very convincingly, keeping up with her charismatic co-stars with equally expressive faces and movements that really show off her acting abilities. However, it becomes obvious through the movie that Bejo is merely a character for Dujardin to interact with as we experience his ups and downs. There's not a whole lot of depth to the character of Peppy (who lives up to her name) though Bejo does a marvelous job with what she is given. She's a sweet, caring, loveable woman who avoids any real conflict that could challenge her and push her performance from good to great.

Jessica Chastain - The Help

I feel this nomination is due more to Chastain bursting onto the scene with 7 different movies in 2011, 6 of which were critical and/or commercial successes, rather than on the merit of this role itself. Chastain's character, Celia, is a dopey, newly married, white trash southern woman who is in over her head as she tries to fit in with the other society women in town. She is an outsider who has married into wealth and the other women can't stand her uncouth behavior. So she takes on Spencer's character as a maid and treats her as a sort of equal and confidant. Chastain is essentially used as a character to show that not all of the white society women are evil racists and that they can somewhat coexist with "the help." Chastain does a convincing enough job in her role, one that is sincere in her innocent personality, which further shows how The Help treats its subject with kid gloves.

Melissa McCarthy - Bridesmaids

I'm still a bit unsure if this performance deserves its nomination here or if it just rode the popularity of the movie into one. That's not to say I dislike McCarthy in this movie. She is actually the flat out funniest thing about Bridesmaids, which says a lot about her comedic chops that she can come out on top in a movie featuring many other funny women. But how much of it is people overreacting to there finally being a raunchy, all-girl, gross out movie that rivals some of the many similar movies that feature mostly men? I could see a Jack Black or Zach Galifianakis filling the same type of role and getting no Oscar love though they might be equally as funny. It seems odd to me that this would get nominated as if a woman playing this type of comedic role is more worthy because it is so rarely done. Or maybe I'm reading too much into it because I'm definitely for more comedy roles and movies being included in these awards, male or female! McCarthy does steal almost every scene she is in, though I do feel she is given some of the best writing (although I'm sure some is improvised) and best situations with which to act in. I'd say that her character makes this movie worth watching on her own and helps elevate it to a level where awards talk isn't totally unwarranted.

Janet McTeer - Albert Nobbs

Janet McTeer is the only good thing about this movie, so I can understand why she was nominated here. When her character first appeared onscreen, it took me a good while to tell that she wasn't actually a man (obviously I had never seen McTeer before to be able to tell differently). The make-up and effects were obviously very good, but the mannerisms and voice of McTeer really helped to convince me she was a man for the first part of the film. What really impressed me was that in every scene she is in, even with Glenn Close, she acts circles around everyone else. She completely owns this otherwise dreadful movie and is its only saving grace. She gives a decent and believable performance that is sabotaged by a weak script and an awful role by Glenn Close that would make me look like an accomplished actor.


This group was really underwhelming and it feels like I say that about almost every Supporting Actress category so I don't want to come off as some sexist guy that hates women actors. I think the Supporting category lends itself to having some performances get nominated that aren't exactly worthy and we all know the Academy indulges itself in whatever suits their whims. So you might get lifetime achievements, make up nominees, or ones that make the Academy seem hip or not the stuffy club it really is. But with all that said, all I want is good performances that blow me away more than leave me wanting more, men or women. None of these 5 performances really wow me. In fact, they all are about the same in that you could mix em all up and randomly rank them and I'd probably be ok with all the different iterations. I like things about all of them just as I dislike different things about all of them. I don't think I can definitively give the win to any of these (though I think I like Bejo's performance the best so far) and I feel I may need to give these a little distance in time to better judge their impact on me.

Oscar Winner: Octavia Spencer - The Help
My Winner: Berenice Bejo - The Artist
Octavia Spencer
Jessica Chastain
Melissa McCarthy
Janet McTeer