Chicago

All that Fluff

He Said:

Leaving Richard Gere's awful nasal singing aside, as that horribleness speaks for itself, this movie ultimately is just plain old boring. I simply did not care for Roxie at all, she is not a character that one is cheering for. After all, she did have affairs and kill a man, so why should I feel bad for her since she got locked up and is trying to evade the death penalty. I saw this movie shortly after it came out and did not particularly like it (I generally hate musicals, especially movie musicals) and was not looking forward to the second viewing.

I am not going to go into detail on the thread of a plot that exists in the movie (you can look it up online), but generally it follows a young woman, Roxie, who is desperate to enter the world of show business and cabarets, and ends up killing her affair for double crossing her and it follows her trying to get out of prison and the lawyer that is hired to help her. I think the whole thing could be done in about 30 minutes if you left out all the dancing and singing, and there is just not much to see here at all. I think Shannon sums it up best that this movie is simply ‘razzle dazzle.’ It is a boring, nearly plot-less movie covered up by using production numbers and songs. Somehow the Academy fell for it and decided to award it the best picture, that was a horrible mistake. I am not sure which of the others should have won (it was a bit of a soft year for films), probably the Pianist or possibly Gangs of New York, but certainly not this drivel.

She Said: Nothing but "Razzle Dazzle"

I remember really liking this movie when I saw it in the theatre. Heck, I own it. We're watching my copy right now. Which is all to say I was really looking forward to seeing it again, in that nostalgic "I loved that movie!" Kind of way.

Too bad.

So now we've watched it, I'm disappointed, and wondering what I saw in it. Sure, I love musicals, it was visually beautiful, and structurally interesting, but there wasn't enough emotion to carry it through. I wasn't invested in how it turned out, other than to see the next musical number. Heck, there were even parts of it I didn't remember. I'd still like to see it on stage sometime, because musicals were made for the stage, but I'm ready to retire my copy.

Other nominees: Gangs of New York, The Hours, The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, The Pianist

Verdict: The academy was wrong

Next up: Gandhi

The Greatest Show on Earth

He Said: Possibly the worst best picture ever

Well...not sure where to begin with this train wreck of a movie. I was certainly not particularly looking forward to a movie from the 50s about the circus, but I thought it just might be an interesting insight into the circus world. The one up side of this movie is the bit of inside look into the circus as a documentary portion of the film, but the rest of the movie was very dull and boring.

The movie's focus is around Brad, played by Charlton 'From my cold dead hands' Heston, who manages the Ringling Brothers circus and his love affair with his center ring trapeze flyer Holly. But Brad decides to hire “The Great Sebastien,” and once the ‘debonair of the air’ arrives he is put into the center ring and the main act thus displacing Holly; inevitably leading to major trapeze flyer issues and in-fighting between Holly and Sebastien. Eventually a strange love triangle develops between Brad, Holly, and Sebastien where the trapeze artists are falling in love, but are still trying to one up each other by doing more elaborate and dangerous stunts. A few other cursory plot lines develop, although nothing significant, frankly the main plot line focusing on Brad, Holly, and Sebastien only makes up a very small portion of the movie time maybe about 20 or 30 minutes. The bulk of the movie seemed to be focus on seeing the circus at work, including the various circus acts (including trapeze artists, elephants, clowns, etc.), and documentary style portions showing how the circus moves around the country as it was actually moving around the USA, the set up, take down, and everything in between. Frankly that was interesting, it would have been nice to see a full documentary on the inner workings of the circus in the 50s rather than wasting our time with the awful plot.

Something that was really interesting is that according to what Shannon looked up, the actors who played Holly and Sebastien actually learned how to do the various trapeze acts, they didn’t use stunt doubles or special effects available in the 50s. Although that doesn’t specifically add to the overall enjoyment, it does make the actors stand out more in the film for their desire to really put themselves into the show, but even with that, the film is a huge bore.

She Said: The boringest movie on earth

I didn't have high hopes for this movie. I know Kurt was thinking it might be another "The Great Zeigfeld", and while it had all the spectacle, I just didn't care. Granted, I didn't care about Zeigfeld, either, but this movie had only the lamest of plots holding it together. Essentially, it's a documentary on the Barnum and Bailey Ringling Brothers Circus, with a ridiculous story trying to tie the bits together. I guess they didn't believe in documentaries back then. It's a shame, because the best part of the movie was seeing what circuses were like in their heyday. Even by the time I was a kid in the 80s, circuses had changed a lot. I'm not saying that's a bad thing (the poor elephants), but just that I had no idea what a "real" circus was like. I can see how they won the moniker of "Greatest Show on Earth". This movie was filmed on location/tour with a real circus... even the actors learned the acts in order to do their own stunts. Too bad they couldn't learn to act.

I did a bit of reading, and apparently this movie is considered one of the worst to have ever won Best Picture, and it only won because High Noon couldn't. These movies came out during the blacklist period in Hollywood, and High Noon was anti-McCarthyism, while Cecile B. deMille was a proper Republican. Now, as for why Singing in the Rain didn't win? I have no idea

  

Other Nominees: High Noon, Ivanhoe, Moulin Rouge, The Quiet Man

Verdict: The academy was horribly wrong

Next up: Chicago

Lawrence of Arabia

 This is gonna be one long desert ride Aurens

He Said:

This is long. And I don't mean 2 hours or 3 hours long. I mean 3 hours and 47 minutes long complete with a black screen overture and an intermission. For that reason we were putting off watching this movie for a long time as it sounded like a long boring old epic that would take us forever to watch. But we finally committed to it and watched it over 2 nights, and I was really surprised at how enjoyable it was. They certainly don't make movies like this anymore, and it is a real shame. I would have loved to see this in 70mm, as it was originally filmed, to see the amazing panoramic vistas of the desert and mountain scenes. That would have been simply amazing

The acting was okay overall, Alec Guinness seemed to channel his inner Obi-Wan (yes I know this was filmed 15 years prior to Star Wars) but it still reminded me of Obi-Wan, so I guess more appropriately, he channeled his inner Faisel when he did Star Wars. We could also have a long discussion about the fact that Guinness was chosen for a role of an Arab, however the 1960s was a different time, a period where that kind of thing was much more common and considered acceptable. Peter O'Toole's acting was what is expected of the time period, somewhat stiff and overacting in areas and not enough acting in others. But as a friend of mine said, people were easier to please back then.
Omar Sharif was actually probably the best actor of the group of main characters, although some of the minor actors did a good job as well. Overall the action sequences and drama were not as well done as what we are used to these days, but for the year it was made it was done pretty well.

The film seems to be divided into two halves, the first half filled with epic scenic gloriously cinematic shots and the long (and I mean long) travels of Lawrence across the desert. The second half is more about the military actions of Lawrence and the Arab tribes as they slowly fought their way to Damascus against the Ottoman Empire. I really got into this movie, partially because I am into World War I and a bit of WWI in the near east. I even pulled out the board game Pursuit of Glory to look at the maps and see where they were traveling and which villages they were attacking (Shannon laughed at me for doing this and thought I was weird that I even had maps for that region during WWI).

As you can probably tell, I really enjoyed this movie. It was filmed in such a breathtaking and eye catching way and in a slow but well-paced manner (certainly nothing like the films made in the past 50 years or so).

I am not so sure this would be the best film of the year, although the only other nominee I have seen is To Kill a Mockingbird. Mockingbird certainly had much better acting and the story was more important to tell in the 1960s, but I thought Lawrence of Arabia was an overall much better film. It might be a case of the Academy being really into the long epics and giving the award to that type of film, rather than something a bit shorter and tighter like Mockingbird. That all being said, it was a good movie, but if you aren't really interested in World War I in the near east, then this wouldn't hold much interest for you. If you are going to take the plunge, then read a brief bit on wikipedia about Lawrence and his adventures and campaign. I could tell the movie didn't do a great job of explaining things as Shannon was lost at times.

Overall, a really good movie for those interested in the era or interested in the cinematic aspects of film, but I could not say it belongs as a best picture.

Other nominees: The Longest Day, The Music Man, Mutiny on the Bounty, To Kill a Mockingbird

Next up: The Greatest Show on Earth 1952

Titanic

I'm the king of the 90s hair!

He Said: Talk to the Hand

I have seen this movie once before when it was out in the cheap theatre (at my spouse's birthday party before we started dating). I really didn't want to see it back then because of all the hype and it seemed like a boring romance with some disaster thrown in for good measure to keep the boyfriends/husbands happy. And then there was the “Leo-factor.” In the 1990s Leonardo DiCaprio was the it guy that all the teenagers were swooning over at the time. It probably started with his role in What's Eating Gilbert Grape and snow balled from there with Romeo and Juliet and then Titanic. At the time I hated him, he was uber popular for no particularly good reason other than his babyish looks (his acting was okay, but nothing to celebrate), and this just added to me not wanting to see Titanic. But it was my friend's birthday so I went along with it. Surprisingly, I really enjoyed the first half, with the character development, etc, but I really didn't like the disaster half. It was so long winded and I felt like, okay it sinks we get it, just get on with it already! The sinking part was so boring, and the special effects were good at the time but even so it just dragged on. I figured it was James Cameron just trying to one up himself from his previous special effects efforts.

Now time for the second viewing. I actually forgot about how long the first bits are with Rose as an old lady, but I guess that is necessary to set the stage for the whole plot. While watching it this time around I wanted to see if it really is a classic and something that withstood the test of time (it has been almost 20 years since it was first released!) or a bombshell that hit it huge when it was first released but has since faded to unwatchableness. I have immediately noticed how the computer special effects are very dated, and what was breathtaking back then is cartoonish and antiquated now. Although this is the same with any movie that relies so heavily on special effects, the development in special effects is amazing (although I still prefer real movies and hate computer generated special effects) and the special effects of today's movies are outdated within just a few years, let alone 20 years. This movie really is a visual feast with the huge set designs and costumes and special effects, and it seems like the plot of the rich woman and poor boy is just tagged on to give us some reason to watch it.

Another disappointing aspect is the hair. I don't know who was in charge of haircuts for that movie, but none of the main characters have anything remotely resembling period hair from the 1920s. Leonardo has his 1990s Leo hair, Billy Zane has his bad ass 1990s hair (although he does slick it back a few times), and Kate Winslet has her Kate Winslet flowing curly dyed red locks. When I first watched it, I thought nothing of the hair, maybe because I was younger and didn't care about hair cuts and costumes in movies, maybe it was because it was the 1990s and I enjoyed seeing hair from the 1990s. But watching it now, I found it very distracting to see non-period hair (strike 2). Billy Zane was his typical 1990s creepy villian, which he does really good, but it is the same character that he has been doing since Back to the Future and I think it is high time to see something different from him. Overall, the plot much more boring this time around than I remember it being before. Was it because I had seen it once already or was there something more sinister afoot? I am not entirely sure. The plot is absolutely nothing new or inspiring, we have seen this sort of thing a million times before, but it was also likely more boring this time around as I was familiar with the plot, even if I hadn't seen the movie in 20 years.

I have seen a few of the other nominees, and frankly I don't think this was a particularly good year for movies. I certainly enjoyed As Good as it Gets and L.A. Confidential better than Titanic, but I couldn't see either of those as being best pictures. I would say the Academy went for the big showy epic, with big special effects, especially as there wasn't much in the way of good competition for films that year. Ultimately I cannot say this is a best picture and it certainly does not stand the test of time. This movie should be left in the 1990s along with Leo's and Zane's hair and James Cameron's career.

Other nominees: As Good as it Gets, The Full Monty, Good Will Hunting, and L.A. Confidential

Next up: Lawrence of Arabia 1962 (oh my this going to be a long one)

Hamlet

mmm, this skull is so soft on my skin, not rough like sand

He Said: To Watch or not to watch...

This is one we were not looking forward to at all. We had been dragging our feet for a long time, procrastinating, to avoid watching this oldie. It isn't that I don't like Shakespeare, I do like some Shakespeare a great deal, but a Shakespeare play filmed in the 1940s was not something I was looking forward to. Then add on the fact that it is one of the most commonly produced plays and one of the most boring and it makes it an exercise in will power to watch this film. But eventually we settled in for a two night viewing of this classic and it was more or less what I expected it to be. 

For starters it is an impossible task to determine if the Academy got this one right as I haven't seen any of the other nominees (does seeing The Red Shoe Diaries on Showcase back in the day count as a substitute for The Red Shoes?) nor have I seen anything else from 1948, but I can at least say if I was entertained and enjoyed the film. In short, no, but there were aspects to the film that interested me. 

I am sure most people know the plot line of Hamlet so I won't regurgitate that (if you don't, then look it up on wikipedia). In short, some people die, there is back stabbing and revenge, and more people die...it is a Shakespeare tragedy after all. Even though I knew the general plot, there were times that I was lost and didn't really know who the minor characters were and forgot how they were connected with each other. But a quick check on wikipedia was all it took to bring some clarity. Now I doubt this feeling of being lost had much to do with the movie specifically and more to do with Shakespearean plays, I often find it hard to follow the minor characters in the plays in the first or second act. I did happen to pull out a copy of Hamlet and tried to follow along with the movie just to see how in keeping with the original text it was. The movie does, for the most part follow along fairly closely, although there were a couple scenes that were reversed in the movie compared to the play, I am not sure why they were reversed nor do I feel that it was an issue with continuity. The production and quality of acting was quite good and overall it was a good film. The problem is that I don't care about Hamlet as a play and I tend to prefer watching Shakespeare on stage or reading it rather than watching it on film. 

So overall a good movie, but best picture? Not so sure about that one, the jury will likely remain out indefinitely on this as I don't foresee myself watching any of the other nominees ever.

Other nominees: Johnny Belinda, The Red Shoes, The Snake Pit, The Treasure of the Sierra Madre

Next up: Titanic 1997 (Jack! Jack, jack, jack)

Bridge on the River Kwai

I am more stubborn than you!

He Said: Comet, it makes your mouth turn green. Comet, it tastes like gasoline...

I think I would rather eat comet than watch this movie again. For those not familiar with this movie, it features Obi wan Kenobi, I mean Alec Guinness, at his finest. I think he once said that it was one of his favourite performances. Guinness is Colonel Nicholson who is captured by the Japanese along with his soldiers. The Japanese need to finish constructing a railroad bridge and decide to use the British POWs to finish the work in time. The movie is based on a novel which is very loosely based on the real-life construction of the Burma railway.

First half of the movie was quite boring and not much interesting there, although it does set the tone for the second half which is a fair bit more interesting. Guinness' acting is pretty darn good, but the whole movie was mostly just who cares. The story of how the Nicholson was such a proud British soldier that he would command his troops to build the best bridge possible in order to help the Japanese with the war in southeast Asia seems a bit weird and far-fetched, but I suppose possible. The last 20 minutes or so is really quite something to see, it is just a shame you have to sit through 2 hours of boredom to get there. Frankly this movie just makes me want to watch Star Wars. Obi wan Kenobi you're our only hope.

Of the other nominees, I have only seen 12 Angry Men, and it is really quite a great movie. I can see why the Academy would pick Bridge on the River Kwai however, as it is a really big epic war movie that they seemed to be obsessed with in the 1950s and 1960s. But I much prefer 12 Angry Men and have seen it and its remake many times. So save yourself the trouble, watch Star Wars and then the original 12 Angry Men, followed up by Dr. Stangelove (as much as I like the original 12 Angry Men, I love how crazed George C. Scott gets in the remake).

Other Nominees: Sayonara, Peyton Place, Witness for the Prosecution, 12 Angry Men

Next up: Hamlet from 1948 (yay, can't wait for that)

Argo

 Ben Affleck...with beard...and shaggy hair...in Iran

He Said:

This is one that I was actually looking forward to seeing even before it won best Oscar but then having won best Oscar made it something I wanted to see even more. As a note I am not getting into how the film is not very historically accurate, especially in regards to how the Iranians were displayed, nor will I get into how the movie glosses over how much work the Canadian government actually did to help.

Heading into the movie, I only knew the smallest amount of the plot. I knew about the hostage crisis taking place during the 1979 revolution, but I didn't know any details on how many people, how long, if they survived, etc, and I knew nothing of the 6 people that escaped the embassy early on that the movie focuses on. I guess I was naïve about it, and since it happened when I was born I missed out on all the news coverage going on at the time, although no one really knew about the 6 escapees until 17 years later when the operation was declassified.

This makes me wonder how much information there is that is classified and what it is all about, it often seems that some fairly innocuous information is kept classified for much longer than it needs to be. 

The plot, as I am sure you all know, is about the CIA making a fake movie production for a sci-fi movie called Argo in order to break out the 6 escapees. The first half of the movie is the set up and how they go about getting the fake movie put together. Then the second half is the operation in Iran. And that's about all there is to it.

The movie feels real quick, not slow anywhere, but not as quick as an action movie, so the pacing is great. The acting is good throughout, the directing was good, overall a real good production. The story was interesting, in that I didn't know any details of it, and it kept me generally interested, but not to the extent of really great movies that I just love to watch over and over. This is a one and done kind of movie. I don't think I will ever watch it again, although watching the special features will probably be really interesting, since I am far more interested in what actually happened than the dramatic production that this film was. That all being said, I don't know if that makes or breaks a best picture. Does it have to be something worth sitting through multiple times? Generally I would say yes, but it also depends on what else was out that year. And as we go through that list, I don't think there was anything as good as Argo. So it kind of wins by default. Argo is certainly better than Django Unchained, as much as I love Tarantino films that one was just too long and silly at the end. It is most definitely better than Life of Pi, that movie was so boring I could only sit through the first half of it, even though I loved the book. I guess the transition from book to film just doesn't work well in some instances. I haven't seen the other nominees, but the only others that I could imagine that could come close to best picture are Lincoln and Zero Dark Thirty, which is another classified spy take down production.

I would agree with the Academy on this one, but asterisk by saying it wins since it is better than the rest this year and not that it was an outstanding movie, but still enjoyable.

Next up: The Bridge on the River Kwai 1957 – Obi-wan Kenobi you're my only hope, oops wrong movie

The King's Speech

"T-t-t-testing... t-t-t-testing... w-w-w --- oh bollocks.!"

Nominees:  127 hours, Black Swan, The Fighter, Inception, The Kids are Alright, The Social Network, Toy Story 3, True Grit, and Winter's Bone

He Said: IIII, wwoood, sssayy, gggood

This is a movie that I was actually really interested in seeing when it came out in theatres and then especially after it won for a bunch of Oscars. But we decided not to see the best pictures until it came on the list, so I am glad that it has finally popped up on the randomizer.

I think most everyone knows the basic plot of this one, but here is a short summary. King George V had two sons; one was in line for the throne even though he was a bit rambunctious and a bit of a party boy, the other son was a better fit for the throne, except for his inability to speak and extreme difficulty with delivering a public speech due to his very severe stutter. So the King as we all know goes crazy (as most King Georges seemed to do in history) and then died leaving the throne to Edward. But he was more interested in following his heart and marrying a divorcee than carrying on with his royal duties. So he left and ran off with his love thus leaving his younger brother the throne. He took on the name King George VI and he struggles and struggles through his life with his stutter, but eventually is able to conquer it, at least partly. The movie focuses on King George VI (Bertie as he is known by his close friends and family), not as the king but rather when he was the Duke of York and during his brother's short time on the throne.

The movie picks up with Bertie giving a speech for his father at Wembley stadium in 1925, but he is almost completely incapable of delivering the speech due to his extreme stutter, he seems almost paralyzed during the speech. At this point his wife searches out some speech therapists to help him out and that is how we meet Lionel Logue (played by Geoffrey Rush), a speech therapist (of sorts) from Australia. Over time he gains the trust of Bertie and we learn some more little inside information about his life as he describes it to the therapist in an attempt at unlocking the reason and ultimate cause of his stutter. One interesting method he uses is to make Bertie read a Shakespeare passage aloud with headphones on which are playing music and under these circumstances he can read out loud with no stutter at all. Now I don't know if this actually happened or not, but if it did, why didn't they just do this every time he had to give a speech over the radio. Seems like a very simple method and no one would be any the wiser.

The film is quite well done, and the acting is very good throughout. Helena Bonham Carter is very good as Bertie's wife, she is strong willed and yet very supportive of her husband and sympathetic of his issues. It is certainly nice to see Helena Bonham Carter sans Johnny Depp and in a role that isn't crazy or creepy. She was certainly a solid one in this film. Likewise for Rush as the therapist, an all round good performance. And of course Colin Firth, who won a best actor Oscar, did a marvelous job with the role and even had the accent and stutter of George VI almost perfectly. At first while I was watching the movie I didn't think the accent was very real or believable, but then I listened to some of the King's real speeches and it is remarkable how the accent, stutter, and even sound of his voice is very similar to what Colin Firth was able to do; he must have had some very good voice trainers helping him with that especially with being able to make the stutter so real, it is definitely something that is hard to fake.

Something that I found both interesting and sad was to see how royalty really can't be who they want to be, but they must stand up to the rigorous standards that royalty have and live up to not only our expectations but also what we want. Admittedly this was pre-WWII when the British royalty had more sway in things and actually had some important functions, as opposed to now where they are just figureheads without much actual decision making or even any real diplomatic powers. That was the root of the movie, that George couldn't be who he was, he had to portray himself as kingly, and kings shouldn't stutter. This was also seen with his brother Edward, who couldn't marry whoever he pleased, it was more of an issue of marrying the right person so that everything appeared to be on the up and up.

The only problem that I had with the movie was that it was a bit of a bore. I wasn't that into it, even though the acting was good, the characters were real, it just fell flat to me. There were numerous times when George was stuttering through a speech and I just felt like grabbing the paper out of his hands and reading it myself, and I am sure this was felt by people around him in real life. The other nominees that year were 127 hours, Black Swan, The Fighter, Inception, The Kids are Alright, The Social Network, Toy Story 3, True Grit, and Winter's Bone. I have only seen a couple of these (127 hours and Inception) and I can say I much preferred The King's Speech over them. Although I am still interested in seeing Black Swan and The Fighter, I doubt either of those would be any better. Perhaps it was a soft year for movies. I think I can say that there wasn't any movie that I enjoyed more that year, although I did notice that Let Me In was released that year and even though I haven't seen that one I have seen the Swedish original, Let the Right One In, and that was definitely better than the King's Speech. All that being said I guess I have to agree with the Academy on this one.

As a final note on youtube someone cut together the original King George VI pre-WWII speech with the speech performed by Colin Firth. Remarkable how similar the accents are, but also astounding how much longer the pauses were by the real king. I guess his stutter was improved but not by as much as the movie would let on, and I am sure they didn't want him taking that long of pauses in the movie, otherwise it would be a real bore just watching him struggle to say anything.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh1iohLPEEg

Next up, another new one that I was interested in seeing but held off until it reached the random list: Argo.

She Said: Jolly good.

I really enjoyed this movie. It was one I had been looking forward to seeing since it came out, and was gladly not disappointed. I actually sat through the whole thing in one go, which for a movie at home, is pretty amazing. I have no problem watching a whole movie in the theatres, but for some reason, an hour tops seems to be about all I can handle with most movies at home, even if I like them. That's one of the many reasons we're slow at this- it can take a week to watch a movie cause I won't commit my whole night to it.

But back to the movie. Much like "Ordinary People", this movie is quiet, though given the protagonist is the King of England, the characters in it certainly aren't ordinary. This movie focuses on them as people though, rather than on their roles in the larger narrative. This is probably why I liked it so much- I don't really care for historical stuff as a general rule, but I was really invested in these people. I especially like seeing Helena Bonham-Carter play someone other than "Helena Bonham-Carter" for a change. I thought she did a great job as the young Queen Mom. I haven't seen Colin Firth in that many things, but I've liked everything I've seen him in (especially "The Importance of Being Ernest"). He was equally as good in this one, and definitely deserved the Oscar for Best Actor.

Of the other nominees, I've only seen Inception, and while it was certainly more flashy than The Kings' Speech, the depth of acting in this one was greater, and thus I think the best picture won (at least between the two).

The Verdict: The Academy Was Right.

You Can't Take it With You

"We're insane. But we love it."

Nominees: The Adventures of Robin Hood, Alexander's Ragtime Band, Boys Town, The Citadel, Four Daughters, Grand Illusion, Jezebel, Pygmation, Test Pilot.

He said: Nuts, this movie is just weird and nuts.

Alright, so this one neither of us have seen, nor heard of it. It is from 1938, and won best picture as well as best director, but nothing else really. It seems there was no dominant film that year.

We didn't know anything about this movie, and could only assume that based upon the title it had something to do with someone with a bunch of money or stuff that was hoarding it for some reason.

We discovered that the main character of Martin “Grandpa” Vanderhof was played by one Lionel Barrymore, none other than Drew Barrymore's great uncle. His character walked around on crutches and apparently that was due to the fact that Lionel Barrymore couldn't walk without them as he had some type of awful arthritis and he also needed regular pain medication during the shoot. Also, this was apparently the last movie that he was in before he was in a wheelchair for the rest of his life, so certainly interesting from that perspective.

The film begins with a rich mogel, Mr. Anthony Kirby, presumably in NYC, who needs to buy up some land to build a factory. He has bought all the lots except for one with a house owned by “Grandpa” who has previously refused for $25000 and $50000. Remember, this is 1938, could you imagine how much money that would be in today's terms? Hard to believe someone would refuse for that much money. The story then shifts at this time to Grandpa and his “family” that live in the house. We never really find out how he affords to basically sit around and do nothing and for everyone else in the house to do what they like best and not worry about money.

Of course the point of the story and the title is that eventually Mr. Kirby discovers what Grandpa had been preaching this whole time, and that is to forget about money and do what you love to do, enjoy life. But that is basically it. It is just a series of weirdness of his family doing their weird things, and then a series of uncomfortable scenes with Grandpa's granddaughter Alice dating and getting engaged to Mr. Kirby's son, Tony. Which is interesting since neither side really knew anything about the other, it was only Grandpa who knew who he was and who he was related to. There were odd moments of comedy, then moments of drama. The film seemed to not really know what it was supposed to be or where it was supposed to go. It was based on a play, although I don't know how much was changed from that.

Frankly I was a little disappointed by James Stewart, I was expecting more out of him, and his role actually ended up being a rather important role as Tony Kirby. There were a couple interesting discussions on modern societal issues. Something I was not expecting out of a film from 1938. Tony, the mogul's son talks about how what he really wanted to do in life was make use of solar power to replace coal and oil. This really floored me, I didn't think that anyone was thinking of that type of technology so long ago. In the same conversation Tony and Alice get into a surprisingly in depth topic of fear culture and how society tries to mold and control people through fear. Again, something I didn't expect from this film nor from a film from 1938. I guess the moral of the film is to do what you enjoy and forget about everything else.

I didn't hate this movie, I just didn't like it, and although I haven't seen any of the other nominees I would think there would be something better than this out there.

Next up: The King's Speech. Finally a movie that I am looking forward to seeing. I haven't seen it yet, since I was waiting until it comes up on the list.

She Said: Um... yeah.

I don't get this movie. Not as in it was too deep for me, or too confusing, or pretty but insubstantial... but more I just don't get why this was made into a movie, other than it was a successful play. I suspect it would've worked much better on stage than it does in the film. It reminded me in a vague way of a few other plays/movies: Arsenic and Old Lace (the crazy family with the weirdos in the basement, plus the one lone sane person); and The Birdcage (depending on one family dinner to prove your relatives aren't nuts), to be specific. That said, I liked both of those better.

I think what bothered me about this, and I guess about a lot of early films, is that it really was just a stage production, albeit with slightly more expansive sets. It doesn't really take advantage of film as a medium, which I guess is understandable in that movies (as we know them, anyways) hadn't been around for very long. The camera functions really just as a viewer, another audience member, recording what it is seen, but having no impact in how the story is told. The medium is definitely NOT the message in these early films. ("The Great Zeigfeld" was very much like this too, especially in the lengthy Folly scenes).

I did appreciate some of the content of the movie, though, the struggling with issues and ideas that are still relevant to today, such a sustainable power and finding your own path. The father's "conversion" however, seemed somewhat rushed and not genuine, but again, I think this may be a limitation of simply filming a play.


Verdict: The Academy was wrong.

Amadeus (1984)

"It's hard to say what's more amazing: my music, or my outfit. No wonder Salieri hates me."

Nominees: The Killing Fields, A Passage to India, Places in the Heart, A Soldier's Story

He Said: "Du, du, du du" Oh wait, that's Beethoveen's 5th, nevermind.

As a disclaimer, the only version of this movie that we could find is the director's cut rather than the theatrical release, so obviously the version that won the Oscar is not the same that we watched, and perhaps it makes it slower and more drawn out or boring when watching the extended versions, but there you have it.

Amadeus is based on a play that is loosely based on the life of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart through the eyes of his fellow composer, Antonio Salieri. The film/play takes a lot of artistic license with regards to the real life of Mozart. Perhaps his life was only slightly interesting and so they pumped it up a bit to make it more entertaining. I am all for films being foremost entertaining, otherwise what's the point, but this one seemed to go too much in that direction and moved to far away from history. The movie, at least the first half, has a lot of comedic points thrown in, even though the subject matter is rather serious, it made me think that this must have been one of the first 'dramedies” and perhaps ahead of its time in this regard.

The portrayal of Mozart was one of a young immature twit. Now I don't know anything about him historically but it just seemed to unreal, he had an awful high pitched shrill laugh that he would laugh at the most immature things. He would tell off his seniors including the Emperor of Austria. The Emperor just seems to take it and give Mozart more and more leeway. Now I don't know anything about Emperor Joseph II, but from our knowledge of heads of state from that era, I highly doubt he would put up with as much back-talking from young Mozart as he did in the film. Speaking of the Emperor, who the hell would think that Jeffrey Jones would be in that role? He seems like he is better at his creepy principal, mad-scientist, etc. from his 80s comedy work than this movie.

Old man Salieri seems very bitter, wishing he was as talented as Mozart. During the movie he seems to move from hating Mozart and being jealous of him, to being envious of his abilities, and then almost pitying his fall to bankruptcy and insanity. According to the brief history that I have read, it sounds like Mozart and Salieri were more kindred spirits and closer than portrayed in the film, but without a battle between these two characters the film would fall rather flat.

I found the first half quite interesting, not really from a history standpoint, but just interesting with the characters and the story, the second half felt dull prolonged and boring. Maybe this is in part due to the fact that we got the director's cut, maybe the theatrical release would have been shorter in this area and a bit more tight and less boring, but I will never know as I am not watching this one again. The one thing going for the second half is how we watch the devolution of Mozart into insanity, and frankly the way it was directed along with the musical score, I started to feel like I was going crazy too.

Some of the acting in the movie was really well done, although the one thing that stood out (not in a good way) was Tom Hulce's over the top portrayal of Mozart, I just did not find it interesting or believable, it just felt annoying, and why oh why did they not give him a proper hair cut. Yes he spends most of the time with period wigs on, but there are times that he doesn't have a wig on and his hair is a very 80s mild mullet and it just doesn't fit in the period at all (it reminded me of how Kevin Costner kept his mullet hair for Dances with Wolves). The musical score was nice, and as one would expect, filled with period music mostly of Mozart's operas and symphonies.

Overall, an average film that was mildly entertaining, but certainly nothing Oscar worthy. Now as usual, I haven't seen any of the other best picture nominees, so it is hard for me to say this wasn't the best of that year, but with other 1984 films such as Beverly Hills Cop, Splash, and Indians Jones and the Temple of Doom, there are other films that I liked better from that year. If the Academy gave this the best picture then I wouldn't want to watch the other nominees, although the novel A Passage to India is quite good and I really like E.M. Forster, but I don't think that would translate too well to the screen.

After reading the "she said" review, I guess I completely missed the god stuff, I mean it was there and I remember it, but I didn't really absorb it and interpret as nicely as she did.

Next up: You Can't Take it With You

huh? Yes I was wondering the same thing, never heard it, from 1938, and it does star one James Stewart. Should be at least interesting to watch and see how the movies were so different back then.


She Said: I never knew Mozart was so.... ridiculous.

I'm back. And no, I have no good excuse for not writing a review of "Terms of Endearment". I just didn't do it. I'd do one now, but that would be caving to "He Said"s passive-aggressive attempt to make me write mine, and that ain't going to happen on my watch. :)

But as for Amadeus, it was good. Crazy good. Now, was I entertained? Somewhat, but not really. Was I moved? Sort of, but again, not really. But does that mean it wasn't any good? Nope. For example, i've never really understood the appeal of the Mona Lisa, but I know it's good. Crazy good.

This movie tells the story of a highly fictionalized rivalry between two composers: Mozart and Salieri. 'Highly ficitionalized' in the sense that there WERE two composers named Mozart and Salieri (I'm sure you've heard of at least the first guy... :)), who did indeed know each other in Vienna, but had no historically verifiably rivalry that we know of. That kind of 'highly fictionalized'.

The real conflict in the movie, though, is not between Saleiri and Mozart, but between Salieri and God. All Salieri wants in life is to glorify God through his music, but, alas, he is only mediocre at best. Mozart, on the other hand, is... wait for it... good. Crazy good. He is also young, vulgar, crass, entitled, snobbish, a drunkard, and decidedly 'low-brow'. While Salieri is no doubt jealous of and offended by Mozart and his talent, Mozart functions primarily as a scapegoat for his anger at God: Salieri sets out to ruin Mozart not because he hates him (though he does), but to thwart God.

This leads to the climax of the movie, the scene where Salieri helps a dying Mozart compose his own Death Requiem (dying, as in dead by the end of the scene). Despite his hatred of the man, Salieri has admired and even worshipped Mozart's music throughout, and it is here where he finally becomes intimately involved in the creation of exactly the kind of music he wants to write... though through someone else's genius rather than his own. His pleasure, however, comes not from the music, but from literally working Mozart into the grace.  Talk about a powerful scene.... and yet I wasn't that moved. Intellectually, yes, but I wasn't that invested in the characters and so I didn't really care, even as I understood the brilliance of the scene.

Which brings us back to where we started: a Crazy Good movie that deserved to win the Oscar, but nothing I'd sit through twice.

Postscript: I have actually sat through this movie twice. I watched it at my piano teacher's house when I was 14, and found it creepy, disturbing, and yucky. It's none of those things, but I guess my 14-year-old self was uncomfortable with madness and crucifixes (duh). Luckily, another girl there was equally creeped out, and we still good friends to this day. Which, as I've said before, is good. Crazy good.

The Verdict: A Split Decision

Terms of Endearment

Nominees: The Big Chill, The Dresser, The Right Stuff, and Tender Mercies


He Said: Terms of Endearment, Or how I learned to worry about everything, and almost cry...almost

Not sure what to expect with this one, I had heard of it before but didn't really know anything about it. Turns out to be a chick flick. The movie basically follows the life of a relatively normal person, Emma Horton, living in Houston from birth and accelerates fairly quickly through her life. I think the idea of the film was to show us what every day lives are all about, but it was very disjointed and with some poor writing in parts and to me did not have a very good flow. 

The movie starts off with Emma as a baby and we see the start of her relationship with her mother (Aurora), which is problematic and difficult most of the time, even at this young age. The movie then jumps to her as a pre-teen with the death of her father and demonstrates her mother's general psychological instability and her neediness and reliability on her daughter, a theme carried on throughout the film. After her pre-teen moment we jump into the teen years briefly and then spend the rest of the movie in her adult years from getting married to having kids, marriage strife and infidelity, and so on. As I said earlier, the movie seems disjointed mainly because it spends a few minutes on her at this age, then jumps quickly to something else then something else. Even when she is an adult it jumps around and the only way of knowing that the movie has moved on to further years is seeing older children around her, at which point we ask if these are her kids or just some other kids? Perhaps using a subtitled date would help with the disjointed feeling. Ultimately I think they should have spent a bit more time in these various time points to flesh things out a bit more and cut out some of the time spent on her adult life and her mother's life, parts that don't really move the film along and don't add to the character development at all.

In regard to character development, the characters are basically who they are from the beginning with very little change as they age and experience new things. The mother is still as jaded and untrustworthy at the start as at the end, the husband is still a cheater who doesn't feel responsible for his actions. The crazy astronaut neighbour is still a playboy, with perhaps a bit more loving for Aurora at the end. Which reminds me, how did he know where they were at the end? He stopped seeing the mother romantically and hadn't spoken to her in years and all of the sudden he appears in Nebraska out of the blue. Maybe someone called him to tell him but with all the disjointedness and jumping around in the movie they may have glossed over this small detail. 

Jeff Daniels plays the part of Emma's husband and he does a decent job of playing the part. I learned that Jeff Daniels hasn't changed his hair since 1980, I guess he liked the look and went with it. He certainly had a large fall from this to Dumb and Dumber, but that's the way things go sometimes. 

There is quite a large chunk of the movie focused on Aurora and her love affair with the smarmy womanizing neighbour astronaut (played by Jack Nicolson). One nice thing about this relationship is that it has equally aged male and female actors and roles which is a nice change to see rather than the movies of the past 20 years or so featuring older men with much younger women. In addition to the focus on this love affair, throughout the movie we see Aurora surrounded by various men friends who are just trying desperately to become romantically involved with her. I remember thinking how odd it was to invite one's doctor over for you birthday dinner, especially when the dinner was just a bunch of men. Another odd Aurora moment is after finally having had sex with the astronaut she calls up Emma to tell her all about it. Um...ew. How would you like your mother calling you to tell you about her sex life. Not so sure what that was all about, perhaps relief after all those years after the death of her husband finally getting satisfaction again did something to her. She was certainly in desperate need of some female friends, that's for sure. I know we should all have the birds and the bees talk with our parents, but when your mom is telling you about her renewed sex life with the neighbour, I think this skips over the too much information area and right into oh my god that is disgusting please stop talking now...please.

Thinking about the movie, perhaps how we get there isn't the point. Maybe it doesn't matter how much the movie jumps around from one area to the next and one decade to another with no explanation in-between. Maybe what matters is the people getting through their lives and what happens in the end. I don't know, I am just speculating here, but to me I feel the movie would have done better to flesh out some of these details, that way we would feel closer ties to them. Furthermore, the film spends so long on seemingly pointless scenes that if we only were to get a flavour of things and move on one wouldn't expect to spend that much time on an individual scene. Frankly I didn't like any of the characters, I found them curious and odd and enjoyed watching from an experimental point-of-view to see what happened next to them like bugs in a jar, but otherwise I didn't give a damn. So I guess I didn't understand what the director and writer were trying to achieve.

Terms of Endearment is simply okay, nothing more nothing less. It has its moments and at the end yes even I, the Grinch, had a moment of nearly tearing, nearly. It won the Oscar for many areas including best picture, two for acting, writing, and directing, not to mention numerous other nominations it received. I don't know how it won the Oscar for best picture but I have not seen the other nominees (The Big Chill, The Dresser, The Right Stuff, and Tender Mercies) to be able to compare, but I am damn sure something else was made this year that was better. Even Return of the Jedi with the stupid Ewoks had more interest than this movie. I looked up some 1983 films and Scarface was made that year, a magnificent gem, admittedly it is ultraviolent and the Academy tends to steer clear of those, but how did Pacino not win for that one, he did an amazing job as usual. I think Terms of Endearment had a good overall plot but the execution was lacking and it ended up being overly dry and boring.

So there you have it, a mostly boring, slightly emotional movie about a woman's life. If you missed it, you won't actually miss anything. 

Next up Amadeus, the life and time of mister Mozart,apparently with some graphic violence I hear. Should be interesting...

A Man for All Seasons (1966)

"Silence is golden...."

Nominees: "Alfie" "The Russians are Coming, The Russians are Coming""The Sand Pebbles" "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?"

He Said: Go ask Alice... Call Alice

Oh my good god that was awful. This movie really needs cliff notes or at the least a warning to beef up on your British history before watching it. The only thing I can say is that if you like British history and this time period then you might maybe like this (don't blame me if I am wrong, you have been warned), but otherwise stay far far away from this drivel. 

When looking at the nominees and winners in various categories A Man for All Seasons really was THE movie of that year. If this is the best that this year had to offer what a horrible year to be a film fan, but I am sure there must have been something that was better than this. Sure some aspects of filming and costumes were good, some acting good but the main actor was more stoic in the character with not much emotion in his voice, making it kind of boring and not very interesting. Maybe that is how Sir Thomas Moore was, but no one will ever really know and I just put it down to boring acting.

Honestly I could not follow this movie and I really don't understand the nuance of what was going on, and for that reason I will leave the summary of the movie to be done by my better half. I would briefly summarize the film as being about King Henry VIII who wanted to divorce his wife as she seemed unable to produce a male heir, and marry another woman so as to produce an heir. Now the drama of it all is that this was not allowed by the church at the time, but Sir Thomas Moore was promoted to head of the church and the king continues to solicit him to change the church law. Moore refuses and is eventually thrown into jail. Then it devolves into a court case against Sir Thomas Moore, so if you are up on your 17^th century British law this would be interesting, but I am sadly not. In the end as we know the king declares himself head of the church and changes church rules so as to do what he wants. So the movie is more about the struggle Sir Thomas Moore experiences by all his friends and family trying to push him to what the king wants, but he holds onto his moral ethics. Sound interesting yet? I didn't think so. And that is basically how the movie runs. Honestly I don't think there really was any redeeming quality of this movie and the Academy must certainly have been wrong with this choice.

 Next up: Terms of Endearment; a movie I have never seen but certainly everyone knows the name and briefly what it is about. Here's hoping for a good one, nothing could be as bad as A Man for All Seasons...

Note: Edited details of Henry's first wife Catherine. Erroneously wrote she was sterile, when she actually became pregnant multiple times and gave birth to a girl, although she did suffer multiple miscarriages and never did produce a male heir for Henry, thus the divorce. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_of_Aragon


She Said: A Yawn for All Seasons.

So apparently I get to give a plot summary for this movie. Luckily for me, it's mostly based on history. I considered just sticking a link here where you could read all about it yourself, but I'd rather add color commentary, so here we go:

So there's this King who wants to have a baby: Henry the 8th -- Maybe you've heard of him? Seems he was married to his brother's widow, but since she couldn't give him the all important heir, he wants to marry Anne Boleyn. The problem?? DUH!!! He's MARRIED. And Catholic, hence no divorce. Being a theologically bent man, not to mention horny, he turns to the Bible and decides that the Pope never should've blessed his unholy marriage to Catherine and wants an annulment. The Pope says no, and Thomas More, the Lord Chancellor of England, agrees. End of story, right?

WRONG!!

Despite eventually declaring himself "The Supreme Head of the Church In England" (and thus capable of doing whatever he pleases, Pope-be-damned), King Henry is determined that Thomas should bless his marriage. So are all the other political members of the court, which makes life very uncomfortable for Thomas, a Man With Morals. A scorned scholar begins to spy on More, who chooses to step down as Chancellor rather than agree to the King's new title. When More fails to show up at the King's wedding, Henry demands that everyone take an oath on the validity of the new marriage, under threat of High Treason. But of course, More won't, because a) that would be wrong; and b) the movie would end too soon. Rather than risk his neck and the neck of his family, More decides to Plead the Fifth and say nothing, but in the end is locked in the Tower of London, betrayed by the scorned scholar, and gets his head chopped off. As does Anne Boleyn in a few short years, but that's another movie.

This movie, though, is not really about the history of Thomas More, but about one man's decision to stand by his morals.... that, and perhaps the power of silence. While I followed the details of the movie better than my hubby (obviously, since I'm writing the plot summary for a change), I simply didn't care about Thomas More's struggle. I was interested in learning more about all the political intrigue, but I don't think that's the point of the movie. In a more intimate setting such as a theatre (it was originally a play), I may have felt more involved and invested in his predicament, but instead I felt like I was being told to "ADMIRE THIS MAN" rather than actually being given a chance to do so.

The Verdict: The Academy was wrong.

2013 Oscar Awards

Seth MacFarlane adding much needed something into the Academy Awards

He Said: Alright, not bad, not great

How sad it is that we have only watched 3 best picture movies over the past year. But we are hopeful to watch a ton more now that we have moved and don't have as busy of lives, and I am not trying to fix and paint the house at the same time as having a very busy and awful job and then busy and sleep-deprived with a newborn baby and then busy with finding a new job and moving. Now with that out of the way, on with the big shoe.

If you read my last year's post it will likely be just as disjointed since I just write down an interesting thought or thing on the show while it happens. Seth MacFarlane is hosting, here's hoping he brings some good writers and youthfulness and actual comedy to the scene, scathing comedy is the hope and hopefullyhe and his comedy are not dumbed down and censored for the non-family guy audience. I think this was a rather bold choice for host sincce he is well known for making fun of anything and everything, but really the Oscar's and all the famous people take themselves way too seriously. This reminds me of how I felt about Ryan Seacrest last year, way too serious and pompous and it took a little fun from Sacha Baron Cohen to liven things up. Now what would it take for him to host, or perhaps one of his characters? Now that would be something to see!

Argo appears to be the lead runner for best picture, but no particular movie looks to dominate the majority of the categories like in most previous years where one film stands out in best picture, actors, directing, writing, etc. The only real nominee that I have seen was Django Unchained, and yes it was a good fun movie although it was about 1 hour too long and it was draggy here and there. I have no idea how it got nominated for best picture. I love Tarantino movies, but this is certainly not his best work and his acting in his bit role was worse than he has ever done (which really is quite an achievement unto itself) and the accent he puts on, its so bad he shouldn't even have tried. That all being said, I think Christoph Walz did a great acting job in this one (as well as his previous Tarantino film, Inglorious Basterds) so here's hoping for him this year, but all the men in the supporting actor category are solid great actors so I don't think there would be any complaints no matter who wins this one.

On the red carpet, George Clooney was looking like a younger Sean Connery and he was being either sarcastic or pissy when approached and just told the interviewer to “go talk to her” indicating his

female companion and how they only ever want to talk about is dresses and jewels, etc.

What is with the awful hair that Anne Hathaway had? She looked like something from the late 70s or a wee boy. Then she had a dress that had similar breast and nipple emphasis like that Madonna pointed bra from way back when.

Finally starting with the actual show:

MacFarlane started off pretty good, some nice laughs and pick on people jokes but then comes the whole Captain Kirk thing and I did not see that coming. This was odd and added some humour but in retrospect definitely in the realm and wheelhouse of Seth MacFarlane's work.

We discovered that Seth MacFarlane can sing (most of us knew that already), that lady singing the Goldfinger song cannot, she should just quite. She got a standing ovation. Why? Must be a historical thing to honour the old and weary, but sometimes they are old and weary for a reason.

Boring movie musicals, blah blah blah. And Anne Hathaway still looks like a boy.

Jennifer Garner is so unattractive, deep sunken eyes, and a thin skeletor face then she added in that weird purple dress with the huge thing on the back that as my wife pointed out looks like her ass is pregnant.

Was Kristen Stewart high? At the very least she was awkward as a presenter.

Another year, and another round of dead people, although this year no one really big and famous died, but there were some surprises for me as usual with Michael Clarke Duncan having died as well as Ray Bradbury. Then the weird Barbara Streisand song at the end there. Way too much singing for my likes in this year's Oscars.

Overall no real surprises on winners, although it was interesting that no single film dominated the Oscars this year, it was all really spread out. Perhaps this is a sign of a really good movie year with many strong films. Seems like Life of Pi got the most wins, but nothing in any real category except for director, although we all know Ben Affleck got shunned for that one, maybe next time for him. Then the odd part with Michelle Obama leading in the best picture winner with her somewhat political statements there, that didn't seem to fit at all, although it was better than looking at and listening to the suddenly very old Jack Nicholson. His oldness combined with Dustin Hoffman's oldness and Robert de Niro's oldness just really hit me this year with how old these guys are getting which is really sad that a whole generation of great actors are pretty much done.

Overall, Seth MacFarlane was adequate, he censored himself quite a bit I think but what can you do. I think he was the first host to not only be the host but also a presenter (Ted) and a nominee (a song in Ted) and it would have been great if he won just to see what his speech would have been like. In retrospect with it being a celebration of musicals in the movies it does make sense to have him as a host as he is very musical with all the shows and movies that he does, but perhaps we could have had a more seasoned, albeit less funny, host in Neil Patrick Harris.

This year was slightly better than last year, but still a stinker and nothing as good as the great run in the early 90s with Whoopie and Billy Crystal. Although as we saw last year, Billy Crystal's time in comedy has come and unfortunately gone. Here's hoping for some good stuff for next year and now it is time for me to start watching more movies and add Argo to the every growing list.

Addition:

After listening to and reading various comments and stories from the media on the Oscars, I cannot understand why they feel the show was a “train wreck,” “the worst Oscar's ever,” “worst host ever.” I mean come on and look at the history of this show, there have been way way worse hosts and much more weird and boring shows than this one, especially more recently. Look at last year's show with Billy Crystal, the one with Anne Hathaway and James Franco (the absolute worst ever), the Hugh Jackman show, the David Letterman show, and even the Ellen Degeneres show. Admittedly I enjoyed the Ellen show, but it seemed like the audience and the media just didn't get it and I think that happened again this year.

I also forgot to mention the oddity of the tie for best sound editing. Okay, not a major category but interesting that it is only the sixth tie ever in the history of the Oscars, I figured there would be some sort of tie breaking procedure but apparently not.

Some pundits and media types thought it was filled with unpredictable winners, whereas I thought they weren't too many surprises. Some people were shocked that Spielberg didn't win, that Argo won best picture over Lincoln, Walz was a long shot, Life of Pi winning as many awards as it did as a surprise. Well this is how I see it, and keep in mind I am just a guy who is no hollywood movie type, I haven't seen most of the movies I just base it upon the buzz leading up to the oscars, other awards, reviews, friends. So Argo was a bit of a surprise but it won in the Golden Globes so it was headed in that direction. Walz like I said already did a great job in this and his previous Tarantino film and all the men in the supporting actor category are great actors so no big surprise there either. Ang Lee did a great job as usual making a gorgeous looking movie and based on a book that we all thought would be so hard to translate to the screen. The best actress award seemed up for grabs as well with no particular person way out in front for that one. So overall no great huge shocks in my opinion.

Lastly, again MacFarlane did a fine job, it wasn't as awful as the stuck up pundits are saying (heck even my wife thought some of his stuff was really funny and she HATES his stuff with a captial HATE). So not great, but certainly not awful or worst ever.

She Said: Nothing

Verdict: The Academy was right for the most part except leaving Affleck off the nominee list, the show was okay, much better than last year but nothing great, and looking forward to seeing Argo when it hits our list.

Dances with Wolves (1990)

"My hair will strike fear into my enemies!"

Nominees: "Awakenings" "Ghost" "The Godfather Part III" "Goodfellas"

He Said: Dances with Mullets

This is an unusual year of films for me in that I have actually seen all of the nominees, although most of them I haven't seen in a long time. So for starters I will analyze the list of nominees a bit. Looking over the list I don't know how on earth Ghost was nominated? That was an awful film that was just a showpiece for Patrick Swayze and nothing else, boring boring romantic boring movie. Awakenings was a fantastic film, and though probably not best picture quality it was great, and Robert DeNiro certainly deserved the win for best actor for that (as opposed to Costner) especially contrasting his usual mob role a la Goodfellas. Speaking of Goodfellas, how did Scorsese get pushed aside for best director? Well at least this was rectified when he finally won for The Departed although that is another story and another movie that will make it on the blog in due time as it won for Best Picture, although I am not sure why, it wasn't that good. Goodfellas was an excellent movie portraying the mob life in what seemed like a very real way. The violence can be a bit hard to take at times, but the story, acting, and directing were top notch. Frankly I think it was the violence that held it from winning, it seems the Academy tends to frown upon ultra-violent movies as winners, although this has started to change in the past few years. Then there is Godfather Part III, a terrible awful sequel that makes no sense at all even after watching it several times. I am a huge mob movie fan and thus a huge Godfather fan, parts I and II are excellent, well filmed, written, acted, etc and it shows in how they won a lot of awards, but part III? It was the complete opposite and just overall bad. Frankly I don't even know how Ghost, Godfather III and Dances with Wolves were even nominated. So in my mind and personal opinion I would rank that year's nominees as Goodfellas, Awakenings, Dances with Wolves, Godfather Part III, and last and least Ghost. I don't see how Dances with Wolves was nominated nevermind winning? But this is where we are at. It won, so we watched it.

This has been on our list for the past five months or so, but we didn't get to it due to moving, life, babies, and mainly the fact that neither of us wanted to watch it again, remembering how boring and awful it was. I will say that I was much more interested in it this time around it still falls far short of being a good movie let alone an Oscar winner. While I can certainly appreciate this movie a lot more now than when I saw it so many times as a 10, 11, and 12 year old (since my mother loved it and watched it at every chance and having one tv back then meant we all watched whatever happened to be on) I don't see why it would be a Best Picture movie. It is long, boring, and not much happens throughout. The best it does is portray Native Americans in a more realistic light than had been done previously, albeit with some stereotypes still present, and for that it is commended for its effort. However, it really lacks a story, and without that it falls flat.

So for those who were hiding under rocks for the past twenty years, Dances with Wolves is basically about a US Army soldier fighting in the civil war who is transferred by his own request to a remote post in the mid-west. He finds the post to be abandoned and then we enter into Dances with Wolves meets Castaway for a fair portion of the movie. He befriends a wolf and then finds the natives. Over the course of the movie he meets the natives and becomes one of their own and eventually leaves his post entirely to join them. He discovers how different the natives are compared to what he was always told, they aren't brutish savages, but friendly giving wonderful people. He falls in love, encounters the US Army again after basically becoming a member of the native group. A couple somewhat violent fights ensure between different native groups as well as when the natives try to rescue Costner from the US Army when he is listed as a traitor. If that all sounds entertaining, then good on you, but I found it immensely boring. As my partner in crime mentioned, yes the movie is filmed and shot well with really nice cinematography, and it does have decent to good acting, but that is not enough to save it.

Mary Mcdonnell should be called cavewoman and not Stands with a Fist with that huge 80s hair. And speaking of hair, since when do civil war soldiers sport mullets? I guess since Kevin was in charge of everything, he wasn't willing to change his star appearance. What's up with that? It is these small things that make one question other things in the film, if they can't do something as simple as have proper hair then am I to believe everything else in the film?

This is one of the first movies to really portray Native Americans as they are and were and not as they are stereotyped to be, and I really do think that is one of the primary reasons for it winning best picture. It's not that it is a bad movie, it just isn't anything special if you take that out of it. If this movie was made now then there wouldn't be as much hoopla surrounding it. I might be wrong, but that's how I see it.

On a final note as I was watching the movie I got to thinking about Graham Greene and how he seems to have transcended his native heritage as an actor and has really just become a good actor. What I mean is that we often see native actors that get stuck playing only native characters. Graham Greene, on the other hand started out that way, but at some point he started playing male characters, and his race and ethnicity didn't seem matter at all. This is a really good story and it would be great if actors of all races could do the same and fill roles that aren't a specific race. At this point in the 21 century it is rather sad how far behind we still are in race relations, hopefully things will change quicker for the better.

With that I would say the Academy was very very wrong this year.

Next up: A Man for All Seasons...whaaat? Never heard of that one, looking at the short synopsis it is about King Henry VIII wanting to be able to divorce and remarry, wow this one sounds awful, hopefully it is a nice surprise.

She Said: Dances with Greatness (emphasis on the dances).

This could've been a great movie. It has lots of things going for it: beautiful shots of the great plains, sympathetic characters, a potential interesting idea...

The problem is nothing happens. There's no conflict. The characters don't change. John Dunbar starts curious and sympathetic about the "Indians", and he ends less curious and even more sympathetic. He doesn't move from hatred to acceptance... or really anywhere. In turn, the Indians seem to share the same feelings for him. Nice to see more positive portrayals of Native people, but still very stereotypical, even for a period piece. The bad guys remain bad guys throughout, and then Dunbar and his white/Native wife ride off into the very beautifully shot sunset.

Which brings me to another point: we know from the existence of the Metis people that White men took Native brides all the time. So why does his love interest have to be a white woman? But not a "real" white woman, of course, because that wouldn't serve the plot, but one who has been raised by the Native tribe, and is thus culturally "Indian"? Wouldn't it have made a stronger statement to have him  fall in love with an actual Native woman? Or maybe they didn't want to be that political. Having never read the book, I can't say if they "whitened" the plot for the movie, but it sure seems like it.


The Verdict: The Academy was wrong.

Ordinary People (1980)

"I HATE YOU!!!! No... wait... that's Mom who hates ME!!"

Nominees: "Coal Miner's Daughter" "The Elephant Man" "Raging Bull" "Tess"

He Said: No Ordinary People

Going into this one it was rather difficult to find anywhere, and we will just leave it at that and not how we attained a copy to watch it. My in-laws both told us that this was the most boring movie ever and the only one that they ever walked out of the theatre on, so we were putting off watching this one for a while and certainly not looking forward to it at all.

Ordinary People is basically about a family living their lives, I am guessing somewhere in the American Northeast (maybe Connecticut), who are going through the emotional and mental difficulties following the death of a son and the subsequent suicide attempt of the other son.

There is no real plot per se in this movie, just character development with a small amount of mystery and intrigue in terms of figuring out what exactly happened to the family, at the start you just know about the characters acting weird, disturbed, and slightly sad and then beating around the bush about the living son and the “hospital.” At least this mystery existed for me since I didn't know anything about this movie other than Donald Sutherland was staring in it, as I try not to read the synopsis going into movies so that it gives me more of a mystery and interest in the film.

The acting is pretty good. The suicidal son is quite good with a young Timothy Hutton in that role. Judd Hirsch does a fine job as the psychiatrist and the parents are pretty good with Mary Tyler Moore and the aforementioned Donald Sutherland, even if I think Sutherland's acting was a bit stiff at times. Robert Redford directed it (well but not outstanding) and won the Oscar, not sure how they gave it to him and passed on Scorcese's Raging Bull, another fine film in the same year, but no Oscar year is without controversy.

Not much to say on this one, other than that I recommend it, it is highly entertaining if you like slower movies with good strong characters and character development; if you don't like those types of movies then I would pass on it. Also, as the subject matter is a bit on the dark and gloomy side it is a bit of a downer film, so if you aren't into those then perhaps passing on this one would be best. Perhaps the only criticism I have is that it isn't really about ordinary people. The family is a very affluent family being able to afford expensive psychiatrist fees and the ability to fly around North America and to Europe on trips. So they aren't really that ordinary except in that they are trying to deal with emotionally difficult things and have problems working through them just like all families would if faced with similar circumstances, which I guess might be part of the point.

Hard for me to say if the Academy was right or not. The first couple times I saw Raging Bull, I thought it was fabulous and I would probably say it was overall a bit better than Ordinary People. However, since I haven't seen Raging Bull in some 10 years, I will have to call it a draw until I watch it again. Stay tuned perhaps for an update after another viewing of Raging Bull. That all being said, I think people should see this if they can get a copy of it and if you are not put off by the somewhat dark subject matter.

Next up, Dances with Wolves. Oh the groans, oh the terrible movie. I HATED this movie as a child and it was on TV all the time and my mother would watch it all the time, here's hoping it is like a fine wine and gets better with age. All I can say is I am definitely not looking forward to this one.

She Said: Ordinary Schmordinary.

So when I told Dad that “Ordinary People” was up next, he told me it was one of the worst movies he’s ever seen. When I told Mom, she said she’s pretty sure she and Dad walked out of the theatre.

They’re on crack.

This was one of, if not, THE best movie we’ve seen so far as part of this little project. It was beautifully filmed and brilliantly acted. The portrayal of a family dealing the with death of the “favorite” son and the resulting mental illness of the other is spot on. I really felt for these people, even the mother who was so consumed by her own grief (in an icy, detached kind of way) that she was nearly impossible to care for. All the main actors received nominations for their roles, except for Donald Sutherland, which I don’t get. This is a true ensemble movie: this family could not have been played by anyone but these three people, all of whom rely on each other for their performances.

In comparison to “A Beautiful Mind”, I found this to be a much more realistic portrayl of mental illness: not as something you can overcome by just “willing it” to be so, but as a real disease requiring treatment, with setbacks and breakthroughs and just the general messiness of being.... human.

Watch this movie. Your tear ducts will thank you.


Verdict: The Academy was right. More or less.

Ordinary People (1980)