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
