Best Picture

The truth of the matter is that I didn’t even see three of this year’s Best Picture nominees: 127 Hours, The Kids Are All Right, and Winter’s Bone. In fairness, if the Academy wasn’t so desperate for ratings and relevance none of these three would even be in the discussion. That said, here, in reverse order of win probability, are the 2011 Best Picture nominees.

7: Toy Story 3

All the Toy Story movies are great fun, and this one is too. Even if the climactic scene at the dump made yours truly a little moist in the eyes as I watched this movie in an otherwise empty theater. But Toy Story 3 has (coincidentally) three things working against it: it’s an animated movie, it’s a three-quel, and Joan Cusack is one of the main voices. It may be an 8/10 to me, but against the field it’s got no shot.

6: True Grit

Regardless of your feelings toward Jeff Bridges he deserves your respect not just for his versatility, but also for the quality of the roles. Hailee Steinfeld and Matt Damon work well alongside Bridges and the movie is a phenomenal piece of cinematography. Sadly for the Coen brothers, True Grit faces a big challenge in almost all of its nomination categories.

5: Inception

I loved this movie. Hell I love anything that has some combination of Christopher Nolan, Michael Caine, and Leo. The quasi-cliffhanger ending limits its chances – we all know that the Academy prefers well-rounded stories. The premise is philosophically and theoretically unmatched, and in typical Nolan fashion the plot assaults you from beginning to end (think The Dark Knight). At this rate, Christopher Nolan may be the new Scorsese; he’ll finally get his due at the 2030 Oscars.

4: Black Swan

The single reason that Black Swan won’t win is because the subject matter of mental illness is dealt with so explicitly. Best Picture films need to be elite bordering on pompous, and it doesn’t hurt if you attempt to rectify previous American wrongs (Dances With Wolves winning over Goodfellas in 1990, anyone?). Black Swan does none of these things, thank god. The buzz surrounding the movie has given it late legs, but too much of the buzz, understandably, is from the 18-35 male demographic.

3: The Fighter (DARK HORSE)

Add Mark Wahlberg to the list of actors for whom I’m a sucker. (That’s right, I voluntarily watched The Happening.) My life coach Bill Simmons heaps proper critiques upon this movie within the realm of sports movies generally and boxing movies specifically. All that aside, I couldn’t help but get swept up in the final scene where Irish Micky Ward (Wahlberg) faces Shea Neary for the WBU Light Welterweight title. Ward’s career may have been defined by his trilogy of fights with Arturo Gotti, but this movie is about Ward’s family and the struggles he faced in order to resurrect his career. By the end you feel for Dicky, despise Alice, want to see more of Amy Adams in her unmentionables, and wish that Wahlberg’s performance was stronger, but as a whole the movie is the type of solid, real-life redemption story that has a shot.

2: The Social Network (SHOULD WIN)

Out of all the nominees there’s no way in the supposedly realist, meritocratic, ‘progressive’ world of the Academy Awards/Hollywood that this film doesn’t win. Sorkin’s script is brilliant. When you’re done watching you find none of the characters totally likeable, but sympathize with them all. Beyond that this is a once in a generation movie. As Americans we do a terrible job of recognizing and understanding important events in our history as they’re happening. Facebook CHANGED THE WORLD. Remember the scene where Rashida Jones’ character Marilyn says to Eisenberg/Zuckerberg, “Bosnia. They don’t have streets but they have Facebook.”? Personally I despise my insatiable Facebook addiction, and it’s even worse knowing that the guys who are responsible are both smarter and bigger pricks than I am. But this movie does what Hollywood always pretends to do, it reaches outside the medium of film and impacts the modern world. People will watch uncomfortable movies like Black Swan and The King’s Speech, but when a movie like The Social Network forces its audience to reflect and perhaps arrive at their own personal discomfort, it is too often cast aside.

1: The King’s Speech (WILL WIN)

Colin Firth as King George VI gives the best performance out of anyone in any of these movies. He’ll win Best Actor. But the semi-revisionist approach put forth by The King’s Speech delivers three major tenets of success among the academy. The first is the outsider/insider, have/have not, layperson/royalty dichotomy that apparently is only believable in movies. Think Crash and A Beautiful Mind. The second is having a main character deeply foibled and humbled throughout the film. We’ve seen this before: John Nash (A Beautiful Mind), Tom Hanks (Forrest Gump), Dustin Hofman (Rain Man). The leads in these movies were seminal performances, but it is no coincidence that each of these movies takes advantage of the sympathies of human nature. The final tenet is to re-position actual history ever so slightly as to make a larger impact. Dances With Wolves, Braveheart, and Gladiator, all took their historical liberties and The King’s Speech is no different. While King George VI was a stalwart bastion of hope for the Brits during World War II and the royal family a symbol of national resistance, the king’s struggles with speech were never totally overcome, and alternative readers and tape-edited speeches were not uncommon. Taken as a whole the movie is both remarkable and entertaining, but in genre is not better than predecessor Schindler’s List and contemporarily is merely ‘in the discussion’ with The Fighter and The Social Network.

Actors/Actresses

Best Supporting Actress

DARK HORSE It’s a tie between Amy Adams (The Fighter) and Helena Bonham Carter (The King’s Speech). Neither will win, neither should, but there’s an outside shot.

SHOULD WIN Hailee Steinfeld (True Grit). She pulls off the boisterous, demanding Mattie Ross with ease. Unlike the probable winner there is every possibility that replacing Steinfeld would have been both difficult and detrimental to the movie

WILL WIN Melissa Leo (The Fighter). The reviews were rave for her performance as Irish Micky Ward’s mother Alice. The performance was underwhelming. This is not a knock against Leo for her acting, it’s a knock against the people who can’t tell the difference between a well acted and a well written part. It’s definitely both, but if one were to replace Leo with another middle-aged character actress, say Patricia Clarkson, the movie would be no worse for the wear.

Best Supporting Actor

DARK HORSE Geoffrey Rush (The King’s Speech). As speech therapist Lionel Logue, Rush is marvelous opposite Colin Firth. Rush’s character has just the right temperament, disposition, and humility to offset the serious and melancholy King George VI. Given the context of this year’s awards, though, Rush is both a dark horse and a longshot.

SHOULD WIN; WILL WIN Christian Bale (The Fighter). If you haven’t seen this movie it may be tough for you to understand just how good Bale is. As Dicky Eklund, the sometimes trainer sometimes crack-addict brother of Irish Micky Ward (Wahlberg) Bale plays the perfect foil. He nails the accent, nails Eklund’s mannerisms, and steals the right scenes. There are two distinct moments in where the film looks to be turning the story towards Dicky, but then we realize that it’s simply an important plot advancement. The only surer thing than Bale’s victory will be Firth’s.

Best Actress

DARK HORSE Michelle Williams (Blue Valentine). 2010-early 2011 were riddled with uncomfortable movies, Blue Valentine perhaps foremost among them. I do think Williams has a legitimate chance, but it would be a great surprise. It’s a shame the Academy will punish her for the poor casting of her stiff, sniveling co-star Ryan Gosling.

SHOULD WIN; WILL WIN Natalie Portman (Black Swan). Portman’s performance as Nina Sayers is explicit, genuine, and distraught. The complexities and obsessions of the company ballerina are portrayed as properly tragic, especially in lieu of the parallels between Sayers and the Swan Lake story. Because this movie is in the vein of Inception, Fight Club, or Memento, the lead performance needs to stand up on its own and not be diminished by repeated viewings, and Portman delivers.

Best Actor

DARK HORSE Can Colin Firth be the dark horse to his own impending victory? No? Okay then I guess we go with Javier Bardem in Biutiful. I haven’t seen it, but extrapolating from what I have seen from Bardem, and then comparing to the other nominees (Franco, Bridges, and Eisenberg), I’m guessing Bardem would be the likely second choice. Which, coincidentally, makes him first to eat Colin Firth’s dust.

SHOULD WIN; WILL WIN Colin Firth (The King’s Speech). Firth is undeniably brilliant as the “stammering” King George VI, “Bertie” to his friends. He perfectly portrays a man borne down by the weight of impending war and internal political turmoil, all while battling a speech impediment yet being required to become the voice of a nation through the new medium of radio. This outcome is an absolute lock, and thus perhaps a great time to refresh your drink during what’s sure to be another long Oscar ceremony.

OSCAR SNUBS

These are the five biggest nomination snubs, in reverse order.

5) Black Swan – Best Achievement in Sound Editing

Am I nitpicking so I can get to the nice, acceptable number of 5? Maybe. But I’ll admit that as I sat in the theater watching Black Swan I was very cognizant of the way the music and the hushed whisper overlays during Natalie Portman’s scenes added to the eerie situation of the film.

4) Scott Pilgrim vs. the World Best Achievement in Visual Effects

Granted it’s a comic book adaptation, but the visual overlays of this movie were by far more unique and interesting than any of the visual effects of Iron Man 2…unless you count Scarlett Johannson’s outfits.

3) Mila Kunis Black Swan – Best Supporting Actress

Maybe I’m swayed by her going down on Natalie Portman. Maybe I’m swayed by her casting off long time beau Macauly Culkin in real life which means my chances of landing her have gotten marginally better. Regardless, Kunis’s performance is extremely well done and the movie is better for it. It was important for the Lily character to be seamless throughout the various ‘situations’ in the movie and Kunis pulls it off.

2) Tom Hardy Inception – Best Supporting Actor

As Eames, Tom Hardy does what good supporting actors should, he holds the movie together when Leo’s not in the scene and steals some of the scenes they share. Considering the other nominees, I find it hard to believe that Hardy couldn’t at least get the nod. He would never win, the character of Eames isn’t strong enough, but he at least deserves the reward of a nomination

1) Andrew Garfield The Social Network – Best Supporting Actor

This isn't just an oversight it is a goddamn travesty. Andrew Garfield is phenomenal as Eduardo Saverin, stealing every scene he’s in and helping bridge the gap as a sort of Renaissance man between the genius yet socially awkward Zuckerberg and the realities of American life. I know this complaint has been run into the ground, but aside from Christian Bale and Geoffrey Rush, Garfield is the only one who should have had a legitimate shot at winning.

Rating Guide

I’ve developed a rating system that I’ll be using as I share my movie reviews with you and here’s a quick guide of what the rating numbers mean:

10 – Perfect. This movie is absolutely flawless and should be watched by everyone, everywhere, all the time. Although the rating exists, I have never seen a movie that fits the bill.

9 – Excellent. An excellent movie has only minor flaws, usually simply momentary lapses in character, small amounts of out-of-place dialogue, etc.

8 – Great. A Great movie has perhaps a bigger flaw, or a larger amount of small ones. Great movies are the cutoff for a movie that everyone should see (preferably in theaters).

7 – Good. This movie has the potential to be Great or better, but due to some serious issue is unable to make the leap.

6 – Average. An Average movie has positive aspects that total to a sum greater than its negative aspects. Much like a Good movie, an Average movie is worth seeing in a budget theater or second run.

5 – Problematic. This is the “Tremendous Upside Potential” of movies. It has all kinds of promise, often is a stepping stone or an early effort to showcase the talent of an actor or director, but as a whole this movie doesn’t quite make the cut.

4 – Poor. A Poor movie is the polar opposite of the Average movie. Its negative parts easily outweigh the positive and the viewer has to start rationalizing the fact that he or she watched it. Much like the Problematic movie, a Poor movie should – at best – be an On Demand choice.

3 – Bad. Bad movies are self-explanatory. They usually have an associated trope (remakes, reboots, re-anythings) and often are the victim of their directors and producers moreso than their actors. (I’m looking at you, Uwe Boll.)

2 – Awful. Everyone knows when they’ve watched an awful movie. Signs include (but are not limited to): the immediate need to make jokes about the mental faculties of all parties involved, conscious avoidance of future movies that share an actor/director with the Awful one you’re just watched, wondering aloud “People got paid to make that? And I paid to see it?”, and increased general skepticism about humanity. Both Bad and Awful movies can be justifiably watched…if you’re streaming them from Netflix.

1 – The Garbagest. This particular term was coined by a patron after sitting through Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li. A movie that is The Garbagest shares many traits with an Awful movie, but fails to deliver even one iota of support as to why the movie was allowed not only to be made, but to be distributed to a mass viewing audience rather than burned. People often leave a movie that was The Garbagest confused, dizzy, and in various other states of mental unrest. A common phrase uttered after viewing movie that was The Garbagest is, “I saw that for free and I want my money back.”

Launch Disclaimer

To me there are two kinds of movies. The first type are movies that have almost no other purpose than to keep you entertained for somewhere between 90 and 140 minutes. The second type is one where the filmmaker(s) tries to reach their audience with a message and/or engage them on a higher level. This type of film is not just telling a story, it is presenting an argument, reimagining a situation. Both types of film have their merits, and both can be made poorly. Unlike a book, there are, in fact, films that are totally worthless. The goal of the movie reviews you’ll find in this blog is simple: I hope to be critical of each movie – appropriate to its type – and to provide the reader with some of my insights as to where the movie itself fits in the canon of film. I’ll try never to spoil plots unless I feel it’s absolutely necessary to the review, and I will do my best to provide reviews of a variety of movie types (I’m overly partial to Horror and War movies, myself). So if you find things here that you like, chime in. If you don’t, it’s still a (relatively) free country; I’m sure you can find entertainment elsewhere.