I thought I wrote a big intro for this year, but that didn't happen. I'm glad to be almost caught up with the current year for Oscar because at 88, I only have about 72 or so years to go. That's depressing. It's like the post 2000s doesn't even count. Ugh, anyway. This was a pretty good year. There were surprises and there were controversies and there was a lot of prognostication going on that was mostly wrong. Wrong predictions are what I live for. I love those surprise nominations like Selma or Marion Cotillard or Robert Duvall. I never like the obvious when it comes to Oscar. I want chaos, forever. Hopefully 2015 adds to the madness.
2014 Best Picture
Birdman: or (The Virtue of Ignorance)
This year was pretty unique as far as Best Picture goes since I didn't really dislike any (except for one but not entirely). Birdman was actually one of the last films I saw for the Oscars last year and when I finally did see it, it blew my mind wide open. I had appreciated seeing some of the other contenders and had recognized that some of them were really good but Birdman instantly made me fall in love and want to champion it to anyone that would listen. I didn't care if it was called gimmicky with it's whole made to look like it was shot in one take thing. That in itself is pretty damn impressive, right?! It makes the film feel so much more intimate and casual instead of wide, static shots with hundreds of edits. It gives it a dynamic sense of being and it really wowed me, even on second viewing. I also don't care if people argue that oh, it's just an actor/film/theater self congratulating type of piece because it's more than just that. I feel if anyone has been down and out and then come back can relate. It's not just about superhero fatigue or an old actor making a comeback or actors proving themselves on Broadway. I feel there is a million different interpretations especially with Innaritu adding in the floating Keaton, the Birdman talking to himself, and even the ending where did he or didn't actually do it kinda thing. It opens up a dialogue with the viewer and asks us all these open ended questions which is fantastic. The acting is all on point, the cinematography is amazing, the editing is astounding, the music is actually pretty great - it's the full package. It's a poetic film that knows how to trust it's audience and for that I appreciate it so much.
American Sniper
Clint Eastwood takes on the story of what a lot of people consider to be an American hero: sniper Chris Kyle. Yes, if you read up on the guy, he comes off like a gigantic douchebag and one of the reasons people hate military guys. Eastwood does his best to ignore all that and make a very rah rah film about his military career. That career is insanely impressive and Eastwood is able to craft a war movie that's pretty good. That's the war movie parts only, though. And even those can feel like they are done on a backlot unlike say Zero Dark Thirty which feels real, raw, and lived in. I won't say the war parts feel sanitized because they don't, but they do feel a little off to me, a veteran. However, Bradley Cooper is the saving grace of the film and all the war scenes because he does lend everything a certain gravitas. You focus on him as a person and character and you get all caught up in his unabashed love for the USA and protecting his fellow countryman who are down on the streets putting everything on the line. That's some of the best parts of American Sniper, when Kyle feels the need to protect his Marines like a big brother. Cooper excels in those moments and the film really shines. Where the film falters is on the homefront. Kyle's relationship with Sienna Miller feels a bit rushed and glossed over and Eastwood just doesn't seem to understand how to balance the two. When she's calling him and he's on a mission and talking to her while things go bad just feels contrived for the story because even if he's a SEAL, that wouldn't be allowed. The whole fake baby thing is also a bit ludicrous. Why not use a real baby instead of sacrificing the realism of your film and making your actor look really stupid in the process? I'm probably being a little more harsh than usual because I do think this is one of Eastwood's best films. But Iraq/Afghanistan war films are going to be something that's near and dear to my heart because I lived both. American Sniper is a good film if a little too rah rah America type but it's reverential to those that served and offers up a sense of what it's like to be deployed and fucking hate it. The ending and credits are enough to make you tear up and let's face it, American Sniper is a good movie.
Boyhood
Obviously when you talk about Boyhood, you have to start out by mentioning it was completed in real time for over 12 years. That in itself is beyond impressive, that actors would commit to something so long and so unsure of where it might head. It's something so impressive because it's never been done before. People will point to a documentary that caught up with it's subjects every 7 years or so but that's a documentary and that's the whole point of them! It's impressive that this was shot over 12 years with changes in technology and actors growing and changing yet everyone was still so dedicated to it all the way to the end. That shows up in the final product which does have a varied feel at times but also has such a passion about it. That passion is important because without it, Boyhood would be a complete and utter mess. Richard Linklater (and Ethan Hawke) has taken on a similar sort of project already with his Before films that showcase a couple over the course of years and years and all the issues that they go through in life. So the experience is there to whittle down 12 years to 3 hours. So how is the actual film? It's good! Although, there are parts that are not that good or are at least not that interesting. We begin with Mason as a 6 year old living with his mom and sister. It sets in motion the growing up story but honestly the childhood years are somewhat boring most likely because I find young kids like that to be mostly boring if they aren't inventing something or saving the planet or whatever. If anything, it's the nostalgia of seeing what was popular back in 2002 and on that serves as the appeal of the early part of this film. Nostalgia is really a big part of the film as a whole but that's all the beginning has going for it. It starts to get more interesting as Mason grows up and becomes a teenager and starts to have an actual personality. Although, again, Mason can be exceptionally annoying especially as a teenager to the point where you just really kinda want to smack him. I have a lot of issues with Mason in the story, though. Not much happens to Mason or at least there's no real
adversity for him. Sure his parents are divorced when the film starts
but it doesn't seem to really affect the kids much. The first alcoholic
stepdad seemed to favor Mason over his real son but didn't physically do
anything to him. He moves a couple times but quickly has friends, has
very pretty girlfriends even though he looks like a cave man and they
happen easily, he is never held accountable for his drinking or drugs,
adults interact with him through speeches and monologues. He just never
seems to have any trouble with life and that's where the story let's us
down. The story just isn't as good as it could be, especially after 12
years. There's other missteps like when the kids are biking or skateboarding down a street and it looks really awesome with the cinematography yet the scene is ruined by Soulja Boy. Those pop culture additions sometimes ruin the scenes entirely. Ethan Hawke is good but he kinda floats in and out of the story/life as the cool dad returning to see his son. Wasn't a fan of Arquette and can't believe she won an Oscar for that but whatever. I want to say that the concept of this story and film is amazing. There were/are so many people that called this film a masterpiece and I can understand why but I contend that people are a little more enthralled with the idea rather than the content itself. If this were made in a year it probably wouldn't have all that effusive love but then again if it were made in a year it would be as detailed and interesting. Point being that the concept is fantastic but the execution of the story is lacking for me. I don't want this to sound like I hate Boyhood because I don't. I find it really interesting and even when I was watching it I kinda fell in love with it before snapping right out of that feeling once it was over. I could easily watch another 12 years of Mason and his life because I'm certain it would be a lot more interesting to see him as an adult. But there's no doubt that it belongs in this group and it will be remembered for decades to come which isn't too bad.
The Grand Budapest Hotel
It feels right that this was what Wes Anderson was finally nominated for in Best Picture, because it is his best film to date. It also feels like THE quintessential Wes Anderson film, an amalgamation of all his previous works rolled into this vibrant one. Vibrant is accurate because I think what I like most about Anderson's work is the colors and the set/production design because it's so fantastical. A lot of people take issue with his films for being so whimsical and style over substance or overly pretentious/cute but he just has a singular vision for his work and strives to achieve it. Grand Budapest is no different. It has the requisite myriad of acting stars who deliver fun and funny performances. We get the beautiful set design that relies a ton on miniatures and looks fantastic. Costume design and make up is top notch. The performances of those myriad of stars is always a treat to watch unfold and the story, while cloaked in the cutesy and flippant, is always, at it's core, something everyone can relate to. Grand Budapest is buoyed by the absolutely excellent Ralph Fiennes who should have been nominated for his hilariously Andersonesque concierge. You've got tremendous supporting acting from newcomer Tony Revelori who goes toe to toe with Fiennes, F. Murray Abraham, Jude Law, Edward Norton, Saoirse Ronan, Tilda Swinton, Adrien Brody, Bill Murray, Jeff Goldblum, Willem Dafoe. That might be the only time I list off the actors in a film in a review but a film like Grand Budapest deserves all those mentions because that's what it's built on.It's score which won the Oscar, is also a treat to listen to. It's where everything about a film comes together: direction, acting, costume and make up, score, cinematography, production design. Grand Budapest is excellent in every single facet of the filmmaking process. I don't know how anyone can watch this film and not enjoy it and all that Anderson has to offer. It's a hilarious film to boot and I understand that sometimes films like this can be divisive with it's humor but I certainly think Grand Budapest is universal, there's nothing too cerebral about it and the humor is very physical. Wes Anderson also comes up with some really terrific scenes and seems to contribute to the cinematic highlight reel with every film and this is no different. Let's face it, Grand Budapest is Wes Anderson's most accessible and most successful film to date, it's also his most worthy inclusion to Best Picture by a landslide.
The Imitation Game
This was one of two British biopics that came out and got a lot of hype for it's actor and seemed to really impress the Academy and I'm not sure why other than the amount of British people in the Academy. This film tells the story of Alan Turing who cracked the Enigma with his computer (before it was a computer) and helped win the war for the Allies...oh, and also happened to be gay and was arrested and ultimately killed himself because of the British government's forced hormone therapy. That 'oh, and is very important because at it's heart Imitation Game is a biopic about how and when the Enigma was broken. However, the film also wants to have it's cake and eat it, too by including the homosexual nature of Turing's life but mostly as a plot device and primarily as an afterthought. It just feels like the film was made to not offend too many people and so they shied away from really diving deep into Turing the character and just glossed over that really important part of his life. I didn't think the film itself was really all that good, honestly. While watching it does suck you in to see how Turing cracks the Enigma and because Cumberbatch does a good job with what he is given to work with but that's about all it has going for it. If it was purely all about the Enigma machine and the historical aspect of it then maybe it would have been a much better film to me. It's as if it takes away from the WWII parts to add in the police interrogation and even the boarding school stuff. When they finally do crack Enigma, it almost feels a bit anti-climactic and the film then quickly ends. All told, I wanted a lot more out of this film than what we got. Go deeper into Turing's life than you did and don't skimp on the story of actually breaking the Enigma. The Imitation Game wasn't terrible by any means but I know it could be so much better.
Selma
This is kind of an odd film that somehow made it's way into the Best Picture group and only had Best Original Song as it's other nomination. I say odd because it is clearly a very good film, a powerful, important film that somehow didn't catch on with the Academy except for the gimme category of Song, which it won, and Picture. That tells me that the Academy probably voted for this film based on it's importance and content rather than actually watching it and voting it in for it's merit. I don't think that's a very controversial idea but that is what makes the most sense to me. That's both incredibly racist that they wouldn't watch it and incredibly inclusive that they would vote it in without seeing because of what it is about. I think it just amazes me that it made it in and I know wholeheartedly that it's a good thing it's among the Best Picture nominees. I also know that my idea could be the furthest thing from the truth and I have nothing to back my claim up with but that's how I feel. Why else would they not nominate a very, very strong performance by David Oyelowo as MLK when they love nominating biopics and real people? Why would they not jump at the chance to nominate a black man who had the possibility of winning if nominated? Or voting for the first black female Best Director? I can't explain those choices and lack of nominations but they stand out in stark contrast especially with middling films like The Imitation Game and The Theory of Everything on this list. Selma does make MLK into a less mythical figure which is nice to see because from all accounts he was as human as the rest of us. Every time Oyelowo is on screen as MLK, there's a commanding presence and it lifts the film up when it sags. I'm not sure any other actor could have done so much with the character and the performance as Oyelowo did. That's why I wish he was in the Best Actor race. There are some visually striking scenes that stand out not only in their brutality but in their beauty, as well. Director Ava DuVernay is young in terms of being a filmmaker and she does bring some energy and interesting scenes while still hitting all the familiar biopic beats. I will say that some of the supporting players in this come off as contrived and as stock characters. Tim Roth's Governor needs to be twirling a mustache to complete his evilness, which is unfortunate because you don't need a caricature like that to demonstrate how wrong the man was. There are missteps in Selma and this is not a perfect film by any means, but it is a very good one that I'm glad the Academy was able to nominate - no matter the reason they did so.
The Theory of Everything
Ugh, so I'll be upfront and honest and tell you right off the bat that I very much dislike this movie. To me, this is what people think of when they think of an Oscar movie. I'm using Oscar movie as a pejorative because this one encapsulates all that I hate about those kind of Oscar movies. A (British) biopic that pretends to be more important than it really is but is in reality just a boring, rushed love story that manipulates it's audience for the sole purpose of winning awards. There's no doubt to me that a film about Stephen Hawking could be incredibly compelling, but wrapping it up in a tired and fictional account of love sells the subject too short. He's a brilliant man and we see parts of that in this movie but the personal side just overpowers, which would be okay if the personal side was at all compelling. But knowing that this was a doomed love story from the beginning forces the audience to believe a lie that this was some Great 20th Century Romance. It's absolutely not. So we the audience are forced to watch this sham go on at the same time as Hawking's illness takes over the story. Watching those parts progress isn't so bad and it's an obviously very physical role that Redmayne takes on, even capably. But then the movie switches over to focusing on Jane, the wife, and her dealings with Hawking and the family and life. Hawking becomes this supporting player in his own film and it just never takes off for me. It gets bogged down in this boring story focusing on the wrong things. Redmayne is not that terrible but after awhile, once the disease takes hold, it becomes pure imitation through and through, with much less the charisma and believability as say Daniel Day-Lewis in My Left Foot or any number of handicapped performances. The direction is slick and glossy and seems more engaged in getting shots that will look good in the trailer or on an awards reel. There's a lack of balance between the personal and professional life of Hawking that makes The Theory of Everything feel so uneven and unsure of which story it really wants to tell. Why does it gloss over all the messy parts of their relationship when we know it was far from perfect? Why does it turn Hawking into this perpetually smiling caricature instead of giving us an honest take on a genius whose life wasn't strictly fairy tale? I can't answer those and The Theory of Everything can't be bothered to address them, either. I guess it just shows what fancy direction and young pretty stars can do for a biopic these days. This was the movie I was least looking forward to re-watching for my project and while watching it, I remembered just why I never wanted to see it again. Now that I'm done with 2014, I hope my next re-watch of this is a lot longer than a year.
Whiplash
It's very obvious that this was a work of passion. It's also obvious that this was a work that was years and years in the making. Director Damien Chazelle's youth mirrored that of the subject of Whiplash's life: he, too, was a jazz drummer and you can easily tell that this is a very personal and intimate piece of filmmaking. I'm pretty sure that's why Whiplash works so well, because the film feels lived in from the very first beats of the drum. The film also has the added luxury of having been a short film before it was financed to become a full movie. J.K. Simmons was in the original short so he, too, was able to explore his character more and just offer up a really authentic and intense jazz music teacher. And that word - intense - describes Whiplash perfectly. Go ahead and watch it and not start to get sweaty palms when Miles Teller tries to impress Simmons' authoritarian dictator/teacher. It also moves along at a really great pace because the scenes are so engrossing and so exhilarating that you don't realize that you just got sucked into this world for 20 minutes. Miles Teller delivers a pretty great performance as well as the jazz drummer student and matches the intensity of Simmons beat for beat. My one quibble with the film is the pointless little love story side plot that goes nowhere. I get that it's probably meant to show Teller's dedication to jazz drumming by coldly dropping this sweet, cute girl who he clearly likes so he can focus on drumming but it feels way too shoehorned in as if a producer was in Chazelle's ear dictating that there's at least one female in the film. If it sticks to purely the jazz drumming student/teacher relationship and how obsessed and dedicated one must be to pursue a passion so earnestly. That's another reason I like Whiplash so much is that it doesn't really profess to be anything but a really intense showdown of a jazz drumming teacher and student. It knows what it is and it uses economy of force to get there. Hopefully I'll see another tight, breakout film like this land so well with the Academy because these are the kind of films you can fall in love with from this project. If I were starting this thing 10 years from now and hadn't been a huge film nerd, this is the kind of film that gets you excited at what the Oscars can be: a showcase for films you otherwise might not see but eventually end up becoming one of your all time favorites. Whiplash might not be quite there yet for me, but it sure is a damn good film.
This was a pretty good year as far as Oscar contenders is concerned. There was a controversial period before the nominations and then we got who was selected and then we bitched and complained about those that were left out. Like every year. This year was pretty good because Birdman won and deservedly so. Though if I were a little more adventurous, The Grand Budapest Hotel would have been my easy favorite. It's easily the most enjoyable film of the bunch! Whiplash also rises up my board because it's so damn good. I don't give a fuck if it's small or too genre-y, it's fantastic. I really liked Selma as well because it's a statement and also a good flipping film. Boyhood is next and low because it's a cool concept but a boring film, sorry to say. Then American Sniper which has it's flaws but is a pretty good war film comes in next. I hate to sink it to this spot but it has it's faults. Then we get The Imitation Game and The Theory of Everything. They both suck and can get fucked. I hate that they beat out Foxcatcher and Inherent Vice sitting on the sidelines. Not a bad year but it could have been way better. I guess that describes every year, though.
Oscar Winner: Birdman: or (The Virtue of Ignorance)
My Winner: Birdman: or (The Virtue of Ignorance)
The Grand Budapest Hotel
Whiplash
Selma
Boyhood
American Sniper
The Imitation Game
The Theory of Everything
Showing posts with label 2014. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2014. Show all posts
Thursday, January 14, 2016
Wednesday, January 13, 2016
Leading Actor 2014
So Best Actor didn't quite end the way I wanted and I'm still not over it. Honestly, this was the most personal of losses because I felt so strongly against the actual winner. Just a truly garbage choice by the Academy that they should feel ashamed. I could go on about why I hate how this ended up but let's just get to it, shall we?
2014 Best Actor
Eddie Redmayne - The Theory of Everything
(Puke)
I thought of just leaving that as my review but figured I'd write something for continuity sake. I think some of the main reasons people really hate this win is because Redmayne campaigned so, so hard for the win which always rubs some people the wrong way even if campaigning is a historically Oscar thing to do. People also didn't like his seemingly insincere speeches leading up to his Oscar speech which I know annoyed a lot of people. Plus, lots of people felt Keaton was just honestly the better performance and choice. But that's what happens when you campaign. Thing is, Redmayne isn't too bad at the beginning as Hawking. Obviously what we know of Hawking is the contorted genius in a wheelchair who talks with a computer, so seeing a spry young man was at least interesting. But there's no depth or nuance to Redmayne's Hawking here. It's a surface and superficiality. The descent into the disease is probably the best part of the film as you get to see the change and how Redmayne/Hawking deal with it. It just doesn't last all that long before we get into the pure imitation. I'm sorry but mimicry does not equate to a Best Oscar win. Give me a character! Give me a performance! Give me depth! Give me something that I can point to other than how he sat in a damn chair. It's superficial to the max, hell the whole movie is, which is what I hate about this win so much. Did we ever really get to know Stephen Hawking? No! We got to see someone's physical take on the man but we never really scratched the surface of what was going on in the head of one of the most brilliant men to ever live. Instead we got to see him meet a girl and like 5 minutes later get married and have a family and deal with his illness. We don't even get a good sense of why they actually ended up together and why they stayed together so long. Meanwhile, we see Redmayne contort himself into his chair and stay like that for half the movie, becoming a supporting player in his own biopic! There's so much wrong with this just as a performance, let alone a win, that it boggles my mind that this is the winner. This one sucks, campaigning be damned!
Steve Carell - Foxcatcher
I love this performance and it was such a shocker seeing the guy who once played Michael Scott on The Office deliver an exceptional dramatic performance. The nomination goes way beyond just funny man goes dramatic so let's reward it because this is a good piece of acting. It also goes way beyond the nose prosthetic which I hated everyone mentioning in the lead up to the Oscars. Same goes for Nicole Kidman in The Hours. Both performances were way more than just a funny looking nose, yet people liked to fixate on that stupid detail. With normal noses, both of those performances are still the exact same. Carell delivers an eerily creepy version of John du Pont no matter the make up. I think knowing that Carell is really good at being awkward/creepy from his TV show explains why he is so good here as du Pont. His performance really does make this entire film. Without Carell's acting ability, I'm not sure Foxcatcher has the same feel to it. Carell is very good at being creepy with his dead eyes and vacant stare, with his mix of trying to please his mother and assert his dominance over the wrestlers, with his complete lack of self awareness and detachment from social norms. The way Carell imbues his character with these minor details such as how he moves, how he talks, how he observes, how he longs to fit in is just brilliant to me. This is not done by accident or anything, this is measured acting and Carell really brings du Pont to life in the most horrific way. It's such an utterly convincing portrayal that I was actively rooting for Carell to win even though I knew this was a two horse race. There's almost nothing redeeming about the character of du Pont in this film yet Carell keeps him from looking anything like a villain. He portrays him just as a man with no peers who wants to impress people that don't care. I think the dour subject matter overshadows the brilliant performance at times when people talk about this one but it really is a tremendous performance by Michael Scott.
Bradley Cooper - American Sniper
The third year in a row that Cooper is nominated and I firmly believe his best performance of his career so far. It's a far cry from the previous two nominations and one where he really shows off his acting chops. He beefed up for the role and took on a southern drawl and really, I think, connected with the character and it shows. It's an honest portrayal, devoid of any bullshit. I kinda feel like he wanted to do an American hero proud and didn't want to fuck it up so he gave it everything he had and what we got was some inspired acting. I'm not sure if I would have ever thought that Bradley Cooper could pull off a Navy Seal or a badass war hero but he sure convinced me here. And to me, that's what great acting is all about. Sure, playing a crazy guy in a comedy is easy or having fun being an FBI agent in NJ while yucking it up is an easy thing, but this is on another level. There's expectations from people who have never even read the book, met the guy, or served in the military yet know exactly what they think Chris Kyle should be like. That's tough to live up to or overcome for anyone. Yet I think Bradley Cooper does just that. He honors the whole Navy Seal thing and thrives as the hero type without looking out of place at all. Even if you don't subscribe to the same ideals as Kyle or care for the wars and all that, you have to admit Cooper excels in the role. I think that's what I admire most about the performance, is that it's so genuine and reverent that you can tell Cooper puts so much time and effort and heart and soul into this character. I do think it's a pretty great performance and something I hope to see from Cooper again.
Benedict Cumberbatch - The Imitation Game
This is the reason why fanboys and girls on the internet love Benedict Cumberbatch so much and why everyone else should love him, too. He is a really great actor that uses intelligence as an asset and always delivers interesting characters no matter if the movie around him is dull or not. Even a character like Alan Turing who fits the cliche mold of unintentionally arrogant asshole genius who has a breakthrough that helps the world and needs those around him to help him assimilate better into society is better suited for Cumberbatch. A character that could easily be boring, isn't. However, the performance - and the film - could be way better. It shies away from diving too deep into Turing as a person, instead showing us the mythical figure. Cumberbatch does his best to bring some honesty and human quality to the man but is limited by the story and direction. The whole homosexual thing is glossed over and if not for some very lame flash forwards, we would never really know that Turing was gay and certainly never know just from watching the performance. Breaking the Enigma is a fascinating subject and Turing is an interesting character but shoehorning in a major part of his life seems like a dumb decision. So all we are left with essentially is the genius who is an asshole which we've seen countless times and while Cumberbatch does a compelling enough job, there's way more to the character and way more that could be done for the performance. Yeah, you might come back to this film to watch Cumberbatch in action but knowing we are missing out on a much more in depth and nuanced performance from a gifted actor is unfortunate.
Michael Keaton - Birdman: or (The Virtue of Ignorance)
I wanted Michael Keaton to win sooooo badly! I really loved his story, the one that mirrored his character's in Birdman. Beloved actor who kinda disappears but then has a resurgence is a pretty good story and Michael Keaton is a pretty likable guy. He's also a pretty great actor and puts all of his talent on display here as Riggan Thomson, an actor trying to shed his superhero roots and become a serious actor. You'd have to find another actor with a similar background for this film to be pulled off and even then I'm not sure it would work. Keaton is the film. It's his gravitas that pushes the film into Best Picture status and he is on top of his game throughout. Watching him act is such a treat because he has such great comedic timing even if it's super subtle and he also balances that out with being able to deliver great drama as well. He knows how to act and he's also a very physical actor. That's why the underwear scene works so damn well, because he makes it so funny but also so poignant with his expressions and just the way he struts. I feel the same way for this performance as I do for Mickey Rourke in The Wrestler: this is the one I want to win yet an asshole won instead. It frustrates me that a performance as nuanced and loaded as this one managed to lose to a subpar performance. I just think Keaton is a phenomenal actor and really deserved to win Best Actor this year. I'm still not over him losing as you can tell. Hopefully, he wins in 2015.
This is actually a pretty good group when you boil it all down and see what's left. Sure, I did not like the Redmayne win, but there are some parts that are okay. It still gets put way down my list on principal, though. Keaton was my, and many others', favorite of the year. I think because it was such an astonishing piece of work by an actor we had forgotten about who came outta nowhere and delivered an awesome performance. That will get anyone's attention and respect. Carell, however, is a very close second to me for pretty much the same reason. Who knew he had that kind of dramatic performance in him? Cooper was also very strong and makes a good third. Cumberbatch is Cumberbatch. He's charming and likeable and did a good enough job in a mediocre movie. Maybe not a strong enough group as some others I've done for the project, but a good one no doubt! I also wanted to note that if David Oyelowo and Ralph Fiennes were nominated for their performances instead of Redmayne and Cumberbatch, holy shit this might have been an all time great Best Actor group. Having re-watched those films and performances, it seems criminal that they were not included.
Oscar Winner: Eddie Redmayne - The Theory of Everything
My Winner: Michael Keaton - Birdman: or (The Virtue of Ignorance)
Steve Carell
Bradley Cooper
Benedict Cumberbatch
Eddie Redmayne
2014 Best Actor
Eddie Redmayne - The Theory of Everything
(Puke)
I thought of just leaving that as my review but figured I'd write something for continuity sake. I think some of the main reasons people really hate this win is because Redmayne campaigned so, so hard for the win which always rubs some people the wrong way even if campaigning is a historically Oscar thing to do. People also didn't like his seemingly insincere speeches leading up to his Oscar speech which I know annoyed a lot of people. Plus, lots of people felt Keaton was just honestly the better performance and choice. But that's what happens when you campaign. Thing is, Redmayne isn't too bad at the beginning as Hawking. Obviously what we know of Hawking is the contorted genius in a wheelchair who talks with a computer, so seeing a spry young man was at least interesting. But there's no depth or nuance to Redmayne's Hawking here. It's a surface and superficiality. The descent into the disease is probably the best part of the film as you get to see the change and how Redmayne/Hawking deal with it. It just doesn't last all that long before we get into the pure imitation. I'm sorry but mimicry does not equate to a Best Oscar win. Give me a character! Give me a performance! Give me depth! Give me something that I can point to other than how he sat in a damn chair. It's superficial to the max, hell the whole movie is, which is what I hate about this win so much. Did we ever really get to know Stephen Hawking? No! We got to see someone's physical take on the man but we never really scratched the surface of what was going on in the head of one of the most brilliant men to ever live. Instead we got to see him meet a girl and like 5 minutes later get married and have a family and deal with his illness. We don't even get a good sense of why they actually ended up together and why they stayed together so long. Meanwhile, we see Redmayne contort himself into his chair and stay like that for half the movie, becoming a supporting player in his own biopic! There's so much wrong with this just as a performance, let alone a win, that it boggles my mind that this is the winner. This one sucks, campaigning be damned!
Steve Carell - Foxcatcher
I love this performance and it was such a shocker seeing the guy who once played Michael Scott on The Office deliver an exceptional dramatic performance. The nomination goes way beyond just funny man goes dramatic so let's reward it because this is a good piece of acting. It also goes way beyond the nose prosthetic which I hated everyone mentioning in the lead up to the Oscars. Same goes for Nicole Kidman in The Hours. Both performances were way more than just a funny looking nose, yet people liked to fixate on that stupid detail. With normal noses, both of those performances are still the exact same. Carell delivers an eerily creepy version of John du Pont no matter the make up. I think knowing that Carell is really good at being awkward/creepy from his TV show explains why he is so good here as du Pont. His performance really does make this entire film. Without Carell's acting ability, I'm not sure Foxcatcher has the same feel to it. Carell is very good at being creepy with his dead eyes and vacant stare, with his mix of trying to please his mother and assert his dominance over the wrestlers, with his complete lack of self awareness and detachment from social norms. The way Carell imbues his character with these minor details such as how he moves, how he talks, how he observes, how he longs to fit in is just brilliant to me. This is not done by accident or anything, this is measured acting and Carell really brings du Pont to life in the most horrific way. It's such an utterly convincing portrayal that I was actively rooting for Carell to win even though I knew this was a two horse race. There's almost nothing redeeming about the character of du Pont in this film yet Carell keeps him from looking anything like a villain. He portrays him just as a man with no peers who wants to impress people that don't care. I think the dour subject matter overshadows the brilliant performance at times when people talk about this one but it really is a tremendous performance by Michael Scott.
Bradley Cooper - American Sniper
The third year in a row that Cooper is nominated and I firmly believe his best performance of his career so far. It's a far cry from the previous two nominations and one where he really shows off his acting chops. He beefed up for the role and took on a southern drawl and really, I think, connected with the character and it shows. It's an honest portrayal, devoid of any bullshit. I kinda feel like he wanted to do an American hero proud and didn't want to fuck it up so he gave it everything he had and what we got was some inspired acting. I'm not sure if I would have ever thought that Bradley Cooper could pull off a Navy Seal or a badass war hero but he sure convinced me here. And to me, that's what great acting is all about. Sure, playing a crazy guy in a comedy is easy or having fun being an FBI agent in NJ while yucking it up is an easy thing, but this is on another level. There's expectations from people who have never even read the book, met the guy, or served in the military yet know exactly what they think Chris Kyle should be like. That's tough to live up to or overcome for anyone. Yet I think Bradley Cooper does just that. He honors the whole Navy Seal thing and thrives as the hero type without looking out of place at all. Even if you don't subscribe to the same ideals as Kyle or care for the wars and all that, you have to admit Cooper excels in the role. I think that's what I admire most about the performance, is that it's so genuine and reverent that you can tell Cooper puts so much time and effort and heart and soul into this character. I do think it's a pretty great performance and something I hope to see from Cooper again.
Benedict Cumberbatch - The Imitation Game
This is the reason why fanboys and girls on the internet love Benedict Cumberbatch so much and why everyone else should love him, too. He is a really great actor that uses intelligence as an asset and always delivers interesting characters no matter if the movie around him is dull or not. Even a character like Alan Turing who fits the cliche mold of unintentionally arrogant asshole genius who has a breakthrough that helps the world and needs those around him to help him assimilate better into society is better suited for Cumberbatch. A character that could easily be boring, isn't. However, the performance - and the film - could be way better. It shies away from diving too deep into Turing as a person, instead showing us the mythical figure. Cumberbatch does his best to bring some honesty and human quality to the man but is limited by the story and direction. The whole homosexual thing is glossed over and if not for some very lame flash forwards, we would never really know that Turing was gay and certainly never know just from watching the performance. Breaking the Enigma is a fascinating subject and Turing is an interesting character but shoehorning in a major part of his life seems like a dumb decision. So all we are left with essentially is the genius who is an asshole which we've seen countless times and while Cumberbatch does a compelling enough job, there's way more to the character and way more that could be done for the performance. Yeah, you might come back to this film to watch Cumberbatch in action but knowing we are missing out on a much more in depth and nuanced performance from a gifted actor is unfortunate.
Michael Keaton - Birdman: or (The Virtue of Ignorance)
I wanted Michael Keaton to win sooooo badly! I really loved his story, the one that mirrored his character's in Birdman. Beloved actor who kinda disappears but then has a resurgence is a pretty good story and Michael Keaton is a pretty likable guy. He's also a pretty great actor and puts all of his talent on display here as Riggan Thomson, an actor trying to shed his superhero roots and become a serious actor. You'd have to find another actor with a similar background for this film to be pulled off and even then I'm not sure it would work. Keaton is the film. It's his gravitas that pushes the film into Best Picture status and he is on top of his game throughout. Watching him act is such a treat because he has such great comedic timing even if it's super subtle and he also balances that out with being able to deliver great drama as well. He knows how to act and he's also a very physical actor. That's why the underwear scene works so damn well, because he makes it so funny but also so poignant with his expressions and just the way he struts. I feel the same way for this performance as I do for Mickey Rourke in The Wrestler: this is the one I want to win yet an asshole won instead. It frustrates me that a performance as nuanced and loaded as this one managed to lose to a subpar performance. I just think Keaton is a phenomenal actor and really deserved to win Best Actor this year. I'm still not over him losing as you can tell. Hopefully, he wins in 2015.
This is actually a pretty good group when you boil it all down and see what's left. Sure, I did not like the Redmayne win, but there are some parts that are okay. It still gets put way down my list on principal, though. Keaton was my, and many others', favorite of the year. I think because it was such an astonishing piece of work by an actor we had forgotten about who came outta nowhere and delivered an awesome performance. That will get anyone's attention and respect. Carell, however, is a very close second to me for pretty much the same reason. Who knew he had that kind of dramatic performance in him? Cooper was also very strong and makes a good third. Cumberbatch is Cumberbatch. He's charming and likeable and did a good enough job in a mediocre movie. Maybe not a strong enough group as some others I've done for the project, but a good one no doubt! I also wanted to note that if David Oyelowo and Ralph Fiennes were nominated for their performances instead of Redmayne and Cumberbatch, holy shit this might have been an all time great Best Actor group. Having re-watched those films and performances, it seems criminal that they were not included.
Oscar Winner: Eddie Redmayne - The Theory of Everything
My Winner: Michael Keaton - Birdman: or (The Virtue of Ignorance)
Steve Carell
Bradley Cooper
Benedict Cumberbatch
Eddie Redmayne
Tuesday, January 12, 2016
Leading Actress 2014
Definitely not a bad group of actresses this year, even if the films are not the greatest. There was a clear cut winner for me and the Academy but I want to return to a couple to see how the measure up a year later.
2014 Best Actress
Julianne Moore - Still Alice
Yay, Julianne Moore finally won an Oscar! I say that more because now every Oscar season I don't have to read about how every. single. performance. of hers is going to be nominated and deserves to win and blah blah blah. Moore was absolutely the darling of the online commenters of every single blog and website. That doesn't mean I don't like Moore because I do, she's a wonderful actress who has some stinkers and some brilliant performances out there. Still Alice was a culmination of sorts for her career, I think. It's like everything finally came to a head here. Like she took everything she had ever learned from all her performances and focused it for her depiction of a middle aged woman with early onset Alzheimer's disease. She's an important person in the linguistics field, which is the study of languages so you can see where this is heading: a woman who is at the top of her field of studying language is now faced with forgetting everything she's learned about it and with losing her family in a way. When you watch Still Alice and it finally ends, you'll probably have the same reaction I did which was "wow, that was an amazing, almost perfect performance and that's a film I never want to watch again." I don't say that because it's a bad film but because it's so raw and real and clinical. Clinical is the big word for this performance and film. It's as if this film were made with the idea in mind to show to families on what to expect with their family member who has been diagnosed with the disease. It's not hitting any sappy, feel good notes, it's not over-exaggerating what Alzheimer's looks like, and it's not treating the subject too harshly or too innocently. It's presenting a picture of what this early onset Alzheimer's really looks like - life as it really is. That clinical feel is due partly to Moore's seriously almost perfect performance of Alice. She doesn't fall into the trap of overacting her character (which we've seen on this blog before!) with Alzheimer's. She plays it as a woman who is slowly becoming affected by the disease but who tries to fight it and keep her family together in a tough time. That why her performance feels more like a real life documentary subject than an actress pretending to have Alzheimer's. Her reactions and the reactions of her family seem very plausible and natural and sort of run the gamut of what you could expect lending to the clinical feel. There's no doubt that Moore deserved her Oscar for this performance even if it's not something I want to keep returning to.
Marion Cotillard - Two Days, One Night
Probably one of the bigger, if not the biggest, surprise from announcement day was hearing Cotillard's name among the Best Actress nominees. She was pretty off the radar and considered such a long shot that most people didn't even bother to talk about her other than well, she might have a chance and it would be cool if she made it kinda thing. Well she made it and I'm not sure how except for maybe on the strength of her being so well liked among the Academy members and maybe due to the European Academy members voting for her. I don't know if very many people actually saw this film and I'd wager most people still haven't. It was hard enough for me to track down with English subtitles but I'd say that search was pretty rewarding. It's a really interesting concept for a film. Cotillard's character has been on leave for depression/anxiety type illness and she comes back to find that her coworkers held a vote to fire her so they could all get more money. She convinces the boss to let her speak to and try to persuade the others to change their vote to let her stay there and work. Hence the Two Days, One Night title which is how much time she has over a weekend. Having seen a few of Cotillard's performances now, one thing that always jumps out is how dedicated she is with her characters. She dives in deep into these characters and delivers some very strong, committed performances. That's true for this film, as well. She goes through a whole smorgasbord of emotions throughout the film. I'll say that her portrayal of the depression/anxiety part of her character is somewhat frustrating to watch because it does come off as a bit annoying. Her character just gives up so easily, too often and acts so much like a child instead of an adult. I think that was a deliberate acting choice but it still grates. But Cotillard also goes through desperation as she trudges along to all her coworkers' houses or wherever she can find them, sadness and joy and ecstasy and fear and confidence and determination and a million others as she tries to convince them to change their vote. Some of the people are easily persuaded, others take a lot more effort and time, and still others berate her and are mean to her for their own personal reasons. We start to root for her but we also start to wonder what we would do in both situation's - on the side of having to beg for your job back and on the side of having someone try to convince you to give up money so they can work and provide for their family. It's an interesting look at our day to day interactions with other humans and Cotillard really does bring maximum effort in her performance. It's certainly one that I would have overlooked if not for it being nominated even though I was aware it was a possibility. Don't let the whole French film with subtitles thing scare you away either, or you'll be missing out on a truly interesting and profound performance from an actress we know is one of the best going these days.
Felicity Jones - The Theory of Everything
Alright, so I was actually a little bit interested in watching this again to see if I could find what a lot of other people saw in this performance. I thought it was an average to good performance at best, yet there was a big contingent of people who were pushing this for the win. Sure, Jones is super cute and is a very capable actress, but my beef with the performance and the movie is that it's so superficial. The beginning of the love story is so rushed as to make me ask why do they love one another, other than that's just what it says in the script? Jones' character Jane comes off as very loving and determined but the whole time I'm watching, I'm left wondering why exactly I care about her doing any of this. This kinda just comes off as acting which makes me unsure about whether or not Jones is exceptionally good or just alright. Because she's steadfast in playing the supportive wife and mother and being the rah rah champion for Stephen to keep going despite his illness. But, I can't find the heart to her performance, there's no soul in the character. I just kinda feel like I'm watching Jones act instead of becoming her character, instead of inhabiting and owning her character. I almost feel bad for having this reaction but unfortunately that's what Jones' performance does for me. Maybe it is purely a product of the movie itself because I do think that Jones could probably offer up a performance with much more depth and charisma, it's just not in The Theory of Everything. I was really hoping to find what everyone else saw in this performance, but I'm starting to think everyone else was blinded by the hype and the pretty face. Just give me an honest performance - that's all I ever want.
Rosamund Pike - Gone Girl
This is the kind of performance I like to see get recognized. Instead of just choosing Meryl Streep or Judi Dench for the 200th time, give a nod to an up and coming actress who actually delivers an incredible performance in a big hit of a film. Now of course I'm not saying to only nominate younger actresses just because they are young, but I feel you get a better range of actresses and performances this way (if they are deserving). Pike is so good at playing so many different characters which is why I think this role is pretty impressive. She's an Ivy League grad, who comes from affluence, becomes a housewife and gets cabin fever and then turns into a sociopathic, scheming, manipulative cunt (borrowing that word from the film). She has to play the perfect wife while at the same time concocting this insane plan to frame her husband for her murder. Pike is at times so expressionless which I think is what the character calls for, like a stoic warrior or something raging inside but putting on the air of domesticity. It lends a good kind of creepy quality to the film and the way she delivers lines adds to it, as well. It's like a soothing voice when she speaks and the style of the dialogue is very glib and film-y - ya know, the way everyone has a quick, perfect comeback to anything. I just really like Pike in it because it seems so pitch perfect with how Amy's character should be portrayed. How she can quickly change from tender and loving to brutal and bitchy takes a lot of talent to pull off both convincingly and Pike does that with this performance. It's also a kind of fun performance for Pike, there's a lot of craziness going on and it can be fun to watch her act it all out. The easiest thing with this performance is to just go along with the ride and enjoy it.
Reese Witherspoon - Wild
Witherspoon's performance kinda tricks you into thinking it's really great acting because the film can be very stylish and make her character out to be more important and deeper than she really is. I don't exactly know why I'm supposed to be sympathetic towards this character or be rooting for her in any capacity. She is/was an alcoholic drug addict also into banging anyone, anywhere for any reason. Not exactly a character you can rally behind but if the turn around is believable that would actually make for an interesting and compelling story. But what we get from Witherspoon's character is a woman who decides to hike the Pacific Coast Trail after destroying her marriage and it is just simply not an interesting or compelling story. There are brief flashbacks to the marriage and to Witherspoon's childhood and young adult years showing how her mother was free spirited and then dying of cancer. I'm not sure if that's supposed to explain her dangerous behavior with sex and drugs or what but it felt mostly out of place and pointless. So she's thinking about these things on her hike...okay? And then don't even get me started on those stupid, pretentious literary quotes she writes in the trail logs. Like are those supposed to actually mean something?? This lady is everything I loathe about society. Be a terrible person, blame your childhood or a tragedy and then doing some big event like hike a trail and write about it like it actually means something or that people will care about it. This is honestly one of the most boring stories I've seen. Maybe the book is better but I highly doubt it. As for the performance itself, Witherspoon does a fine enough job at the physical aspect of hiking and all that but she can't escape a dull character and it's not really her fault. It just kinda exists for me but we know the Academy loves going back to the well whenever it can instead of finding new people. I think that the character isn't very well defined in this film and that leaves Witherspoon hanging.
Julianne Moore is a very deserving winner and I'm so glad that she won for something deserving instead of getting a make-up award because they felt bad for not rewarding her yet and felt she was due. It's pretty great when those two things can line up, isn't it? Now, there's no make-up awards needed to be given out in the future for this group. Moore is the easy winner but damn if Pike didn't give her a good run for her money. It was never going to happen but I really like the nomination. Cotillard shows why she's an Oscar winner by getting on for a film you never saw or even heard about but when you (presumably, hopefully) did watch it, you realize is pretty dang good. That's just what Cotillard does. Jones feels more like a star making turn. A chance to honor an up-and-comer for a film the Academy loved (way too much) and set in motion future nominations as long as she lives up to the hype. We'll see since I wasn't as impressed here. Witherspoon brings up the rear and, well, that's about all you can say about her on this list. Would have rather seen a different woman nominated but the Academy likes it's security blankets, so there you go. All in all, not a bad year.
Oscar Winner: Julianne Moore - Still Alice
My Winner: Julianne Moore - Still Alice
Rosamund Pike
Marion Cotillard
Felicity Jones
Reese Witherspoon
2014 Best Actress
Julianne Moore - Still Alice
Yay, Julianne Moore finally won an Oscar! I say that more because now every Oscar season I don't have to read about how every. single. performance. of hers is going to be nominated and deserves to win and blah blah blah. Moore was absolutely the darling of the online commenters of every single blog and website. That doesn't mean I don't like Moore because I do, she's a wonderful actress who has some stinkers and some brilliant performances out there. Still Alice was a culmination of sorts for her career, I think. It's like everything finally came to a head here. Like she took everything she had ever learned from all her performances and focused it for her depiction of a middle aged woman with early onset Alzheimer's disease. She's an important person in the linguistics field, which is the study of languages so you can see where this is heading: a woman who is at the top of her field of studying language is now faced with forgetting everything she's learned about it and with losing her family in a way. When you watch Still Alice and it finally ends, you'll probably have the same reaction I did which was "wow, that was an amazing, almost perfect performance and that's a film I never want to watch again." I don't say that because it's a bad film but because it's so raw and real and clinical. Clinical is the big word for this performance and film. It's as if this film were made with the idea in mind to show to families on what to expect with their family member who has been diagnosed with the disease. It's not hitting any sappy, feel good notes, it's not over-exaggerating what Alzheimer's looks like, and it's not treating the subject too harshly or too innocently. It's presenting a picture of what this early onset Alzheimer's really looks like - life as it really is. That clinical feel is due partly to Moore's seriously almost perfect performance of Alice. She doesn't fall into the trap of overacting her character (which we've seen on this blog before!) with Alzheimer's. She plays it as a woman who is slowly becoming affected by the disease but who tries to fight it and keep her family together in a tough time. That why her performance feels more like a real life documentary subject than an actress pretending to have Alzheimer's. Her reactions and the reactions of her family seem very plausible and natural and sort of run the gamut of what you could expect lending to the clinical feel. There's no doubt that Moore deserved her Oscar for this performance even if it's not something I want to keep returning to.
Marion Cotillard - Two Days, One Night
Probably one of the bigger, if not the biggest, surprise from announcement day was hearing Cotillard's name among the Best Actress nominees. She was pretty off the radar and considered such a long shot that most people didn't even bother to talk about her other than well, she might have a chance and it would be cool if she made it kinda thing. Well she made it and I'm not sure how except for maybe on the strength of her being so well liked among the Academy members and maybe due to the European Academy members voting for her. I don't know if very many people actually saw this film and I'd wager most people still haven't. It was hard enough for me to track down with English subtitles but I'd say that search was pretty rewarding. It's a really interesting concept for a film. Cotillard's character has been on leave for depression/anxiety type illness and she comes back to find that her coworkers held a vote to fire her so they could all get more money. She convinces the boss to let her speak to and try to persuade the others to change their vote to let her stay there and work. Hence the Two Days, One Night title which is how much time she has over a weekend. Having seen a few of Cotillard's performances now, one thing that always jumps out is how dedicated she is with her characters. She dives in deep into these characters and delivers some very strong, committed performances. That's true for this film, as well. She goes through a whole smorgasbord of emotions throughout the film. I'll say that her portrayal of the depression/anxiety part of her character is somewhat frustrating to watch because it does come off as a bit annoying. Her character just gives up so easily, too often and acts so much like a child instead of an adult. I think that was a deliberate acting choice but it still grates. But Cotillard also goes through desperation as she trudges along to all her coworkers' houses or wherever she can find them, sadness and joy and ecstasy and fear and confidence and determination and a million others as she tries to convince them to change their vote. Some of the people are easily persuaded, others take a lot more effort and time, and still others berate her and are mean to her for their own personal reasons. We start to root for her but we also start to wonder what we would do in both situation's - on the side of having to beg for your job back and on the side of having someone try to convince you to give up money so they can work and provide for their family. It's an interesting look at our day to day interactions with other humans and Cotillard really does bring maximum effort in her performance. It's certainly one that I would have overlooked if not for it being nominated even though I was aware it was a possibility. Don't let the whole French film with subtitles thing scare you away either, or you'll be missing out on a truly interesting and profound performance from an actress we know is one of the best going these days.
Felicity Jones - The Theory of Everything
Alright, so I was actually a little bit interested in watching this again to see if I could find what a lot of other people saw in this performance. I thought it was an average to good performance at best, yet there was a big contingent of people who were pushing this for the win. Sure, Jones is super cute and is a very capable actress, but my beef with the performance and the movie is that it's so superficial. The beginning of the love story is so rushed as to make me ask why do they love one another, other than that's just what it says in the script? Jones' character Jane comes off as very loving and determined but the whole time I'm watching, I'm left wondering why exactly I care about her doing any of this. This kinda just comes off as acting which makes me unsure about whether or not Jones is exceptionally good or just alright. Because she's steadfast in playing the supportive wife and mother and being the rah rah champion for Stephen to keep going despite his illness. But, I can't find the heart to her performance, there's no soul in the character. I just kinda feel like I'm watching Jones act instead of becoming her character, instead of inhabiting and owning her character. I almost feel bad for having this reaction but unfortunately that's what Jones' performance does for me. Maybe it is purely a product of the movie itself because I do think that Jones could probably offer up a performance with much more depth and charisma, it's just not in The Theory of Everything. I was really hoping to find what everyone else saw in this performance, but I'm starting to think everyone else was blinded by the hype and the pretty face. Just give me an honest performance - that's all I ever want.
Rosamund Pike - Gone Girl
This is the kind of performance I like to see get recognized. Instead of just choosing Meryl Streep or Judi Dench for the 200th time, give a nod to an up and coming actress who actually delivers an incredible performance in a big hit of a film. Now of course I'm not saying to only nominate younger actresses just because they are young, but I feel you get a better range of actresses and performances this way (if they are deserving). Pike is so good at playing so many different characters which is why I think this role is pretty impressive. She's an Ivy League grad, who comes from affluence, becomes a housewife and gets cabin fever and then turns into a sociopathic, scheming, manipulative cunt (borrowing that word from the film). She has to play the perfect wife while at the same time concocting this insane plan to frame her husband for her murder. Pike is at times so expressionless which I think is what the character calls for, like a stoic warrior or something raging inside but putting on the air of domesticity. It lends a good kind of creepy quality to the film and the way she delivers lines adds to it, as well. It's like a soothing voice when she speaks and the style of the dialogue is very glib and film-y - ya know, the way everyone has a quick, perfect comeback to anything. I just really like Pike in it because it seems so pitch perfect with how Amy's character should be portrayed. How she can quickly change from tender and loving to brutal and bitchy takes a lot of talent to pull off both convincingly and Pike does that with this performance. It's also a kind of fun performance for Pike, there's a lot of craziness going on and it can be fun to watch her act it all out. The easiest thing with this performance is to just go along with the ride and enjoy it.
Reese Witherspoon - Wild
Witherspoon's performance kinda tricks you into thinking it's really great acting because the film can be very stylish and make her character out to be more important and deeper than she really is. I don't exactly know why I'm supposed to be sympathetic towards this character or be rooting for her in any capacity. She is/was an alcoholic drug addict also into banging anyone, anywhere for any reason. Not exactly a character you can rally behind but if the turn around is believable that would actually make for an interesting and compelling story. But what we get from Witherspoon's character is a woman who decides to hike the Pacific Coast Trail after destroying her marriage and it is just simply not an interesting or compelling story. There are brief flashbacks to the marriage and to Witherspoon's childhood and young adult years showing how her mother was free spirited and then dying of cancer. I'm not sure if that's supposed to explain her dangerous behavior with sex and drugs or what but it felt mostly out of place and pointless. So she's thinking about these things on her hike...okay? And then don't even get me started on those stupid, pretentious literary quotes she writes in the trail logs. Like are those supposed to actually mean something?? This lady is everything I loathe about society. Be a terrible person, blame your childhood or a tragedy and then doing some big event like hike a trail and write about it like it actually means something or that people will care about it. This is honestly one of the most boring stories I've seen. Maybe the book is better but I highly doubt it. As for the performance itself, Witherspoon does a fine enough job at the physical aspect of hiking and all that but she can't escape a dull character and it's not really her fault. It just kinda exists for me but we know the Academy loves going back to the well whenever it can instead of finding new people. I think that the character isn't very well defined in this film and that leaves Witherspoon hanging.
Julianne Moore is a very deserving winner and I'm so glad that she won for something deserving instead of getting a make-up award because they felt bad for not rewarding her yet and felt she was due. It's pretty great when those two things can line up, isn't it? Now, there's no make-up awards needed to be given out in the future for this group. Moore is the easy winner but damn if Pike didn't give her a good run for her money. It was never going to happen but I really like the nomination. Cotillard shows why she's an Oscar winner by getting on for a film you never saw or even heard about but when you (presumably, hopefully) did watch it, you realize is pretty dang good. That's just what Cotillard does. Jones feels more like a star making turn. A chance to honor an up-and-comer for a film the Academy loved (way too much) and set in motion future nominations as long as she lives up to the hype. We'll see since I wasn't as impressed here. Witherspoon brings up the rear and, well, that's about all you can say about her on this list. Would have rather seen a different woman nominated but the Academy likes it's security blankets, so there you go. All in all, not a bad year.
Oscar Winner: Julianne Moore - Still Alice
My Winner: Julianne Moore - Still Alice
Rosamund Pike
Marion Cotillard
Felicity Jones
Reese Witherspoon
Wednesday, December 30, 2015
Supporting Actor 2014
This race was decided long before their was even a race. It was always Simmons' Oscar and everyone else was just playing for consolation. It's a good group of actors and as per usual it offers up a good group of performances.
2014 Best Supporting Actor
J. K. Simmons - Whiplash
Holy shit! This category pumps out some really stellar winners, some that I'd consider some of the best ever or at least the top performances of the last 20 years or so. J. K. Simmons provides another name to put on that imaginary list because he knocks this performance out of the fucking park. It's a grand slam in the bottom of the 9th of the World Series while down three runs with 2 outs and 2 strikes. Like it blew me away with how good it truly is. Not many people know that Whiplash was actually a short before a full film and Simmons was in both of them. I think that only served to help him because he was able to hone his character and instead of only putting on screen the initial take on a character, he got another chance and really owned it. I think inhabiting a character for so long can only help a performance to come out better and Simmons really showed that here. He is spell binding, mesmerizing, captivating, intoxicating, whatever cliche adjectives you want to throw out - they all apply to his performance as a jazz teacher whose intensity with his students goes above and beyond. He's hardcore and that intensity isn't like a drill sergeant but more like a reigned in drill sergeant who explodes only when absolutely necessary before snapping back into the focused machine he is. Both Simmons the actor and his character just radiate such intense passion that literally makes your jaw drop. He's able to bring his character to such vivid life that you grow to fear him while he's on screen like you're the one sitting there drumming, it's simply amazing. This was by far the best performance of the year for me and deserved all the awards it received. There's no doubt that Simmons' performance will go down as one of the greatest of all time.
Robert Duvall - The Judge
Okay, so this is the obvious you're gonna die soon, most likely, so let's nominate you one last time for a mediocre performance in a movie that's mostly boring and derivative. And that really is the truth! Duvall was getting backed hard in the lead up to nominations but all the prognosticators had him as an outsider looking in or at the very least a 5th slot. I know when his name was read on announcement day I was a bit surprised, especially since it knocked out one of my favorites of the year in Riz Ahmed for Nightcrawler. About his performance, though - it's not bad or terrible or anything. It's what you'd expect from Duvall, elevating sub par material on the strength of his acting ability. He plays an old, crusty Judge who had an issue with alcohol who goes out for a drive and returns with a damaged car and later is indicted for a hit and run. His estranged son represents him and some family bonding occurs. Formulaic stuff that is stuffed into this bloated movie that runs 2 and a half hours long! Duvall along with Robert Downey Jr. make this movie worth a watch but they really are the only worthy parts to watch. Still, Duvall's performance hits a lot of familiar notes and his character is too rigid too allow for much personality. The Judge is a very moral, upright character that is unwilling to bend to common sense. He doesn't use his illness as a reason he couldn't remember his drive and does some other things that are just too convenient for plot. So while it is a decent Duvall performance, it's frustrating knowing we could have gotten something much better with a stronger story and a better character.
Ethan Hawke - Boyhood
Okay, so I've already talked about how the concept for this film was pretty impressive which by association means the commitment of 12 years by an actor to a single film/performance is also impressive. Ethan Hawke is no stranger to something similar to this with the Before films so it's natural that he fits right in. But is this an impressive performance? I wouldn't use impressive, more like competent or decent given what /who his character is. He plays the father to Mason and his sister and pops in and out of their life when convenient. It's a very supporting role and one that's mostly one note. Hawke's character constantly shows up to be the cool dad who is absent but comes into the picture with presents and fatherly advice. And he is always shown as being kinda cool and hip and more of a friend to the kids instead of the father. He gives advice in almost every scene which makes the character seem too on the nose about growing up and parenting, ya know? Like that's all he's around for is to have these moments with Mason but it all seems so artificial. Hawke is a good choice with his down to earth, cool but pretty nice guy mentality. His life is almost in contrast with Arquette's who is constantly fucking up yet this absent father eventually settles down and has another kid and gets married and becomes religious yet still remains cool while supporting Mason and doing the advice thing. I don't think the character is all that well thought through but Hawke manages to scrape out a decent performance with his charm and good guy qualities. Is it anywhere close to being a winner? Nah. But it is decent even if it's a little too thin.
Edward Norton - Birdman: or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)
Ah, Edward Norton is pretty great even if he is supposed to be a dick in real life. In this film, he's pretty enjoyable as the ringer, essentially, who is also a dick. One of the actors gets injured and Norton is brought in because he's a dedicated, veteran Broadway actor who somehow knows all the lines even though he was just brought in. He's that kind of Broadway actor. He's super method and needs to drink real gin in a scene, wants to really fuck Naomi Watts in another, and implores Keaton's character to go out and take a risk. It's a sort of stereotypical role in a film about breaking stereotypes so it's not out of place at all. He's very much like what his real life persona is said to be: a womanizing dick who gets so deep into character at times. I think Norton understands the parallel and I'd assume that's why he chose it, much like Keaton choosing to portray a washed up superhero. It's a tongue in cheek role and Norton excels at playing a character that's like Norton. That sounds disparaging but it's not! I quite enjoyed Norton here because he adds to the craziness that is Birdman and his character is a lot of fun to watch. He doesn't distract or detract from the story at all and what else can you really say? He's not the best option for the win but he's a pretty good nominee.
Mark Ruffalo - Foxcatcher
Mark Ruffalo has kinda become a go to pick for the Academy when it comes to filling out their nominations. Which isn't a bad thing at all, really, because he does provide some pretty good to great performances. I've got nothing against Ruffalo being nominated here because Foxcatcher is a great film and because his performance is very authentic. Ruffalo portrays Dave Schultz, an Olympic gold medal wrestling champion and coach. He is sort of the conduit for the audience in this film because he's the only sane character we encounter. He's like us observing the crazy antics of John du Pont and concerned for the well being of his brother, Mark. He takes everything in and tries to process it and get it fixed which ultimately ends tragically for him. But that's where Ruffalo succeeds in being that strong supporting character that's never too flashy. I also just love the way he acts in this role. His walk is unintentionally funny to me because it's the jaunty walk of a wrestler but it feels very lived in and authentic, as is everything else Ruffalo does in this film. It might not be a performance that would win but I'm all for strong supporting characters like these getting their due.
As I said above Simmons gave one of the best performances I've seen since starting this project and I think one of the best of the last 20 or so years, period. This was an easy choice for Oscar. What follows is a list of smaller supporting performances that don't exactly pop or wow but are still mostly solid. Norton comes in second because his is the most fun and it's a nice breath of fresh air over all the serious stuff I see. He's having fun with it and it definitely shows. Then would come Ruffalo for a stalwart performance - a typical Ruffalo job. It doesn't take over the film but if he weren't there, you'd notice it. Hawke would be my fourth only because he just plays the cool dad figure and doesn't do all that much besides offer up advice. Duval is the weak link but not a terrible one. Just knowing that there were better choices out there is what frustrates me about that one. Oh well!
Oscar Winner: J. K. Simmons - Whiplash
My Winner: J. K. Simmons - Whiplash
Edward Norton
Mark Ruffalo
Ethan Hawke
Robert Duvall
2014 Best Supporting Actor
J. K. Simmons - Whiplash
Holy shit! This category pumps out some really stellar winners, some that I'd consider some of the best ever or at least the top performances of the last 20 years or so. J. K. Simmons provides another name to put on that imaginary list because he knocks this performance out of the fucking park. It's a grand slam in the bottom of the 9th of the World Series while down three runs with 2 outs and 2 strikes. Like it blew me away with how good it truly is. Not many people know that Whiplash was actually a short before a full film and Simmons was in both of them. I think that only served to help him because he was able to hone his character and instead of only putting on screen the initial take on a character, he got another chance and really owned it. I think inhabiting a character for so long can only help a performance to come out better and Simmons really showed that here. He is spell binding, mesmerizing, captivating, intoxicating, whatever cliche adjectives you want to throw out - they all apply to his performance as a jazz teacher whose intensity with his students goes above and beyond. He's hardcore and that intensity isn't like a drill sergeant but more like a reigned in drill sergeant who explodes only when absolutely necessary before snapping back into the focused machine he is. Both Simmons the actor and his character just radiate such intense passion that literally makes your jaw drop. He's able to bring his character to such vivid life that you grow to fear him while he's on screen like you're the one sitting there drumming, it's simply amazing. This was by far the best performance of the year for me and deserved all the awards it received. There's no doubt that Simmons' performance will go down as one of the greatest of all time.
Robert Duvall - The Judge
Okay, so this is the obvious you're gonna die soon, most likely, so let's nominate you one last time for a mediocre performance in a movie that's mostly boring and derivative. And that really is the truth! Duvall was getting backed hard in the lead up to nominations but all the prognosticators had him as an outsider looking in or at the very least a 5th slot. I know when his name was read on announcement day I was a bit surprised, especially since it knocked out one of my favorites of the year in Riz Ahmed for Nightcrawler. About his performance, though - it's not bad or terrible or anything. It's what you'd expect from Duvall, elevating sub par material on the strength of his acting ability. He plays an old, crusty Judge who had an issue with alcohol who goes out for a drive and returns with a damaged car and later is indicted for a hit and run. His estranged son represents him and some family bonding occurs. Formulaic stuff that is stuffed into this bloated movie that runs 2 and a half hours long! Duvall along with Robert Downey Jr. make this movie worth a watch but they really are the only worthy parts to watch. Still, Duvall's performance hits a lot of familiar notes and his character is too rigid too allow for much personality. The Judge is a very moral, upright character that is unwilling to bend to common sense. He doesn't use his illness as a reason he couldn't remember his drive and does some other things that are just too convenient for plot. So while it is a decent Duvall performance, it's frustrating knowing we could have gotten something much better with a stronger story and a better character.
Ethan Hawke - Boyhood
Okay, so I've already talked about how the concept for this film was pretty impressive which by association means the commitment of 12 years by an actor to a single film/performance is also impressive. Ethan Hawke is no stranger to something similar to this with the Before films so it's natural that he fits right in. But is this an impressive performance? I wouldn't use impressive, more like competent or decent given what /who his character is. He plays the father to Mason and his sister and pops in and out of their life when convenient. It's a very supporting role and one that's mostly one note. Hawke's character constantly shows up to be the cool dad who is absent but comes into the picture with presents and fatherly advice. And he is always shown as being kinda cool and hip and more of a friend to the kids instead of the father. He gives advice in almost every scene which makes the character seem too on the nose about growing up and parenting, ya know? Like that's all he's around for is to have these moments with Mason but it all seems so artificial. Hawke is a good choice with his down to earth, cool but pretty nice guy mentality. His life is almost in contrast with Arquette's who is constantly fucking up yet this absent father eventually settles down and has another kid and gets married and becomes religious yet still remains cool while supporting Mason and doing the advice thing. I don't think the character is all that well thought through but Hawke manages to scrape out a decent performance with his charm and good guy qualities. Is it anywhere close to being a winner? Nah. But it is decent even if it's a little too thin.
Edward Norton - Birdman: or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)
Ah, Edward Norton is pretty great even if he is supposed to be a dick in real life. In this film, he's pretty enjoyable as the ringer, essentially, who is also a dick. One of the actors gets injured and Norton is brought in because he's a dedicated, veteran Broadway actor who somehow knows all the lines even though he was just brought in. He's that kind of Broadway actor. He's super method and needs to drink real gin in a scene, wants to really fuck Naomi Watts in another, and implores Keaton's character to go out and take a risk. It's a sort of stereotypical role in a film about breaking stereotypes so it's not out of place at all. He's very much like what his real life persona is said to be: a womanizing dick who gets so deep into character at times. I think Norton understands the parallel and I'd assume that's why he chose it, much like Keaton choosing to portray a washed up superhero. It's a tongue in cheek role and Norton excels at playing a character that's like Norton. That sounds disparaging but it's not! I quite enjoyed Norton here because he adds to the craziness that is Birdman and his character is a lot of fun to watch. He doesn't distract or detract from the story at all and what else can you really say? He's not the best option for the win but he's a pretty good nominee.
Mark Ruffalo - Foxcatcher
Mark Ruffalo has kinda become a go to pick for the Academy when it comes to filling out their nominations. Which isn't a bad thing at all, really, because he does provide some pretty good to great performances. I've got nothing against Ruffalo being nominated here because Foxcatcher is a great film and because his performance is very authentic. Ruffalo portrays Dave Schultz, an Olympic gold medal wrestling champion and coach. He is sort of the conduit for the audience in this film because he's the only sane character we encounter. He's like us observing the crazy antics of John du Pont and concerned for the well being of his brother, Mark. He takes everything in and tries to process it and get it fixed which ultimately ends tragically for him. But that's where Ruffalo succeeds in being that strong supporting character that's never too flashy. I also just love the way he acts in this role. His walk is unintentionally funny to me because it's the jaunty walk of a wrestler but it feels very lived in and authentic, as is everything else Ruffalo does in this film. It might not be a performance that would win but I'm all for strong supporting characters like these getting their due.
As I said above Simmons gave one of the best performances I've seen since starting this project and I think one of the best of the last 20 or so years, period. This was an easy choice for Oscar. What follows is a list of smaller supporting performances that don't exactly pop or wow but are still mostly solid. Norton comes in second because his is the most fun and it's a nice breath of fresh air over all the serious stuff I see. He's having fun with it and it definitely shows. Then would come Ruffalo for a stalwart performance - a typical Ruffalo job. It doesn't take over the film but if he weren't there, you'd notice it. Hawke would be my fourth only because he just plays the cool dad figure and doesn't do all that much besides offer up advice. Duval is the weak link but not a terrible one. Just knowing that there were better choices out there is what frustrates me about that one. Oh well!
Oscar Winner: J. K. Simmons - Whiplash
My Winner: J. K. Simmons - Whiplash
Edward Norton
Mark Ruffalo
Ethan Hawke
Robert Duvall
Thursday, December 24, 2015
Supporting Actress 2014
Yes! Finally I'm catching up to the current Oscar year (until the 2015 Oscars get nominated in a few, short months) and I couldn't be any more happy! This is the freshest Oscar race in my mind, obviously, and I can still remember my thoughts as the race went on and all the controversy and hype. It will be good to finally get all of that stuff out of my brain and into this blog. I'm also kind of glad to return to some of these films and performances since some of them can get lost in the clamor to see them all before Oscar night. It will be great to fully digest them all. On to my least favorite group, though.
2014 Best Supporting Actress
Patricia Arquette - Boyhood
This was the presumptive winner for the entirety of the Oscar race and made for a pretty boring Supporting Actress race. It doesn't help that I don't think Arquette was worthy of being the Oscar winner. There's just something about her performance that really irked me. Let's be real, she's a really shitty mother. She constantly moves her kids around under the auspices of giving them a better life but puts them in awful situations to begin with and uproots their lives without their input. She shacks up with an abusive alcoholic and seemingly does nothing until he explodes one day. She puts her career ahead of her kids and mostly leaves them to their own devices. She marries another drunk with an anger problem and then seems all too eager to get rid of the kids once they hit 18. And Arquette's acting in all of this is so amateurish. That's the appalling and surprising part to me. I read over and over about how revelatory and masterful it was and I was left wondering if we watched the same performance? I don't know what it is about her but it just kinda comes off like she was still learning to act which I know is not the case. Or maybe she just doesn't thrive under non-scripted acting which I think was how some of the film was done. Like I said, I don't know but something about her acting is off and it does not feel Oscar worthy at all to me. Her big scene at the end of the film where she bursts into tears at the realization that her kids are moving on just felt too cringe worthy and hokey to me. That's the kind of stuff I'm talking about with my criticisms of Arquette. Just because it was over 12 years and she portrayed a single mother doesn't mean that automatically equals Oscar which is kinda what happened. Not my favorite for sure.
Laura Dern - Wild
I mean, I thought about making this review about two or three lines and that's it. This is a waste of a nomination. I remember watching the announcements and seeing that Dern was chosen and thinking why the fuck was she even up for a possible nomination? She does absolutely nothing in the film, brings absolutely nothing to the film, and absolutely deserved no nomination for this. She is barely in the film as the mother to Witherspoon's character and I guess shows off some quirkiness and then proceeds to get cancer and die. It really feels needless and pointless and she is such a minor presence that it blows my mind that she was even considered for an Oscar! I say minor presence due to length of time she is onscreen but she's the impetus for Witherspoon making the hike along with her other personal stuff. It still seems underdeveloped and an obvious emotional grab, meant to earn sympathy for Witherspoon's character and I guess partly explain her behavior. But the whole thing is so glossed over that it doesn't even matter much. From what I remember around that time was that her mother was heavily campaigning for her and she had some ads out to vote for her. If that is all it takes to get such a non-entity of a performance nominated then maybe I should quit watching and getting so into the races and ceremony. Literally if you took out Dern's scenes from the film, you either wouldn't notice or the film would seem better for them not being there. I'm just super disappointed that this would get a nod while anyone else wouldn't. I'm not even gonna critique her performance because it's bad. Dern should feel embarrassed that her mom got her another Oscar nomination for a shit role. Gross.
Keira Knightley - The Imitation Game
Knightley delivers a quintessentially supporting performance here. Her character is recruited to help break the Enigma and is the only real female presence in the whole film, which is no small task! Her character is pretty much the classic female character calms and supports the awkward genius so that he can better focus on doing whatever he needs to do. That is the essence of her character and her performance. She is basically an equal of sorts to Turing and gets him to not act like such an arrogant asshole and sort of reigns him in so he can break the Enigma machine. I think Knightley does a perfect job at that role and as the only strong female presence is able to hold her own on screen with all the men. It's good, it's capable and Knightley is endearing but I'm not sure how Oscar-y it really is. But the argument could be made that she is the only female in a big Oscar film and does a good enough job holding her own with Cumberbatch. I'm okay with it being included in this group especially when they went to the Meryl Streep well for the 80th time because apparently there was no one else to choose from. It's a decent performance just not one that will likely be remembered when looking back on this year.
Emma Stone - Birdman: or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)
I'm thinking that this nomination got swept up in all the Birdman love because when you watch it, you're left wondering just what exactly did they nominate? That's no knock on Stone, but she only has a handful of scenes, which admittedly do last pretty long, but still. She's Keaton's daughter in the film and is like a personal assistant I guess and back from a stint in rehab. Sounds like boilerplate actor progeny stuff and really is here. She only has one scene where she really shines and it's the scene that you saw at every single awards show because that's all they could play when they kept nominating her. Which is kinda weird since other performances get to pick and choose from Oscar worthy moments or big scenes and yet there is just that one for Emma Stone. In that one scene, she explodes into a doe eyed, spastic speech telling her dad that there's more important things going on in the world. It's not really profound or anything and fits the daughter who doesn't seem to give a shit about what her dad does and is putting on airs as the rehab kid. It's almost a stereotypical character but Stone does give it some pizzazz and she for sure brings a lot to the role that others probably couldn't. But. That big but. There's just not much else to her performance. She has two scenes with Edward Norton where they flirt but that's about it plus the ending scene. I know I expect a lot out of the nominees but they should at least be integral to the story! I dunno. I like Emma Stone but this is underwhelming.
Meryl Streep - Into the Woods
Yawn. This is getting boring now. I feel like the Academy's motto when it comes to the Actress categories is: "When in doubt, just vote for Meryl Streep again." Go ahead and watch Into the Woods and tell me that she deserved a nomination. Because you can't. She's not bad by any means, not at all! She actually is quite good as The Witch. Her opening scene grabs hold of you and doesn't let go until she's made her mark and left quite an impression. But she also has a pretty easy gig playing The Witch and can ham it up with some Meryl Streep flair so that it looks less hammy and more Streepy. When she bursts in and kicks off the story you think this is going to be a pretty great movie. It doesn't quite live up to that notion but it's not for lack of pizzazz by Streep, that's for sure. So she's able to clearly have fun as The Witch but if this were anyone else, there is no way they also would get a nomination out of it. That's the power of Streep, obviously, but also the downside of her acting that I'm complaining about a decent performance because it was nominated. It of course doesn't rank up with her best and when she's had so many good ones, and so many nominations period, that you have to compare them to each other and wonder what else this year could have taken it's place because I'm tired of seeing her decent performances make it. This is a fun performance but I'm not sure it needed to be included in the Oscars for it to be noticed - it is a Streep performance after all.
Kind of another down year. I didn't particularly enjoy any of the nominees. Either I thought they sucked or just wasn't really moved by them in any fashion. To pick a winner is actually really hard because none of them deserve it. So because Emma Stone is pretty hot, let's give it to her. The rest are just boring to me. Knightley is at least the most competent but she's just there to make Cumberbatch not look so gay. Her character is brilliant herself but completely glossed over. Streep is just out there having fun and it's nice to see but not Oscar worthy. Arquette just rubbed me the wrong way and Dern is a joke. Not a good year for Supporting Actress, but really when is it a good year? Hopefully 2015 delivers.
Oscar Winner: Patricia Arquette - Boyhood
My Winner: Emma Stone - Birdman or: (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)
Keira Knightley
Meryl Streep
Patricia Arquette
Laura Dern
2014 Best Supporting Actress
Patricia Arquette - Boyhood
This was the presumptive winner for the entirety of the Oscar race and made for a pretty boring Supporting Actress race. It doesn't help that I don't think Arquette was worthy of being the Oscar winner. There's just something about her performance that really irked me. Let's be real, she's a really shitty mother. She constantly moves her kids around under the auspices of giving them a better life but puts them in awful situations to begin with and uproots their lives without their input. She shacks up with an abusive alcoholic and seemingly does nothing until he explodes one day. She puts her career ahead of her kids and mostly leaves them to their own devices. She marries another drunk with an anger problem and then seems all too eager to get rid of the kids once they hit 18. And Arquette's acting in all of this is so amateurish. That's the appalling and surprising part to me. I read over and over about how revelatory and masterful it was and I was left wondering if we watched the same performance? I don't know what it is about her but it just kinda comes off like she was still learning to act which I know is not the case. Or maybe she just doesn't thrive under non-scripted acting which I think was how some of the film was done. Like I said, I don't know but something about her acting is off and it does not feel Oscar worthy at all to me. Her big scene at the end of the film where she bursts into tears at the realization that her kids are moving on just felt too cringe worthy and hokey to me. That's the kind of stuff I'm talking about with my criticisms of Arquette. Just because it was over 12 years and she portrayed a single mother doesn't mean that automatically equals Oscar which is kinda what happened. Not my favorite for sure.
Laura Dern - Wild
I mean, I thought about making this review about two or three lines and that's it. This is a waste of a nomination. I remember watching the announcements and seeing that Dern was chosen and thinking why the fuck was she even up for a possible nomination? She does absolutely nothing in the film, brings absolutely nothing to the film, and absolutely deserved no nomination for this. She is barely in the film as the mother to Witherspoon's character and I guess shows off some quirkiness and then proceeds to get cancer and die. It really feels needless and pointless and she is such a minor presence that it blows my mind that she was even considered for an Oscar! I say minor presence due to length of time she is onscreen but she's the impetus for Witherspoon making the hike along with her other personal stuff. It still seems underdeveloped and an obvious emotional grab, meant to earn sympathy for Witherspoon's character and I guess partly explain her behavior. But the whole thing is so glossed over that it doesn't even matter much. From what I remember around that time was that her mother was heavily campaigning for her and she had some ads out to vote for her. If that is all it takes to get such a non-entity of a performance nominated then maybe I should quit watching and getting so into the races and ceremony. Literally if you took out Dern's scenes from the film, you either wouldn't notice or the film would seem better for them not being there. I'm just super disappointed that this would get a nod while anyone else wouldn't. I'm not even gonna critique her performance because it's bad. Dern should feel embarrassed that her mom got her another Oscar nomination for a shit role. Gross.
Keira Knightley - The Imitation Game
Knightley delivers a quintessentially supporting performance here. Her character is recruited to help break the Enigma and is the only real female presence in the whole film, which is no small task! Her character is pretty much the classic female character calms and supports the awkward genius so that he can better focus on doing whatever he needs to do. That is the essence of her character and her performance. She is basically an equal of sorts to Turing and gets him to not act like such an arrogant asshole and sort of reigns him in so he can break the Enigma machine. I think Knightley does a perfect job at that role and as the only strong female presence is able to hold her own on screen with all the men. It's good, it's capable and Knightley is endearing but I'm not sure how Oscar-y it really is. But the argument could be made that she is the only female in a big Oscar film and does a good enough job holding her own with Cumberbatch. I'm okay with it being included in this group especially when they went to the Meryl Streep well for the 80th time because apparently there was no one else to choose from. It's a decent performance just not one that will likely be remembered when looking back on this year.
Emma Stone - Birdman: or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)
I'm thinking that this nomination got swept up in all the Birdman love because when you watch it, you're left wondering just what exactly did they nominate? That's no knock on Stone, but she only has a handful of scenes, which admittedly do last pretty long, but still. She's Keaton's daughter in the film and is like a personal assistant I guess and back from a stint in rehab. Sounds like boilerplate actor progeny stuff and really is here. She only has one scene where she really shines and it's the scene that you saw at every single awards show because that's all they could play when they kept nominating her. Which is kinda weird since other performances get to pick and choose from Oscar worthy moments or big scenes and yet there is just that one for Emma Stone. In that one scene, she explodes into a doe eyed, spastic speech telling her dad that there's more important things going on in the world. It's not really profound or anything and fits the daughter who doesn't seem to give a shit about what her dad does and is putting on airs as the rehab kid. It's almost a stereotypical character but Stone does give it some pizzazz and she for sure brings a lot to the role that others probably couldn't. But. That big but. There's just not much else to her performance. She has two scenes with Edward Norton where they flirt but that's about it plus the ending scene. I know I expect a lot out of the nominees but they should at least be integral to the story! I dunno. I like Emma Stone but this is underwhelming.
Meryl Streep - Into the Woods
Yawn. This is getting boring now. I feel like the Academy's motto when it comes to the Actress categories is: "When in doubt, just vote for Meryl Streep again." Go ahead and watch Into the Woods and tell me that she deserved a nomination. Because you can't. She's not bad by any means, not at all! She actually is quite good as The Witch. Her opening scene grabs hold of you and doesn't let go until she's made her mark and left quite an impression. But she also has a pretty easy gig playing The Witch and can ham it up with some Meryl Streep flair so that it looks less hammy and more Streepy. When she bursts in and kicks off the story you think this is going to be a pretty great movie. It doesn't quite live up to that notion but it's not for lack of pizzazz by Streep, that's for sure. So she's able to clearly have fun as The Witch but if this were anyone else, there is no way they also would get a nomination out of it. That's the power of Streep, obviously, but also the downside of her acting that I'm complaining about a decent performance because it was nominated. It of course doesn't rank up with her best and when she's had so many good ones, and so many nominations period, that you have to compare them to each other and wonder what else this year could have taken it's place because I'm tired of seeing her decent performances make it. This is a fun performance but I'm not sure it needed to be included in the Oscars for it to be noticed - it is a Streep performance after all.
Kind of another down year. I didn't particularly enjoy any of the nominees. Either I thought they sucked or just wasn't really moved by them in any fashion. To pick a winner is actually really hard because none of them deserve it. So because Emma Stone is pretty hot, let's give it to her. The rest are just boring to me. Knightley is at least the most competent but she's just there to make Cumberbatch not look so gay. Her character is brilliant herself but completely glossed over. Streep is just out there having fun and it's nice to see but not Oscar worthy. Arquette just rubbed me the wrong way and Dern is a joke. Not a good year for Supporting Actress, but really when is it a good year? Hopefully 2015 delivers.
Oscar Winner: Patricia Arquette - Boyhood
My Winner: Emma Stone - Birdman or: (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)
Keira Knightley
Meryl Streep
Patricia Arquette
Laura Dern
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)