The Life of Emile Zola (1937)

The biopic of the famous French writer and his involvement in fighting the injustice of the Dreyfuss Affair. [imdb]

Nominated for 10 Oscars:

Best Picture (WINNER)
Best Director: William Dieterle
Best Actor: Paul Muni
Best Supporting Actor: Joseph Schildkraut (WINNER)
Best Writing, Screenplay (WINNER)
Best Writing, Original Story
Best Assistant Director
Best Music, Score
Best Art Direction
Best Sound

I had interrupted my Best Picture series for like 3 months, mainly because I knew this one was next :P It's such an unexciting movie, but I admit it was a much easier watch after 40 minutes or so. The Life of Emile Zola is the 10th Best Picture winner. And I think it's safe to say the film is far from being deserving. From the list of nominees, I could easily point out The Awful Truth, The Good Earth and especially A Star Is Born as being far more worthy of the title.

Paul Muni's performance is very confusing to me. He's awful as a young Zola, but creates a rather believable old Zola and I often forgot that it was a 40 year old man under makeup. Anyway, definitely not worthy of a win. Schildkraut gives the best performance, but his screentime is so limited that I am surprised he won the Oscar; he has very little dialogue but gives the (only) realistic portrayal of the movie. The screenplay is very thin except for the monogue in the court scene (the only entertaining scenes in the movie), the direction is ignorable and the film itself rather flat.

My rating for the film: 4/10. I noticed this movie was on a special Best Picture dvd next to Amadeus and Casablanca, and 2 others. I felt like screaming. How can you put this next to a classic like Casablanca? Ridiculous. Is this the best they could find from the 30s?!

PS: The 11th BP winner, You Can't Take It with You (1938) had already been mentioned on this blog, before I started this series. You can click here.

Gentleman's Agreement (1947)

A reporter pretends to be Jewish in order to cover a story on anti-Semitism, and personally discovers the true depths of bigotry and hatred. [imdb]

Nominated for 8 Oscars:

Best Picture (WINNER)
Best Director: Elia Kazan (WINNER)
Best Actor: Gregory Peck
Best Actress: Dorothy McGuire
Best Supporting Actress: Celeste Holm (WINNER)
Best Supporting Actress: Anne Revere
Best Writing, Screenplay
Best Editing

I'm a bit ashamed I hadn't seen this Oscar winner until now! One can argue that the movie is dated, but the idea behind it, its essence is still valid. It's a movie about putting yourself in the shoes of a discriminated minority! And even though it sounds cheesy, the movie was better and more captivating than I expected.

The subject itself is the highlight of this film, so its succes is mostly due to the material. Also, good performances help: all the nominees give ok performances + John Garfield + a very very young Dean Stockwell :) Celeste Holm's Oscar win might be deserved, but I would've liked a better ending for the character's storyline. It was cut too abruptly. And Anne Revere is great and dependable playing Peck's mother. The direction is good, but a bit too subtle for my taste. The film does slow down in the last 20 minutes and risks major cheesyness with a lot of good-intended speeches, but fortunately it doesn't totally rulen the dynamic from the first part.

My rating for the film: 8/10. I would've given it more had it not been the unnecessary dinner scene between Garfield's and McGuire's characters. But a nice movie and really important for that era.

Possessed (1947)

A woman is found wandering Los Angeles, unable to say anything other than "David". Admitted to hospital she is coaxed into recounting her recent life. [wiki]

Nominated for 1 Oscar:

Best Actress: Joan Crawford

There was a funny comment on the imdb forum saying: Possessed by Van Heflin??? :)) because he wasn't the most attractive of men. In a way I agree, but he does manage to create a masculine, intriguing character. Anyway, the movie's not about him. Actually, the movie is about too many things, that's the problem.

It starts great and the first 10-15 minutes are incredibly well executed. The direction is fine throughout the film and the camera work from the beginning: creative & memorable. Even Joan does a fine job for the first half. But then the screenplay just keeps getting messier, with no way out. Until the last moment it's actually hard to understand what actually possesses her: the man, the dead woman (no spoiler) or her disease? As the 2nd part really goes down-the-hill, so does Joan's performance. She's subtle, fascinating in the beginning, but for the last moments she opts for B-movie horror type of performance, with lots of overacting and strange gestures! Is that really how schizophrenia looks like? I doubt it! A performance that will be hard to rate on my other blog (I'll have to watch it again anyway, to count the screentime).

My rating for the film: 4/10. For the stupidity of the last 30 minutes and the pathetic ending. But the direction had soooo much potential! Cliche movie that could've done more.

The Whisperers (1967)

It's the story of an old lady, lonely and almost senile, living a depressing life. When it seems her luck has changed, life teaches her a lesson.

Nominated for 1 Oscar:

Best Actress: Edith Evans

I had to write the plot line, because the one from imdb is quite deceiving. With just 181 votes on imdb, there aren't many people who've seen this movie. It's British, it's very low budget, no big names. However, Dame Edith Evans won the Golden Globe, the National Board of Review AND the New York FCC for her leading performance! At age 80, she is the second oldest Best Actress nominee, second only to Jessica Tandy.

But even with all these critics awards, I think her chances of winning the Oscar were very slim! So no shock about it! It's not that she isn't good, but the performance is sooo non-American, subtle, hard to relate to if you're under 40, with no big flashy scenes. So if Kay Hepburn wouldn't have won, it would've been Faye Dunaway or Audrey.

The film itself is too low key and it lacks... well it lacks the stakes. The story is simple - no problem with that - but it somehow doesn't take advantage of the potential to be an author film or a really moving one. It's realistic, beautifully directed, but the screenplay could've been a bit heavier. Obviously, it relies a lot on Edith Evans, who is not as brilliant as I expected (because the screenplay doesn't give her the chance), but gives an excellent performance! Her touching acting in the beginning gives you a lot to think of. And no, she's not playing herself, you can see that! And no, the movie is not about a crazy woman talking to ghosts. There's actually a lot going on for like... 20 minutes. :)

My rating for the film: 5.5/10. First I wanted 6, then 5... It would actually be a 4 if not for Edith Evans, who does miracles with it. I recommend it just to Oscar fans and Best Actress addicts.

Giant (1956) (2nd time)

An epic movie covering the life of a Texas cattle rancher and his family and associates. [imdb]

Nominated for 10 Oscars:

Best Picture
Best Director: George Stevens (WINNER)
Best Actor: James Dean
Best Actor: Rock Hudson
Best Supporting Actress: Mercedes McCambridge
Best Adapted Screenplay
Best Original Score
Best Art Direction, Color
Best Costume Design, Color
Best Editing

It's a giant movie due to it's reputation & cast and not that epic when it comes to what's actually going on. It's a big production, but not a Ben-Hur. :) it tells the story of a family, there's lots of stuff going on in 3 hours, with some parts being more engaging that others. It's a movie event because of Liz, Rock Hudson and especially James Dean, who received his second consecutive posthumous nomination.

I read some comments that James should've been placed in the supporting category and I agree, as the he's not really the center of the film. He might steal the show, but it's not about him. I struggle with the performances: Liz is fine, but she doesn't get to do much; it's all about the boys. Mercedes gives a fine performance, but in a 3 hours movie, her role feels like a cameo. This probably is Rock's finest dramatic performance and from the 2 men, my heart went to him, because he really creates a warm believable character and his performance is fiiiiiine. But not excellent.

And then there's James; I respect the Brando style of acting, but there's something so whiny/half retarded about the character, and his performance only hunts that down, adding some drunk scenes from the same bucket. He does it well, but I'm still seeing almost the same whiny acting from East of Eden. Again: he would've probably deserved a win, but the acting was so different from anyone else's I just don't know if I loved it or found it too much for the classic-moviemaking feel of Giant. Other than that: the direction win is probably deserved, the technical part is a plus and the screenplay... well, it's good. However when the film shifted from the first part (which had a certain dynamic) to the children all grown up, the movie became less interesting. When the 3 leads were not on screen full-power, the stakes were less interesting.

My rating for the film: 7.5/10. I know, I really wanted to give more, but I guess that desire comes from all the James Dean fascination and the fact that the film is eye candy. Objectively, it could've been better. P.S.: I don't know if it would've deserved a BP win, as I shamefully haven't seen any of his competitors. :P

Written on the Wind (1956) (2nd time)

Alcoholic playboy Kyle Hadley marries the woman secretly loved by his poor but hard-working best friend, who in turn is pursued by Kyle's seductive sister. [imdb]

Nominated for 3 Oscars:

Best Supporting Actor: Robert Stack
Best Supporting Actress: Dorothy Malone (WINNER)
Best Original Song

I don't even know what to say about this one. It didn't get better with a second viewing; it just seemed shorter (which I guess is good). It's a typical Douglas Sirk / 1950s drama, so it has lots of soap opera, some luxurious settings and a couple of interesting performances to analyze. Interestingly enough, the focus of the film is not on the big Hollywood names, as Bacall and mostly Rock Hudson are really ignorable. The spotlight belongs to the two f&cked up brother and sister, played by Stack and Dorothy Malone.

Robert Stack (who has the screentime of a leading character) plays it too hard and his performance looks ridiculous to a modern audience. Some drunk scenes are fine, but as the screenplay gets more and more cheesy drama, he falls for the cliche and the character becomes a vehicle for unwanted humor. Dorothy Malone on the other hand has her moments of greatness. I admit I was seduced by her look (even more the 2nd time) and Sirk knew exactly how to play it. It's not an easy screenplay to read, but for the most of it: she does it justice (more about her in this month's Smackdown) and definitely brings freshness & fun everytime she's around.

My rating for the film: 5.5/10. Despite all the cliches, it's still quite watchable, with Malone being the strangely comforting element of the film.

Baby Doll (1956)

Steamy tale of two Southern rivals and a sensuous 19-year-old virgin. [imdb]

Nominated for 4 Oscars:

Best Actress: Carroll Baker
Best Supporting Actress: Mildred Dunnock
Best Adapted Screenplay
Best Cinematography, Black-and-White

What an unpleasant movie; it's just one of those films I'll never want to see again, except if I'm forced too. It's not as scandalous as I expected it to be. It tries to be a lot of things, but fails in a big way: it's not dramatic, not funny, the acting is ok but not excellent, the set is too stagey, the direction too slow & tries to hard, the screenplay too crowded, not emotional nor suspenseful.

So it bored me a lot. I can understand how some people might feel differently appreciating the mood and stuff like that. The most annoying thing was probably the ending, with lines that seemed so fake trying to give it a feel like the entire movie was some kind of epic or an important journey of some kind. It wasn't. I'm happy Elia Kazan didn't receive a Best Director nomination, as it's probably one of his least natural efforts. Carroll Baker is nice to look at, gives a decent performance, but I didn't see the revelation. Dunnock's performance is cartoonish, while Malden and Eli Wallach show lots of energy, but the screenplay is too theatrical.

My rating for the film: 3/10. A good dinner scene, but Baby Doll thinks it's much more than what it really is.

Smash-Up: The Story of a Woman (1947)

The fictional story of Angie Evans, a nightclub singer who interrupts her career to marry struggling songwriter Ken Conway. As he discovers success, she turns into an alcoholic, gradually destroying her life.

Nominated for 2 Oscars:

Best Actress: Susan Hayward

Best Writing, Original Story

Oh what a title, right? :) Screams cheesy soap-opera ever since the beginning! And that's half true. I didn't plan to see this movie so soon, but I somehow found free time at work during mornings and watched it on youtube for 2 days. And might I say: it was more enjoyable that expected. With such a title and subject, I expected the worst. The story is nothing new, but it doesn't suck either.

Susan's performance is clearly the highlight of the film! She's natural, sings great and plays one of the most believable drunks I've seen on screen, adding much more to the character than was supposed to. The film itself managed to surprise me once or twice, when I expected super cliches to step in (the baby dying, the evil other woman), but the film turned them around and it didn't go that far. However I would've preferred a more dramatic final scene.

My rating for the film: 6/10. Very 40s melodrama, but with a nice pace and Susan's performance really lifts it up!

The Farmer's Daughter (1947)

Katie Holstrom leaves the farm to become a nurse, but is sidetracked into domestic service, romance, and politics. [imdb]

Nominated for 2 Oscars:

Best Actress: Loretta Young (WINNER)
Best Supporting Actor: Charles Bickford

The people who made this movie should've seen My Man Godfrey at least 3 times before starting to film this so-called romantic comedy. That's how you conquer this genre. I've seen worst attempts than The Farmer's Daughter. And it's actually not THAT bad: but it's too simple, predictable and not funny. I smiled once or twice, but that's it. NO comedic timing.

Loretta's win is mindblowing considering it's such a one-note & no laughter character. She tries; she really tries to do a bit more with it, but the screenplay knocks her down. I'll talk more about it in a couple of days on the other blog. Charles Bickford gives a nice grumpy performance as the butler, but again: not enough good material to highlight his talent.

My rating for the film: 3.5/10. Easy to watch, but so predictable, hardly believable and not funny.

Divorce - Italian Style (1961)

A married Sicilian baron falls in love with his cousin and vows to wed her, but with divorce illegal he must plan a crime of passion to get away with murdering his wife. [imdb]

Nominated for 3 Oscars:

Best Director: Pietro Germi
Best Actor: Marcello Mastroianni
Best Original Screenplay (WINNER)

Even though this is a 1961 movie, at the Oscars it competed as a 1962 film, so it was up against Lawrence of Arabia and To Kill a Mockingbird. And you know what? Judging by how much I enjoyed it, I actually choose it over the 2 previously mentioned! Divorce Italian Style is a killer comedy and so smartly written!

Mastroianni gives a very funny, light & believable performance! Of course, it helps that he has an excellent screenplay to work with! This Oscar win for writing is one of the most deserved this category has ever had. It's crazy sharp, just like the direction. The choices that Pietro Germi makes are impecable and the film has a very nice flow. All the nominations are worthy and I would've also given it a Best Picture nom, for sure. And the comedy: it's funny, smart, situation comedy. Not that the dialogue isn't perfect, but the story itself and the action bring the biggest laughter or appreciative smiles. And talk about the actress playing the wife: brilliant casting!

My rating for the film: 9/10. I would've gone for a different ending scene, but it's still the best film I've seen in a while. Doesn't disappoint!

Mourning Becomes Electra (1947)

An adaptation of Eugene O'Neill's play. As an updated Greek tragedy, the film features murder, adultery, love and revenge. All taking place after the American Civil War. [wiki]

Nominated for 2 Oscars:

Best Actor: Michael Redgrave
Best Actress: Rosalind Russell

This is the movie I've wanted to see the most for the past... I dunno 2, 3, 4 years! I didn't expect it to be bad or brilliant, I just needed to know what the fuss is all about. And I'm glad I finally found out. It's a strange movie experience, as I could give it a 6, an 8 or maybe a 5. Hard to tell if I liked it, as during its 160+ minutes (yes, I've seen the original unedited version I think) it had many good moments, but also bad ones.

You probably know the controversy of Rosalind Russell losing the Oscar! She was already standing up before they've announced the winner, as she was sure she'd got it. However, the winner was Loretta Young (must've been popularity vote) for the light comedy The Farmer's Daughter and so it became one of the (I'd say) top 5 Oscar shockers. Even though it's the only Best Actress nominee I've seen from 1947, I can say I understand what the surprise was all about. Great or just good, the role that Rosalind plays is highly dramatic and she's in charge of the entire film. I myself found her to be terrific at times and it's quite a nuanced performance.

Michael Redgrave acted a bit too much for my taste, but I understand the nomination and it's not a bad performance at all. A bit surprised that Katina Paxinou didn't receive a supporting actress nomination (it's the type of flashy that Oscar usually rewards) or the film an Original Score nom. As I read about it, Mourning... was apparently a box office flop that's why they cut it down. The screenplay is too theatrical and confusing at first. Actually, the whole film is theatrical and the direction is mostly missing. It's too long and while the 2nd chapted is most interesting, the 3rd one just goes for boring. Many to say about this one, but I'll stop here.

My rating for the film: 7/10. Again: 7 is chosen mostly randomly. I can see why some might love or totally ignore the film. Because a copy is not easy to find, I might consider posting it on youtube in the next couple of weeks.

Heaven Knows, Mr. Allison (1957)

A Marine and a Nun, both shipwrecked on a Pacific Island, find solace in one another as the two wait out the war. [imdb]

Nominated for 2 Oscars:

Best Actress: Deborah Kerr
Best Adapted Screenplay

Such a small, simple film. A simple story, with beautiful cinematography and an exotic landscape. Two main characters and their interactions. Robert gives a very natural performance, very likeable. Deborah is kind, gentle, it's a subtle performance that works for the most of it.

I don't feel like saying much about this movie. In a way, it just went by me. I felt like saying: so what. But at other times, I appreciated the simplicity of it. It's a slow film, with not much going on (or nothing groundbreaking), yet NOT boring. The direction is good, but the adapted screenplay nomination is mostly a category filler.

My rating for the film: 7/10. Very soon I'll see it again. Strangely, it's like I haven't even seen it. Some might appreciate it much more.

The Piano (1993) (2nd time)

A mute woman along with her young daughter, and her prized piano, are sent to 1850s New Zealand for an arranged marriage to a wealthy landowner, and she's soon lusted after by a local worker on the plantation. [imdb]

Nominated for 8 Oscars:

Best Picture
Best Director: Jane Campion
Best Actress: Holly Hunter (WINNER)
Best Supporting Actress: Anna Paquin (WINNER)
Best Original Screenplay (WINNER)
Best Cinematography
Best Editing
Best Costume Design

Yes, it's just the 2nd time I'm seeing The Piano! Can you believe it? :P Being such an essential film for bloggers and such. Really now, there are tons of worshippers around here. And I have to admit something: for a very long time I've been on the Angela Bassett team regarding the Best Actress category. Right now, I am undecided, as it's hard to compare totally different performances. But what I can say about The Piano is that is has a magnificent direction and a very good (and also very special & unique) leading performance.

If 1993 wouldn't have been all about Schindler's List, this movie would've also won Best Picture, Best Director (we would've had the first woman to win in this category!!!) and Best Cinematography (excellent! and very... careful with its showing)! I for one preferred Schindler's List, but Jane Campion really does create such a special film! The story is simple, the film is quiet, beautifully shot and depends a lot on its visuals. The screenplay is good, Oscar worthy, but not better than the film itself; this is the case for an art film, cause this is what The Piano is.

Holly Hunter does give an excellent performance and the role is tough to play, not because of how much it offers, but because it demands 100% focus & greatness by giving the actress many limitations! I don't believe in Anna Paquin's Oscar win, but it was a weak race anyway. I find it hard to love The Piano, but I'm mad about the direction. Who can forget the piano and the sea moment right before the end? Or the fantastic cinematography? But except for Holly's character I really didn't enjoy the rest of them.

My rating for the film: 8.5/10. Hard to talk about. And I would've also gone for less explicit nudity / sexuality. Yet still a great achievement.

In the Name of the Father (1993) (2nd time)

Based on the true story of Gerry Conlon, a Belfast man who - along with family members and friends - was wrongly convicted of bombing two pubs outside of London. [imdb]

Nominated for 7 Oscars:

Best Picture
Best Director: Jim Sheridan
Best Actor: Daniel Day-Lewis
Best Supporting Actor: Pete Postlethwaite
Best Supporting Actress: Emma Thompson
Best Adapted Screenplay
Best Editing

I am sometimes bothered when a true story film is not as true as it's campaigned to be. This one goes into that category, as I understand, reading some trivia, that much was changed for an easier adaptation of the subject. But beyond that, In the name... still remains an uncomfortable film and I dreaded having to see it again, because I have problems sitting through movies involving massive injustice. But surprisingly enough, the first part was much better than I remembered it to be.

This time, I had more appreciation for Jim Sheridan's sharp, clean direction and I guess the first scene justifies his Oscar nomination. Daniel Day-Lewis is also better than I remembered, and even though I'm not his biggest fan, I respect his work a lot and he really really gives a very good performance. Excellent year for Best Actor. The supporting actor nomination feels worthy and I would've wanted Emma to have more screentime. She's a nice presence, but she appears in the least interesting part of the film. Yes, the film gets boring towards the end and even the screenplay (so nicely structured in the beginning) becomes shakey, with those final trial moments hard to believe as they're shown (how can you use in a British trial a document stolen from the police files, not shown to the other side and a judge accepts it as proof?!)

My rating for the film: 7.5/10. It would've been an 8, but the ending was blah. Yet, the opening scene is really memorable.

The Age of Innocence (1993) (2nd time)

Tale of 19th century New York high society in which a young lawyer falls in love with a woman separated from her husband, while he is engaged to the woman's cousin. [imdb]

Nominated for 5 Oscars:

Best Supporting Actress: Winona Ryder
Best Adapted Screenplay
Best Original Score
Best Art Direction
Best Costume Design (WINNER)

There are many things not right with this movie. However, I find myself strangely appreciative of Martin Scorsese's direction, even though the shakeness in the story and tone are to his blame. Yet, the film has delicate, wonderful, sometimes excellent moments that suggest some great decision making. How about that beautiful montage with paintings narrating Newland & May's honeymoon? And the brilliant decision to have a voice-over during the entire storytelling (and what a voice! Joanne Woodward!). And some subtle screenplay elements, like the honeymoon cottage narration!

But as I said, much doesn't fit! I am undecided (or just didn't care) about Daniel Day-Lewis's performance; was it the right casting? How much did he help the character? Winona seemed just right for the innocent role, yet except for a scene towards the end there really wasn't that much for her to do! Michelle is fine, but she gets lost in the second part (probably why she didn't get an Oscar nomination) and in the end she doesn't get a punch to really give a shape to the performance! Plus: shouldn't the countess have been a bit younger? :P she felt like Winona's mom (a hot mom, but still) instead of her cousin.

I'm quite sure this was just votes short of getting both a Best Picture nomination and a Director one. The Costume Design win is much worthy and the Art Direction nomination really (really!) gave Schindler's List a run for its money! But in the end it still is an inconsistent film that I found hard to love, especially due to Daniel's (strange?) lack of charisma.

My rating for the film: 7.5/10. A film I have much respect for (oh, that voice over!), but could never love.

Wild Is the Wind (1957)

Gio marries his dead wife's sister and brings her with him to America. His obsession for the dead woman and her feisty attitude bring them trouble.

Nominated for 3 Oscars:

Best Actor: Anthony Quinn
Best Actress: Anna Magnani
Best Original Song

I am ashamed of it: this is my first Anna Magnani film! :/ Yes, I know; no The Rose Tattoo, no Rome, Open City, no Secret of Santa Vittoria. But I had heard of her huge talent and this film somehow confirmed my expectations. Yet it's also true that the role of an outspoken Italian woman fits her perfectly. The film itself starts well, with Anna in full speed drama, but the second part just can't keep up, and it was actually supposed to be the most interesting moment.

I put a bit of blame on Anthony Franciosa's lack of creativity or inspiration; he is totally boring and strange to follow in comparison with his immensely talented co-stars and their natural way of acting. So the film really gets to soapy towards the end and it's almost like you don't even have a story. What was this about?! what happened at the end... Anthony Quinn's nomination might be worthy, but the film wasn't really really about him, as Anna stole most of their scenes together.

My rating for the film: 6/10. It could be a 6.5; a simple little film, often enough too simple, but with a great pair of actors.

The Firm (1993)

A young lawyer joins a prestigous law firm only to discover that it has a sinister dark side. [imdb]

Nominated for 2 Oscars:

Best Supporting Actress: Holly Hunter
Best Original Score

There are many things wrong with this movie. It's not that it's so typical for the beginning of the 90s movies; but the film is poorly constructed, naively written and acted mostly in a mediocre way. And this is the top grossing film of 1993? Ih... I don't know about the novel, but the story couldn't have been lighter. I don't wanna seem bitchier than necessary: it works at times, but has mad plot holes for the rest of it or just simple solutions hard to believe.

How could have Sydney Pollack directed such a flawed film? It's predictable (except for when it makes no sense) and the characters are poorly constructed and strangely motivated. The best part is the little action going on in the second half that gets us out of the cliche of the project. Holly Hunter gives one of the few respectable performances, but her character is so poorly treated that I actually felt sorry for Holly for getting such a shitty role & undeserved nomination. The Original Score was way too much in my face for me to enjoy. Tom Cruise gave a good speech at the end which redeemed his performance.

My rating for the film: 3.5/10. A waste of time mostly; and somehow they won tons of money with this.

To learn more about my personal message, please click here. :)
it's on the other blog.

but no worry, I'll keep seing Oscar movies, so the posting will continue here.

Fearless (1993)

A man's personality is dramatically changed after surviving a major airline crash. [imdb]

Nominated for 1 Oscar:

Best Supporting Actress: Rosie Perez

I'm seeing this for Stinkylulu's Supporting Actress Smackdown. Otherwise, I would've probably kept on avoiding it for a couple of years. The project just didn't seem to attract me and I was right: the movie is quite disappointing. Peter Weir directed it and I can feel a touch of his magic here and there, but unfortunately he did nothing for his actors.

And I'll going str8 for the acting because it is what bothered me most. Isabella Rossellini, John Turturro and (a very young) Benicio Del Toro has nothing to do with this; the first two were just painfully bad! Really! Jeff Bridges was decent as a whole, even though he did nothing for me for 2 thirds of Fearless. Rosie Perez deserved her nomination, but the performance felt inconsistent at times. The best thing about the film is the plane crash flashback at the end; the direction is good and the effects make it look very believable. That's what kept from totally attacking this mostly boring film.

My rating for the film: 4.5/10. I am being most generous; probably one of Peter Weir's worst.

Kate and Leopold (2001)

A love story between a 19th century baron and a 21st century businesswoman. Some kind of a fantasy romance.

Nominated for 1 Oscar:

Best Original Song

My mother wanted to see this on tv the other night and I went along with it, without knowing it would be less charming and more boring. And it's 2 hours long, which is way too much for this type of romantic comedy. Well comedy is a stretch; I don't remember laughing once. How could one take this seriously?!

Yes, Hugh Jackman is rather charming, but so what; it doesn't help the film THAT much. Meg Ryan looks a bit too old to date him and plays her usual tricks. The screenplay is filled with gaps and somewhat predictable; that twist at the end it rather ridiculous. I'm not sure the song nomination is worthy either, because it's not that much of a tune. You might think I hated it; not really, because once it started I realized quickly I should go low expectation. That's why I'm so generous with the rating.

My rating for the film: 3/10. Well, it did introduce Hugh to the world (as a romantic figure I mean, not as Wolverine).

The Great Ziegfeld (1936)

The ups and downs of Florenz Ziegfeld Jr., famed producer of extravagant stage revues. [imdb]

Nominated for 7 Oscars:

Best Picture (WINNER)
Best Director: Robert Z. Leonard
Best Actress: Luise Rainer (WINNER)
Best Writing, Original Story
Best Editing
Best Art Direction
Best Dance Direction (WINNER)

The 9th Best Picture winner is a big production, Ziegfeld style. I didn't understand at first why THIS was named the best film of the year, but once the impressive musical moments started, I got an idea. The beginning of the film is boring and mostly a cliche; it goes like this for an hour or so (the film has almost 3 hours). But when A Pretty Girl is like a Melody explodes (yes, this is the word) onto the screen, magic happens. What a fascinating musical moment, and the art direction, cinematography, costume design - all goes right! fabulous!

Other than the music & dance numbers, there isn't much left to care about. To make it clear: this biopic is so far from the facts, one should be ashamed to call it that. Ziegfeld was a womanizer and not this nice guy. Anna Held was previously married and had a child and no mentioning here; it wasn't she who left Ziegfeld and so on and on and on... So the dialogue and action part is rather boring and untrue, especially in the first half. Luise Rainer won the Oscar for playing Anna Held, a star that Ziegfeld brings to America. I wasn't impressed by her acting and I think the win is just silly. William Powell is mediocre at first, but in the last half an hour his performance turns more dramatic & touching. It was nice to see the beautiful Myrna Loy, but she appears 2 hours and 15 minutes into the film, which is way too late.

My rating for the film: 7/10. Tough to rate, because I was bewitched by the musical numbers and this film probably has some of the best costumes I have ever seen on film (and that says a lot).

Love Affair (1939)

French playboy Michel and American Terry McKay fall in love aboard ship. They arrange to reunite 6 months later on the top of the Empire State Building, but destiny prepares an unfortunate surprise. [imdb]

Nominated for 6 Oscars:

Best Picture
Best Actress: Irene Dunne
Best Supporting Actress: Maria Ouspenskaya
Best Original Screenplay
Best Original Song
Best Art Direction

I had first seen (years ago) the 1994 remake with Warren Beatty & Annette Bening; though it's considered a bad film, I remember being captivated by the plot and especially fascinated by the ending. So I said to myself: the original must be a classic! And ignoring the 1957 Cary Grant version, I went str8 for this one. A classic it is, even though it has its flaws.

My concern is with the second part, as the film slowly loses its emotional punch; until that classic ending, that is. Love Affair is a delicate movie, focused on romance and on the fantastic charisma of the two leading actors. Both of them managed to put a smile on my face: Charles Boyer is adorable and Irene Dunne is glowing. Her Oscar nomination was well deserved but she was nowhere near winning; and the songs she sings are beautiful, memorable. Maria Ouspenskaya has a short, but important role as the one to predict the love story that will follow.

I am just a bit :( by the fact that Love Affair was not even 90 minutes long; they could've added more scenes and resolve the screenplay gaps from the second half. But still: an unforgettable love story.

My rating for the film: 8.5/10. It was almost a 9. And I think I'm gonna post this film on youtube.

Peyton Place (1957) (2nd time)

Coming-of-age story set in a small New England town whose peaceful facade hides love and passion, scandal and hypocrisy. [imdb]

Nominated for 9 Oscars:

Best Picture

Best Director: Mark Robson

Best Actress: Lana Turner

Best Supporting Actor: Arthur Kennedy

Best Supporting Actor: Russ Tamblyn

Best Supporting Actress: Hope Lange

Best Supporting Actress: Diane Varsi

Best Adapted Screenplay

Best Cinematography

This is one of the few films that have received 5 Oscar nomination for acting. Don't be fooled by the poster on the right; Peyton Place is an ensemble piece, with lots of stories going on and Lana Turner is the lead just by title and not by screentime. It's a very soapish film, focused on the characters' actions and not so much on deep stuff. Yeah, it's mostly superficial, but pleasant to watch.

I don't think the Oscar nominations for Picture and Director are worthy. From the acting ones, I would say only 2 or 3 were correctly chosen, with Hope Lange (as a rape victim) and Arthur Kennedy (as the rapist stepfather) being the highlights and also offering the best storyline; Lange deserved to win the Oscar. Lana Turner is ok playing a frigid woman (yes, the poster is deceiving, I've told you), but it's a very one-note performance so it didn't wow me. Her love interest, played by whatever-his-name-is, is the most annoying thing about this film; his voice drives me mad and brings down the credibility of the romance.

My rating for the film: 6.5/10. But it can also work as a 7; it depends on the mood while watching. But don't expect greatness, just over 2 and a half hours of soap opera.

Witness for the Prosecution (1957)

Agatha Christie tale of a man on trial for murder: a trial featuring surprise after surprise. [imdb]

Nominated for 6 Oscars:

Best Picture
Best Director: Billy Wilder
Best Actor: Charles Laughton
Best Supporting Actress: Elsa Lanchester
Best Editing
Best Sound

A classic I had never seen before, but I've heard this week that it has one of the trickiest twists in all movie history, so I thought of checking it out. The second reason: I wanted to see what's all about Marlene Dietrich's NOT-Oscar nominated performance and if the debate on the performance is justified. And also because Charles Laughton is easily becoming one of my favorite actors.

It's hard to talk about the film or Marlene without spoiling the plot. I, for one, did not expect the twist up until the last minute, nor that big character surprise (can't say it outloud) that's the key to the film. Both were deliciously interesting and in the pure Agatha Christie style. What I did not enjoy were the last 3-5 minutes, an ending that felt exagerated and could've functioned better.

Charles Laughton is excellent as the old lawyer and I think he deserved to win the Oscar. Elsa Lanchester won the Golden Globe (what the hell?!) and received an Oscar nomination for a pointless performance (just like her previous nomination for Come to the Stable). Tyrone Power was good and Marlene would've deserved a Best Actress nomination, but not a win, as her acting does feel a bit dated at times. I need to watch The Bridge on the River Kwai again and get familiar with 12 Angry Men to say exactly which one deserved the Best Picture win. Witness for the Prosecution is a solid, serious film, relaxing and intriguing.

My rating for the film: 8/10. Too bad for those last minutes and thank God for Charles Laughton.

Mutiny on the Bounty (1935) (2nd time)

Fletcher Christian successfully leads a mutiny against the ruthless Captain Bligh on the HMS Bounty. [imdb]

Nominated for 8 Oscars:

Best Picture (WINNER)
Best Director: Frank Lloyd
Best Actor: Clark Gable
Best Actor: Charles Laughton
Best Actor: Franchot Tone
Best Screenplay
Best Original Score
Best Editing

And so I continue my Best Picture winner odyssey with the 8th winner: Mutiny on the Bounty. I had first seen the film probably about 5-6 years ago, so watching it now I knew plot and that made it difficult to sit through the first hour. But once you get past the cruelty and first impressions, you realize this is quite a good film. It's well directed, well written and the ensemble cast is great.

As a piece of trivia: this film is considered to be the cause for introducing the Best Supporting Actor/Actress the following year, due to Franchot Tone who got a Best Actor nomination, even though his role is supporting; this resulted in 3 Best Actor nominations for the same film (still a record today), probably unacceptable, giving birth to the much needed supporting acting categories.

Charles Laughton is so cruel & mean and his casting is perfect, with him giving an Oscar worthy performance. I've even enjoyed Clark Gable, even though it's not my type of character and Franchot Tone's speech at the end of the film is dead on. The direction is smart & often difficult and the technical part is believable. I found the film to be very enjoyable, especially in the second half and I couldn't really find major flaws to it. I haven't seen its main Best Picture contender (John Ford's The Informant), but this one is a worthy winner.

My rating for the film: 8.5/10. I've enjoyed it more this time around.

The Usual Suspects (1995)

A boat has been destroyed, criminals are dead, and the key to this mystery lies with the only survivor and his twisted, convoluted story beginning with five career crooks in a seemingly random police lineup. [imdb]

Nominated for 2 Oscars:

Best Supporting Actor: Kevin Spacey (WINNER)
Best Original Screenplay (WINNER)

Let's just say I had never seen this film before, even though I was very familiar with the subject, seen a couple of scenes and knew the ending and WHO is Keyser Soze. Did the fact that I knew the twist spoil it for me? Not really, because I don't think I would've enjoyed it anyway. Usual Suspects has a reputation of being a mystery masterpiece, with a huge fan base and an imdb rating that's through the roof.

The two scenes I enjoyed from this movie are the action-packed ones: the attack on the police car and the elevator scene. Bryan Singer really knows how to direct action shit, but the screenplay was a bit too complicated to work and the historical twist left me cold, as I thought it was just thrown there and it didn't explain many other holes from the screenplay. So, I would've given the Original Screenplay Oscar to Woody Allen's Mighty Aphrodite. Kevin Spacey gives a good, almost leading, performance, but I'm not sure he deserved to win. At times, he's either boring or forcing the line reading.

My rating for the film: 7/10. Some good action shit, but overrated and less spectacular than promoted.

Raintree County (1957)

A graduating poet/teacher falls in love with a Southern woman, and then the Civil War and her past create problems. [imdb]

Nominated for 4 Oscars:

Best Actress: Elizabeth Taylor
Best Original Score
Best Art Direction
Best Costume Design

This is the first of Elizabeth Taylor's 5 Best Actress nominations (4 of which are consecutive, starting with this one). Unfortunately the film, which is a wannabe epic Gone with the Wind style, is a huge flop and for most part a waste of time, camera work and potential. It's not an epic, but a badly acted, directed, written film lacking the fluidity it needs to put some sense into the story.

The technical nominations are worthy, I guess. Elizabeth's is not the real leading character, but the problem is that she benefits of such terrible screenplay, storyline, all cheesy, putting the fatal mark on her performance. She's not THAT bad, but her performance is replaceable & unspectacular, even though it's nice to see a pretty face onscreen. Montgomery Clift is as boring as always, but I forgive him because during the filming of this he had the infamous car accident that left him a drug addict. The direction of the film sucks, just like the Civil War scenes. And don't get me started on the screenplay...

My rating for the film: 3/10. Easy to watch, but too superficial to be taken seriously. And they've even made Eva Marie Saint seem annoying.

Apollo 13 (1995) (2nd time)

True story of the moon-bound mission that developed severe trouble and the men that rescued it with skill and dedication. [imdb]

Nominated for 9 Oscars:

Best Picture
Best Supporting Actor: Ed Harris
Best Supporting Actress: Kathleen Quinlan
Best Adapted Screenplay
Best Original Score
Best Art Direction
Best Editing (WINNER)
Best Visual Effects
Best Sound (WINNER)

Does a film get more American than this? That's not always a good thing, especially if you're an European watching it. Apollo 13 starts cheesy and ends cheesy, with the traditional happy ending all the way; you even get a cliffhanger every 5 minutes. The recipe is a cliche and I bet the story is not THAT faithful. But other than that: it's a good movie, done well.

The technical part is very good, not overcooked. The acting nominations are not worthy, but not bad either. Ed Harris gives a subtle unspectacular performance and Kathleen plays the wife and gets sh!t from the screenplay; but she's a nice screen presence, her eyes are expressive, yet nothing to work with. Apollo 13 did deserve a best director nomination, but not a Best Picture win. Tom Hanks is good, but he's had much much better roles. I look at what I wrote and I get the false impression I didn't like it. I enjoyed it! A lot at times! All the space scenes are impressive through their... clarity! Ron Howard kept it clean and that's great.

My rating for the film: 7.5/10. An enjoyable film, less blockbuster than one might think and NOT a visual effects driven movie.

Il Postino (1994/95)

A simple Italian postman learns to love poetry while delivering mail to famous poet Pablo Neruda; he uses this to woo local beauty Beatrice. [imdb]

Nominated for 5 Oscars:

Best Picture
Best Director: Michael Radford
Best Actor: Massimo Troisi
Best Adapted Screenplay
Best Original Score (WINNER)

I think this film got a reputation for 2 reasons that are actually interconnected. First: its leading actor died of a heart attack less than a day after the filming ended. And second: I still don't understand (and I bet I'm not the only one) how a small Italian film released in 1994 and in the USA in June 1995, without any big names attached to it, ignored by the Golden Globes, with an unknown director and a very slow story received Oscar nominations for Best Picture and Best Director!!! I think it's one of the most confusing Oscar nominations of its decade.

The film itself is not bad. It's just that it's sooooooo slow in the first hour. And I don't have a problem with foreign language film, I actually understand a bit of Italian. But there's nothing going on and Massimo Troisi's acting goes from bad to confusing to plain ordinary. He does get much better towards the end of the film, but I suspect the nomination can be justified just by the tragic story surrounding the actor (and the fact that the category had 2 empty seats). Not worthy. The direction is fine, again, especially in the ending, but not worthy of a nomination (not when Ang Lee, Ron Howard and Scorsese were ignored that year).

There's nothing to hate about this film, except for Troisi's acting in the first part. The last 30 minutes go from good to very good to a spectacular unexpected ending; and quite emotional. I do suspect it was the ending that got the voters. The adapted screenplay nomination is fine with me, also the win for Best Original Score (I can't decide between this music and the one from Braveheart).

My rating for the film: 7/10. Boring, slow, but with a very good last chapter. Yet, mostly overrated.

The Three Faces of Eve (1957)

A doctor treats a woman suffering from Multiple Personality Disorder. [imdb]

Nominated for 1 Oscar:

Best Actress: Joanne Woodward (WINNER)

I look at the poster on the right and the woman looks nothing like Joanne Woodward :D these marketing guys are terrible. Other than that, I must admit I have a thing for Joanne. It's not sexual; and I don't think it's based on her acting talent, as I've only seen 5-6 movies of hers (but she's a great actress, still). I find her face to be fascinating; her eyes are some of the most gorgeous I've ever seen. She has an exotic feel (especially in her 60s movies) and she looks like someone I'd admire and respect. Somehow, most of her characters seem to be a bit whinny, but in the sweetest & most delicious way. I just want to hug her. :D

Getting back to the film: it's like a docudrama and it's based (though I'm not sure how accurate) on real events. The film is rather short, simple, nothing that special about. Truth is Eve depends entirely on Joanne's performance; based on the story construction, it's almost a one woman show. And she delivers, even though I didn't LOVE the performance. It's a tough role to play and multiple personality is not the type of subject I enjoy. But Joanne did her best and most importantly she made it look believable. The Oscar win might be worthy. And as I think of it now... the role sounds crazy baity, but it's not THAT flashy. I must also congratulate her for making all 3 personalities look distinctive; it really is a great achievement. (My favorite one was Eve Black, the naughty :P ).

My rating for the film: 7/10. Hard to rate.

Prizzi's Honor (1985) (2nd time)

A professional hit man and a hit woman fall in love, only to discover that they have each been hired to kill the other. [imdb] This is the imdb plot; the subject is actually more complicated.

Nominated for 8 Oscars:

Best Picture
Best Director: John Huston
Best Actor: Jack Nicholson
Best Supporting Actor: William Hickey
Best Supporting Actress: Anjelica Huston (WINNER)
Best Adapted Screenplay
Best Costume Design
Best Editing

I don't think I've ever seen Jack Nicholson give such an AWFUL performance; why didn't I remember it the first time?! It's not just that he's too old for the part, but... he has no idea what he's doing! His face expressions are ridiculous and he's usually so good with comedy. All those critics awards he's won for this... what were they thinking?! I'm starting to understand why William Hurt won Best Actor that year; such a weak category.

Surprisingly enough, the acting was generally disappointing, with one exception: William Hickey does an excellent job as the head of the Prizzi Family - he's perfectly cast and very good, in a difficult comedic role. He probably deserved to win. The director's daughter, Anjelica Huston, a much lesser-known actress back then, won the Oscar as a tricky mafia daughter. The win is totally undeserving; you can see the lack of experience all through the performance; and when you think she won over brilliant Oprah Winfrey in The Color Purple...

The film has its bad parts, mostly involving Jack Nicholson's flirting scenes from the beginning; I'm not kidding, he's THAT bad. Kathleen Turner is mediocre and the first half just doesn't work. But the second part... something delicious about it: the dark humour takes over and the last 30 minutes are energetic & very interesting.

My rating for the film: 7.5/10. I'm mostly being generous, it probably deserves less.

It Happened One Night (1934)

A spoiled heiress, running away from her father, is helped by a man who's actually a reporter looking for a story. But then he falls for her... [imdb]

Nominated for 5 Oscars:

Best Picture (WINNER)
Best Director: Frank Capra (WINNER)
Best Actor: Clark Gable (WINNER)
Best Actress: Claudette Colbert (WINNER)
Best Writing, Adaptation (WINNER)

It Happened One Night is not just the 7th film to win Best Picture, but also one of only 3 films to ever win the 5 major Oscars: picture, director, screenplay, actor & actress. And it's an interesting film, probably ahead of its time. When I first think of it, I find it to be a bit too light, too soft for a BP winner. It's a comedy, with a very simple story. But the fact that it does function so well on all levels makes it the great, memorable film it is.

I've heard it campaigned as a screwball comedy; it's not, as I don't think it's wacky enough. The film is more romantic; the comedy comes just after the middle of the film and it's good to have it there, but there's nothing hilarious in the story. I did laugh in the hitchhiking scene, which is very funny.

The films works well do to a great chemistry between Gable and Colbert. Both of them are good, especially Claudette, who's not just gorgeous (look at that perfect face!), but also super talented. The screenplay is light, but written well and the direction is simple, supporting the story and the actors. There really isn't anything bad to say about it; it's a very good film, more entertaining in the 2nd half. It probably did deserve all those Oscars.

My rating for the film: 8.5/10. A bit too much, but it's smart feel good and Claudette is charming.

Braveheart (1995) (2nd time)

William Wallace, a commoner, unites the 13th Century Scots in their battle to overthrow English rule. [imdb]

Nominated for 10 Oscars:

Best Picture (WINNER)
Best Director: Mel Gibson (WINNER)
Best Original Screenplay
Best Cinematography (WINNER)
Best Original Score
Best Costume Design
Best Editing
Best Sound
Best Sound Effects (WINNER)
Best Makeup (WINNER)

There are two sides to Braveheart. First: it's a homophobic, xenophobic, historically very inaccurate film. On the other hand: it's a well directed film with a good technical part, with memorable fighting scenes and a beautiful cinematography. So, one should choose for himself.

The original score and the cinematography are terribly good and the technical wins and nominations seem justified. Other than that: the acting is mediocre and the romantic side of the film sucks. I think the screenplay is overrated bullshit, from the character clichés to the huge lack of respect for the historical facts. Oh yeah: and everybody is so patriotic and it's so cool to day on the battlefield. I do think this film has its own target; and maybe I'm not included. :P But truth is: Mel Gibson knows how to direct! He didn't deserve the Oscar, nor did the film deserve Best Picture. But I must hand it to him that parts of Braveheart were very well directed. I don't want to leave the impression I hated the movie; it was enjoyable at times and the cinematography was a delight.

My rating for the film: 7/10. A bit too much, considering how paper thin the story really is.

Amadeus (1984) (2nd time)

The incredible story of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, told in flashback mode by Antonio Salieri - now confined to an insane asylum. [imdb]

Nominated for 11 Oscars:

Best Picture (WINNER)
Best Director: Milos Forman (WINNER)
Best Actor: F. Murray Abraham (WINNER)
Best Actor: Tom Hulce
Best Adapted Screenplay (WINNER)
Best Cinematography
Best Art Direction (WINNER)
Best Costume Design (WINNER)
Best Editing
Best Sound (WINNER)
Best Makeup (WINNER)

You can tell right from the beginning this is a big, important film. It's a great story told in an interesting manner and it keeps you connected. The music of course is overwhelming, but in a good way. Mozart sounds miraculous and you get to hear lots of his pieces. Of course, this is not a true story, but it contains a lot of real stuff and as it's told through the perspective of one man: subjectiveness should be allowed.

The film has what I would call a classical direction: clean storytelling & direction, but done very well and which gives an intelligent feeling to the film. It looks serious and it's impecable from a technical point of view; I was especially impressed by the costume design, there's a mourning/funeral dress at the end that blew me away. The actors are all great and it's very difficult for me to choose between Abraham (Salieri) and Tom Hulce (Mozart); they are both leading men, very different roles, but excellent both of them. I can easily say the film also deserved its other wins, including Picture, Director & Screenplay. It really is a grandiose film.

My rating for the film: 9/10. It's more of a 8.5, but what the hell; this is my genre.

Sense and Sensibility (1995) (3rd time?)

Mr. Dashwood dies, leaving his second wife and her daughters poor by the rules of inheritance. It's about the stories of two very different sisters. Based on the novel by Jane Austen. [imdb]

Nominated for 7 Oscars:

Best Picture
Best Actress: Emma Thompson
Best Supporting Actress: Kate Winslet
Best Adapted Screenplay (WINNER)
Best Cinematography
Best Original Score
Best Costume Design

I hadn't seen this in years, and last night I wanted something pleasant, British, easy to watch. And it was all that and more, because S&S is a charming film. First of all, I didn't remember the screenplay to be that well written. Congratulations to Emma Thompson for winning a much deserved screenplay Oscar; her adaptation is beautiful and not boring at all.

And she's also great with her acting, of course. Even though a bit old for the part, she gives a very good performance, establishing herself as one of the most important actresses of the 90s. Young Kate Winslet is ok, good, but her performance felt a bit exagerated at times; yet she's a nice presence in the film. The rest of the supporting cast is great and the entire production looks serious. Ang Lee should have received a Best Director nomination and the film itself deserved to win Best Picture (out of the 5 nominated).

I love the 2005 adaptation of Pride & Prejudice, it's an alltime favorite. Sense and Sensibility is also very good, but in a different way; it's more mature, with a story that feels more complicated but also more structured. Great achiviements both.

My rating for the film: 9/10. It just makes me happy.

Lorenzo's Oil (1992)

A boy develops a disease so rare that nobody is working on a cure, so his father decides to learn all about it and tackle the problem himself. [imdb]

Nominated for 2 Oscars:

Best Actress: Susan Sarandon
Best Original Screenplay

This is the last performance I needed to see for my other blog's Best Actress 1992. I've always had a feeling that I had already seen this film. I had seen parts of it on tv and, let's be honest, most of them are all the same so you're left with a sensation of familiarity. And Lorenzo's Oil is no big exception. It actually has a striking television feel to it; I've written some tv screenplays and this one needed a bit more edge to justify the cinema release.

The first 20 minutes are hard to sit through. Two negative elements hit you right from the start: first, the overuse of classical music, which is way way way too much in the beginning, it shows they's trying to hard to impress and made me curious what was the director thinking?! Second, Nick Nolte's HORRIBLE italian accent! The Razzie people should've done something about it!

Susan's performance is good and above the material. Even though it's a true (and really remarkable) story, the roles are clichés. There isn't that much for her to do except cry when she's needed, keep a balanced performance, show some anger and elevate the emotional moments. For sure, it deserved the nomination, but a win for such a thin role would've been too much.

My rating for the film: 6.5/10. It's an impressive story and an ok & rather predictable film.

The Bad Seed (1956)

An ideal housewife begins to suspect her loving adolescent daughter may be a heartless killer. [imdb]

Nominated for 4 Oscars:

Best Actress: Nancy Kelly
Best Supporting Actress: Eileen Heckart
Best Supporting Actress: Patty McCormack
Best Cinematography, Black-and-White

I keep getting these great movies! The subject of The Bad Seed does not really fit my taste. Thinking of a demonic child brings me memories of a certain Macaulay Culkin movie. But this one is far from being a cliché. First of all, it seems way ahead of its time. Second, it’s not the little girl who gets the centre-stage, but her conflicted mother and we follow her desperation as she realizes what a cold blood killer she’s been raising.

The 3 main Oscar nominations are crazy deserving. I had doubts about the mostly unknown Nancy Kelly, but boy did she prove me wrong. Her leading performance is one of the best of the decade and she would've deserved to win the Oscar! The role is very very difficult as it requires her to go through a wide area of emotions. Her face is very expressive and it helps us understand the moral dilemma of the character.

The supporting actresses are both worthy of a win. The casting of Patty McCormack as the perfect little girl is dead on. She was probably 9 or 10 while filming this, but her acting is much more mature than you’d think. A huge achievement is her capacity of carrying long, unedited (!!!), highly tensioned scenes. Eileen Heckart plays the drunken mother of a dead boy; she gets two scenes, the second of which is rather redundant. But she’s that believable in the role and crazy emotional, that you fall for it and sympathize with this poor woman.

My rating for the film: 9/10. The last scene is a bit debatable :) but The Bad Seed is a thrill to watch, a really mature thriller with unbelievable acting.

Alfie (1966)

Alfie tells the story of a young man who leads a promiscuous lifestyle until several life reversals make him rethink his purposes and goals in life. [wiki]

Nominated for 5 Oscars:

Best Picture
Best Actor: Michael Caine
Best Supporting Actress: Vivien Merchant
Best Adapted Screenplay
Best Original Song

Wow, wow, wow. I so didn’t expect this film to be THAT GOOD. Forgetting that the film is 95% crazy misogynistic, this is some serious piece of acting, directing & overall production. Sorry haters, but I didn’t feel offended at all. The screenplay is just brilliant and the decision to sometimes break the 4th wall (talk directly to the camera) fits perfectly the spirit of the film.

Now I really know why Michael Caine is considered one of the best actors of the last 40-50 years. His performance is excellent, making it one of the best male performances ever (really!); I’m not sure if it’s even his best one, as I find it hard to choose between this and his brilliance in Sleuth. I can't believe A Man for All Seasons (which I’ve seen) won all those Oscars and nothing for Alfie. The storytelling is excellently thought and the film is very captivating. Vivien Merchant gives a good Oscar nominated performance, but she’s just one of the many supporting actresses from the film.

My rating for the film: 9/10. What I would’ve done differently was probably change the last 5-10 minutes, not that it has a bad ending. A surprising, unpredictable film that should be considered a classic.

Cat Ballou (1965)

A woman seeking revenge for her murdered father hires a famous gunman, but he's very different from what she expects. [imdb]

Nominated for 5 Oscars:

Best Actor: Lee Marvin (WINNER)
Best Original Screenplay
Best Music, Scoring, Adaptation or Treatment
Best Original Song
Best Editing

Young Jane Fonda was so hot! This is some kind of a breakthrough performance for her and you know what? she really delivers. There’s not just the hotness going on, but she also proves great dramatic and comedy timing. Of course, this being a western comedy, the role doesn’t demand that much. But anyhow, the acting is good all the way.

The film is light, entertaining and quite funny at times. Lee Marvin won his Oscar for a double performance, but mostly for playing a washed up cowboy, a drunken loser hired by Cat Ballou to defend her father. Lee Marvin’s win is debatable and complicated to take sides. On one hand, the role is almost supporting and the film isn’t really about him. On the other hand, his comedic performance is creative and fabulous at times. Even so, the Academy rarely (almost never) gives a Best Actor Oscar to a comedy role.

My rating for the film: 7.5/10. It’s fun to watch, relaxing and the screenplay does have some smart moments.

Love Field (1992)

1963. A good spirited woman desperate to get to JFK's funeral crosses paths with a black man and his daughter, creating drama in their lives. [imdb]

Nominated for 1 Oscar:

Best Actress: Michelle Pfeiffer

This small film gave me quite a surprise. I expected it to be a pain to watch, but at points it was really enjoyable and thrilling. So it was a nice surprise, and I would say the film itself is better than Michelle's performance. The story is dramatic, it's the type of storyline that would normally annoy me, with bad shit happening to good people. But it's not crazy disturbing, as I would've been upset if they would've gone too far.

It's a film about racism, loneliness and dealing with emotional pain. Dennis Haysbert gives a wonderful performance as a man who just wants to take his daughter to safety and tries to keep calm as everything goes wrong around him. Michelle Pfeiffer is definitely a presence, but not always a stellar one. Her performance has good moments, but it lacks focus at times or she overdoes the southern accent. The nomination seems fair, but definitely not a win. I would've also nominated it for Best Original Screenplay.

My rating for the film: 7.5/10. It's good drama and those who've seen it probably love as much as I do the scenes from the old woman's house. The film would've probably been better known had Denzel Washington accepted the male part.

Inside Daisy Clover (1965)

Daisy Clover is a 15 year old Tomboy who dreams of being a Hollywood star. And she makes it, though it doesn't bring her happiness. [imdb]

Nominated for 3 Oscars:

Best Supporting Actress: Ruth Gordon
Best Art Direction, Color
Best Costume Design, Color

What a boring boring boring boring film. Really now. It's almost unwatchable. The idea is not bad, but the presentation is sooooooo slow and uninteresting; the screenplay doesn't go anywhere, the tone of the film is too serious & a mess and the direction is lacking, to say the best.

Who can buy the fact that 26-27 yo Natalie Wood is believable as a 15 yo tomboy?! Come on!!! She's way way too old for the part and it's visible throughout the film. The Oscar nominations aren't really worthy. Ruth Gordon won a Golden Globe and received an Oscar nom for playing her cuckoo old mother; this is so undeserving because she does nothing more than just sit around. She's an excentric presence, but that's it! Just awful.

There are two reasons why this is not getting a 2/10 from me. The first one: there's a 5 minute scene towards the end, after a certain character dies and Daisy is going to the studio to record some voice and she has a breakdown. The scene has a very dark mood to it and it reminded me of Mulholland Dr. It's very tense, though the situation doesn't require it to. The music is perfectly strange and the camera work great. The other reason is the final shot, with the burning house. But that's it. I swear it.

My rating for the film: 3/10. A bore fest with one single excellent scene.

Heaven Can Wait (1978)

A Los Angeles Rams quarterback, accidentally taken away from his body by an over-anxious angel before he was supposed to die, comes back to life in the body of a recently-murdered millionaire. [imdb]

Nominated for 9 Oscars:

Best Picture
Best Director: Warren Beatty & Buck Henry
Best Actor: Warren Beatty
Best Supporting Actor: Jack Warden
Best Supporting Actress: Dyan Cannon
Best Adapted Screenplay
Best Cinematography
Best Original Score
Best Art Direction (WINNER)

I usually give 6, 7 or 7.5 to films that are either very good & impressive but also have terribly wrong elements OR are just somewhere in the middle with almost everything they have to show. Heaven Can Wait falls in the second category. It’s boring at times, but still relaxing to watch, it’s impressive and surprising, but still not all the way.

The thing is: it doesn’t feel at all as Best Picture material. And I also don’t think it deserved nominations for Best Actor: Warren Beatty (not that much of a stretch), Best Supporting Actress: Dyan Cannon (nothing special), Best Direction (nothing revolutionary) and maybe not even for Adapted Screenplay. The film itself is rather light, but it’s a feel-good and some jokes are actually funny. The best performances come from Julie Christie and, unexpectedly, from Oscar nominated Jack Warden who gives the only touching, emotional performance. The big twist took me by surprise (as I haven’t seen the 1941 original) and lifted the rating with at least half a point. Oh yeah: and the Art Direction win is bullshit.

My rating for the film: 7.5/10. I am being generous, but I can’t find any major flaws to it and I did feel good at the end of the film, without it offending my intelligence.

Legend (1985/86) (2nd time)

A young man must stop the Lord of Darkness from both destroying daylight and marrying the woman he loves. [imdb]

Nominated for 1 Oscar:

Best Makeup

Truth be told: this film sucks. How can a director like Ridley Scott miss the mark on this? He wanted it to look artistic and charming and just like a fairytale. But it’s a boring movie with a decent technical part. The worst things about it: the screenplay & Tom Cruise.

I get it: it’s fantasy, but that’s no excuse for bad storytelling and poor writing decisions. I hate the screenplay and especially the convenient ending. Tom Cruise was young, had no idea how to act or that you need good teeth to be a leading man. The one reason this film needs to be watched is Tim Curry! The man is an underused, underrated genius!!! Helloooo, where’s his Oscar nomination?! His demonic performance is so iconic and dead on and the voice work: just brilliant. He’s a scary devil and that’s also due to the excellent Oscar-nominated makeup (it lost to The Fly, which sadly seems fair).

My rating for the film: 5/10. A 10 for Tim Curry, a 2 for the film without him; no math intended. But I can see how the LOTR people might have been a bit inspired by this, at least in the makeup department.

Cavalcade (1933)

A cavalcade of English life from New Year's Eve 1899 until 1933 seen through the eyes of well-to-do Londoners Jane and Robert Marryot. [imdb]

Nominated for 4 Oscars:

Best Picture (WINNER)
Best Director: Frank Lloyd (WINNER)
Best Actress: Diana Wynyard
Best Art Direction (WINNER)

The 6th Best Picture winner is a disaster. :) I can't even write about it. What's strange is that, judging by its subject, the story had lots of potential. It has a decent beginning and the ending was well performed. But truth be told: the film has no middle and NO real story to tell.

It's mistakenly promoted as some kind of a love story. It's not. It's also not an epic film, but a montage of various, uninteresting (!) moments from the life of a family. But the characters are so poorly constructed and the scenes so rushed and lacking any true emotion, that you DON'T give a damn what happens and you mostly go like: who the f*ck cares?! It didn't deserve any Oscar win, nor any nominations. Diana tries to act something, but she's got absolutely nothing to work with, especially in the 2nd part; but she really tries, and I'll hand that to her. I can only imagine this is the worst Best Picture winner ever, in my opinion; but we'll see.

My rating for the film: 3/10. Not less, because I don't hate it; but it did waste my time. Almost nothing to hold on to.

The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas (1982)

A town Sheriff fights to keep a historical whorehouse open when a TV preacher targets it as the Devils playhouse. [imdb]

Nominated for 1 Oscar:

Best Supporting Actor: Charles Durning

I am usually against films that glorify prostitution and encourage polygamy. Pretty Woman is the best example of such unfortunate gloryfication. Although this film can be included in such a category, it's light nonsense, so no one can take it seriously. First of all, it's a musical. It's loud. It's strange. It's vulgar.

The Oscar nomination was a fortunate accident, justified mostly by the fact that Charles Durning was a well-respected, never nominated actor. His role as the Governor is tricky & strange. He has one big musical moment and there's also lots of dancing in it, something that you'd never except to see him do. Strangely enough, the performance feels right. But I don't know if it was worthy of an Oscar nom, as it was a pretty strong category that year.

The best moments of the film and the ones worth judging come from Dolly Parton's performance. She has lots of musical moments and all you can look at are her boobs. But she gets two dramatic scenes that blow you away. The first one: her big fighting with Reynolds. The second one: the magical performance of the original version of I Will Always Love You!!!!! Dolly fairly lost the Golden Globe to Julie Andrew's iconic performance in Victor Victoria, but I dare to say that she was a serious contender for an Oscar nomination. :P

My rating for the film: 5/10. I'm being quite generous as the film is 90% sooo vulgar, trashy & brainless, yet entertaining. :) I give a big 10/10 to Dolly Parton's dramatic scenes, that really lift up the film. Oh yeah: and the ending is too sudden.


***I've made this montage for youtube with Dolly's best moments in the film, including her I Will Always Love You performance. In case you're interested:

Grand Hotel (1932)

Everything seems to be happening at the luxury Grand Hotel, from romance to robbery to an accidental death. [wiki]

Nominated for 1 Oscar:

Best Picture (WINNER)

The 5th Best Picture winner holds a very interesting record: it's the only BP winner with no other Oscar nominations. This would never happen today. Yet, it's an unfortunate trivia: the film deserved more nominations, at least for Best Director and Best Actress: Joan Crawford. Grand Hotel is not the masterpiece many critics want you to believe; but it's a good film, quite interesting and the first one to have a true ensemble cast!

That means 5 big names: Garbo, Crawford, the two Barrymore brothers and Berry. In a way, they're all supporting and the storylines aren't always interconnected. The screenplay has great parts, but also some that aren't so interesting. But I understand that it was difficult to write and what seems obvious now was quite revolutionary back then. It's not a film I love, but I admire its class and acting. Lionel Barrymore is great, Garbo is devine to look at, but Joan Crawford is the one to watch. I haven't seen almost any of her early films (from the 30s), so I was a bit surprised by how beautiful & talented she was. She gives a wonderful, likeable, flirty performance.

My rating for the film: 7.5/10. I might change my mind and give it more. There were some boring parts I can't get over. But anyway, it's a very interesting film, and possibly worthy of its win.

Indochine (1992) (2nd time)

It is the story of Éliane Devries, a French plantation owner, and of her adopted Vietnamese daughter, Camille, with the rising Vietnamese nationalist movement set as a backdrop. [wiki]

Nominated for 2 Oscars:

Best Foreign Language Film: France (WINNER)
Best Actress: Catherine Deneuve

It felt like it lasted forever. I've first seen it about 2 years ago and it was actually a bit better the second time around. I wouldn't have given it a second chance, but I will write about Deneuve's Best Actress nomination for the other blog. Indochine is a serious film and, technically, it's done very well. And I'm also counting on the fact that it's historically acurate.

The foreign language film nomination seems obvious. I'm not sure about the win, though. The film has an epic feel to it, but the story itself is flawed in many ways. Catherine Deneuve's performance is just ok and the rest of the actors are quite mediocre. Young Vincent Perez is gorgeous and a pleasure to look at, but his acting is so bad especially in the beginning. Ironically, the best part of the film has almost nothing to do with Deneuve; it's the 2nd part, focused on the adopted daughter, her lover & the communists. When there's action going on, the film is actually quite good.

My rating for the film: 7/10. Nice execution and history. Lovely landscape to look at. A very interesting perspective on the communist uprising. But the film will sometimes test your pacience.

Poseidon (2006)

On New Year's Eve, the luxury ocean liner Poseidon capsizes after being swamped by a rogue wave. The survivors are left to fight for survival as they attempt to escape the sinking ship. [imdb]

Nominated for 1 Oscar:

Best Visual Effects

I watched it just for the visual effects; and even those weren't that spectacular. I've seen the original (1972's The Poseidon Adventure) two or three years ago and it was great. This one is shit. I've read a comment of someone who said: with a 150 mill. $ budget, couldn't they've afforded a good screenplay?! And it's so true.

The screenplay is crap (I guess it was written in like... 2 days): it's predictable, the characters are very uninteresting (unlike the original), the dialogue is bullshit and it all feels cheesy. More important: you just can't believe it!!! It's way too exagerated and I know it wasn't meant to be so. The acting is mostly ignorable, maybe except for leading man Josh Lucas, but what can the poor guy do with such an empty story?! A plus for the film is the editing, which actually manages to create some intense moments. The direction, however, is a disaster of its own.

My rating for the film: 2.5/10. An unnecessary remake which really offends the viewer's inteligence. Those waves do a better job that the actors & crew.

Passion Fish (1992) (2nd time)

Soap actress May-Alice Culhane is paralyzed from the waist down in an accident. She returns to her old home in Louisiana, where she befriends her nurse Chantelle, whose stubbornness matches her own. [imdb]

Nominated for 2 Oscars:

Best Actress: Mary McDonnell
Best Original Screenplay

I've watched the film again for the other blog, where I'll soon discuss Mary's performance. The film itself is not bad, it has a Hallmark touch, but if so - it is more intelligent that the average. The film starts as being May-Alice's battle with her paralysis, but ends up as a film about an unusual friendship between two ex-addicts.

The performances are quite good. Actually, I didn't remember Alfre Woodard giving such a rich, emotional supporting performance. I think she was the runner-up for an Oscar nomination. Unfortunately, she didn't get it. Mary is good, very good, but the screenplay & character don't give her the opportunity to be excellent. However, in a pretty weak year like '92 was, it's a worthy nomination. Same with Best Original Screenplay - weak category, but it deserved the nomination.

My rating for the film: 7/10. Today they'd send this type of film straight to tv. It's good, but vanilla.

Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back (1980) (2nd time)

While Luke takes advanced Jedi training from Yoda, his friends are relentlessly pursued by Darth Vader as part of his plan to capture Luke. [imdb]

Nominated for 3* Oscars:

Best Original Score
Best Art Direction
Best Sound (WINNER)
*Special Achievement Award/Oscar for Visual Effects (*WINNER*)

The film had no competition for Best Visual Effects, so a category was not created; that's why it received a special Oscar. Empire Strikes Back is superior to the previous Star Wars, judging by the visual effects; they are better made and more creative, playing with all kinds of constructions. Many consider this sequel to be a better movie than the original; not me.

It's not that there's a big problem with Empire.... It actually has more Darth Vader in it (yaaay!), it introduces the Sith & Yoda and the Art Direction is superb. Another huge achievement is John Williams's excellent music, especially the distinctive Darth Vader theme. So, lots of pluses, but I found the original story of the 1st film more... compelling; more attractive and exciting. I love Empire... and I think it should've won all the Oscars it was nominated for. But the 1977 one was a bit better.

My rating for the film: 8.5/10. A science fiction classic.

Star Wars (1977) (3rd time?)

Luke Skywalker leaves his home planet, teams up with other rebels, and tries to save Princess Leia from the evil clutches of Darth Vader. [imdb]

Nominated for 10* Oscars:

Best Picture
Best Director: George Lucas
Best Supporting Actor: Alec Guinness
Best Original Screenplay
Best Original Score (WINNER)
Best Editing (WINNER)
Best Art Direction (WINNER)
Best Costume Design (WINNER)
Best Visual Effects (WINNER)
Best Sound (WINNER)
*Special Achievement Oscar for Best Sound Effects (*WINNER*)

There's one thing I can say about 1977's Best Picture race: please don't make me choose between Star Wars, Annie Hall and The Goodbye Girl. There's all so excellent. Star Wars has always been an alltime favorite. It's not a serious science-fiction like Kubrick's 2001, but it's fun, it has a good story, great visual effects and it changed its genre forever. So keep in mind it's a guilty pleasure of mine.

The fact that it got nominated for Best Picture is an achievement of its own. It doesn't happen to that many SF movies (actually, the only one I can think of right now is E.T. Are there more?). Star Wars is fun and it's somewhat of a fairytale. The key to this type of film is to have great villains. And they got it right: Darth Vader is one of my favorite villains ever. He's so cool, and dark and intriguing. The technical part of the film is almost perfect, so all the Oscars are worthy. Alec Guinness gives a good, difficult performance (it can always turn into a joke if it's not done right), Harrison Ford is hot & funny and Chewbacca is an icon :D

I can tell you right now that good SF/fantasy movies aren't easy to write, especially when you have to invent most of the names, traditions, nations. So, the screenplay nomination is worthy, same with the one for Best Director. Let's not forget that this is the type of adventure that could've easily turned into a flop; but not under Lucas' direction. Yes, the film has a cheesy ending and Carrie Fisher often feels out of place. But I like it, it's always fun to watch and I think it's the best Star Wars ever made.

My rating for the film: 9/10. And don't tell me R2-D2 was not an inspiration for Wall E...

Cimarron (1931)

A newspaper editor settles in an Oklahoma boom town with his reluctant wife at the end of the nineteenth century. [imdb]

Nominated for 7 Oscars:

Best Picture (WINNER)
Best Director: Wesley Ruggles
Best Actor: Richard Dix
Best Actress: Irene Dunne
Best Writing, Adaptation (WINNER)
Best Cinematography
Best Art Direction (WINNER)

7 nominations are a lot for those days, when there weren't that many categories. Actually the only category it wasn't nominated for was Original Writing, which couldn't have been possible. So one could say it was nominated in every category. But truth be told: the 4th Best Picture winner is not that much of a movie. :) Actually it ranks between the worst winners ever.

What starts out as a nice enjoyable western ends up as a silly, boring and cheesy drama. The last part was soooo naive and the ending so stupid :) whoever saw it knows what I mean. The leading man, Richard Dix, doesn't give a horrible performance, but he's the most annoying ass you'll ever see :D I don't know if it's him or his character, but he's so full of himself that's it hard to watch. I survived through the film by telling Irene Dunne: don't kiss him, b!tch! Slap him in the face! Can't you see how smug he is?!

This is the film that really introduced Irene Dunne to the world. Thank you for that and what a great actress she was. But not here! Yet I don't blame her, she didn't have much to do in the first place. The Art Direction win is well deserved, the writing one - not so much. Even if I haven't seen the competition, I don't think it should've won BP. It has its good moments, especially in the first part. When there's action, it's ok. When Richard Dicks starts talking, just roll your eyes! And his hair! A lot of unintentional humor.

My rating for the film: 4.5/10. I'm being quite generous.

Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005) (2nd time)

After three years of fighting in the Clone Wars, Anakin Skywalker concludes his journey towards the Dark Side of the Force, putting his friendship with Obi Wan Kenobi and his marriage at risk. [imdb]

Nominated for 1 Oscar:

Best Makeup

Another desired moment of brainless fun. The difference is that Episode III is actually quite a good movie; for someone who knows both trilogies. And I'm sure it wasn't easy to make, as the film has to fill the gaps and make a connection with Episode IV, the 1977 Star Wars. It works out pretty well and it's always more enjoyable when you have to deal with the Dark Side.

The biggest handicap of the film is of course Hayden Christensen (and not just because he deservedly won another Razzie); everytime he's on screen, the film's quality drops a couple of points. The best performance is by far given by Ian McDiarmid, playing senator Palpatine/The Sith; he's so evil and excellent at it. It's a tricky role to play and he does it perfectly; I would even say he deserved an Oscar nomination for this. He's great.

The Oscar nomination for Best Makeup is well deserved and it should have actually won it. This is also the only Star Wars film not to receive a nomination/special award for Best Visual Effects. That's a pitty, because the effects were excellent (also the battle scenes), much better than the ones from Episode II. So boooo on you Academy, for instead nominating talking animals from Narnia.

My rating for the film: 7.5/10. I thought of being generous. What? Come on, it was fun and far more interesting than episodes 1 and 2.

All Quiet on the Western Front (1930)

A young German soldier faces profound disillusionment in the soul-destroying horror of World War I. [imdb]

Nominated for 4 Oscars:

Best Picture (WINNER)
Best Director: Lewis Milestone (WINNER)
Best Writing
Best Cinematography

The 3rd Best Picture winner is a very fine adaptation of Erich Maria Remarque's famous novel. It's an interesting experience to watch it, as it's nice to see the story from a German perspective (it reminded me a bit of Letters from Iwo Jima and the Japanese view on the WWII battle). As a war film, it's excellent. As a movie experience in general, it's good. There are 3 or 4 aspects worth mentioning.

First one is that Lew Ayres, playing the young leading man Paul, gives a very good perfromance, touching and dramatic, especially considering this was just his 2nd big role and he was a 21 year old actor. I think he would've deserved a nomination. Another surprising fact for me was what they could get away with while doing a film in the 1920s and 30s. I didn't expect the brief male nudity shown here (you can see the boys' behinds while they're in the water bathing and swimming) :D I've noticed this type of freedom also in the previous BP winner (The Broadway Melody), where they showed women in their underwear :D I'm just mentioning it because I don't think such nudity would've been allowed in the 1940s or 50s American cinema.

There are one or two battle scenes that are quite impressive. I think Milestone did a very good job directing, so his Oscar is well deserved. And although I haven't seen its contenders, I would say that the film does look like a Best Picture winner should, having both the buzz factor (the importance), but also the quality. It's very touching at times and, unlike previous winner Wings, it has a strong message against war, definitely not glorifying it. I actually almost cried during a battle scene, to be honest :)

The film doesn't work that well when the fighting's not happening, showing flaws in the adaptation of this great novel. Looking at the poster, one might think that guy is the leading actor. Actually, I have no idea who that is. :) It's true. I think I might have seen him for like 2 minutes in the film, but I can't explain their decision to put him on the poster. Can someone explain?? Maybe they felt like giving an anonymous face to the soldiers represented in this film. I don't know.

My rating for the film: 8/10. I disagree with the ending which doesn't include the title of the film, as the book does. It's a smart explanation and I doubt everyone watching the film understood it, as they didn't bother to include it.

Bullets Over Broadway (1994) (2nd time)

In 1920s New York, a struggling playwright is forced to cast a mobster's talentless girlfriend in his latest drama in order to get it produced. [imdb]

Nominated for 7 Oscars:

Best Director: Woody Allen
Best Supporting Actor: Chazz Palminteri
Best Supporting Actress: Jennifer Tilly
Best Supporting Actress: Dianne Wiest (WINNER)
Best Original Screenplay
Best Art Direction
Best Costume Design

Bang! Bang! I just wish some films could get (even) better when you see them the 2nd time around. Bullets... is one of those very smart Woody Allen comedies. It's deliciously written and the acting is excellent all around. I wanted to like it more the 2nd time because it seems to have the perfect recipe for a knock out film. I still found it good, but not great.

The strength of the film lies in its actors. Dianne Wiest is BRILLIANT as the vain actress Helen Sinclair and her win is one of the most deserved ones that this category's ever had. Her dialogue is so difficult and such a challenge, but because she's always in control the result is a classic performance. Also excellent is her fellow nominee Jennifer Tilly playing the annoying Olive, the mobster's girl. She gets the most comedy of the film and delivers a fun, memorable performance. I guess this is why Woody received the Best Director nomination: for being able to direct an ensemble cast towards greatness.

Palminteri's nomination is quite an unusual one, but I accept it. I know many loved his performance, I thought it was just ok. John Cusack, Tracey Ullman and Jim Broadbent are also very good. All the nominations seem worthy: I actually think it should've won Best Costume Design, because the characters look so glamorous and Dianne Wiest's dresses are all fabulous. I'm not sure if it should've won Original Screenplay, because it was a very very tough category with Pulp Fiction and Four Weddings and a Funeral being nominated.

My rating for the film: 8.5/10. It's a great achievement, very intellectual and fun to watch. Dianne Wiest rules!

Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002) (2nd time)

Anakin Skywalker shares a forbidden romance with Padmé Amidala while his teacher, Obi-Wan Kenobi, makes an investigation of a separatist assassination attempt on Padmé which leads to the discovery of a secret Republican clone army. [imdb]

Nominated for 1 Oscar:

Best Visual Effects

Here's the truth: I was tired at 1 am and I wanted an fx driven movie that won't require much brain activity; just some science fiction and some outrageously stupid screenplay. And I got what I was looking for. And you know what? Even though objectively it's a bad film (it even has 7 Razzie nominations!), it was fun to watch and relaxing.

The screenplay is terrible: what were they thinking?! The dialog is awful and the story is dumb and filled with plot holes. The film itself seemed unbearable until the fighting started. It wasn't that spectacular, but at least there wasn't anyone talking. By the way: the special effects aren't that good at all. The fact that LOTR: The Two Towers won that category is a no brainer. Christopher Lee is the only cool actor and Ewan McGregor actually tries to act something. The big revelation, Hayden Christensen is sooooo bad that's it's actually funny to watch his serious scenes; that Razzie win for Worst Supporting Actor (even though he's lead) is much much deserved.

My rating for the film: 3.5/10. It's mostly crap but I enjoyed the big battle towards the end.

The Sound of Music (1965) (3rd time)

A woman leaves an Austrian convent to become a governess to the 7 children of a Naval officer widower. [imdb]

Nominated for 10 Oscars:

Best Picture (WINNER)

Best Director: Robert Wise (WINNER)

Best Actress: Julie Andrews

Best Supporting Actress: Peggy Wood

Best Cinematogaphy, Color

Best Adapted Music (WINNER)

Best Art Direction, Color

Best Costume Design, Color

Best Sound (WINNER)

Best Editing (WINNER)

It really is one of the best known / most seen musicals of all times. In a way, that's highly justified: the songs are wonderful, catchy and memorable. It's also considered a family movie: the songs & the funny childish stuff for the kids and the love story & Nazi plotline for the parents. It's a feel good movie and one of the last Hollywood musical hits.

And what's interesting about it is that its fame has nothing to do with it winning the Oscar for Best Picture. Did it deserve it? Not really, but being such a feel good and (some might say) complete movie, the decision seems rather justified. Julie Andrews is superb, as always (but I'll write about her this week on the other blog). The children can be a bit annoying, but ignorable and Christopher Plummer was better than expected. Seeing it through my adult eyes, I find it less fun than when I was a kid, but still very enjoyable and great light entertaining. The direction is just fine and the technical part very good.

My rating for the film: 8/10. The songs are a dealbreaker here. If you have them on your computer and listen to them very often, than you'll understand my rating. If not, you'd probably be less generous.

SPECIAL RANKING

BEST PICTURE 1965 & BEST DIRECTOR 1965

Now that I've seen all the 1965 nominated films for Best Picture and Best Director, I'm gonna rank the nominees from Most Deserving to Least. [If you'll scroll down to the other posts, you'll find the profile of each of these films.]

BEST PICTURE

1. Darling

2. The Sound of Music

3. Doctor Zhivago

4. Ship of Fools

5. A Thousand Clowns

3 months ago I would've had Zhivago as #1. In my opinion, A Patch of Blue would've deserved the nomination and the win. But that's just me. None of them are excellent, but the first 4 are quite good movies, from various reasons and with different flaws.

BEST DIRECTOR

1. Hiroshi Teshigahara - Woman in the Dunes

2. John Schlesinger - Darling

3. David Lean - Doctor Zhivago

4. Robert Wise - The Sound of Music

5. William Wyler - The Collector

Tough call, with the first 2 being a head above the rest, but still very different directions to compare. 3 months ago I would've went for Lean. But all 5 are good, solid directions; so it's a great line-up. Actually, I would say the directions are better than the actual films.

The Broadway Melody (1929)

Harriet and Queenie Mahoney, a vaudeville act, come to Broadway, where their friend Eddie Kerns needs them for his number in one of Francis Zanfield's shows. [imdb]

Nominated for 3 Oscars:

Best Picture (WINNER)

Best Director: Harry Beaumont

Best Actress: Bessie Love

The 2nd Best Picture winner in Oscar history is a big bleah. It's actually some kind of an excuse to play one or two songs and show a couple of big stage dance numbers. It was difficult to watch, mostly because of the awful writing and the bad performances.

The only one who does something right (or at least really tries to) is Oscar nominated Bessie Love, playing the tough but always good hearted sister. She gets one or two good scenes that make for the only emotional stuff in the film. Other than that: blah blah blah. And the men (both the actors AND their characters): totally annoying and acting like idiots; how annoying was the leading man?! The dance numbers are ok, same for the costumes and the glittery stuff (interesting to see something Chicago-like done in its contemporary era).

My rating for the film: 4.5/10. Why am I being so f*cking generous?! I used to think Crash was the worst BP winner ever; I might change my mind.

Wings (1927)

Two young men, one rich, one middle class, who are in love with the same woman, become fighter pilots in World War I. [imdb]

Nominated for 2 Oscars:

Best Picture, Production (WINNER)

Best Effect, Engineering Effects (WINNER)

***This film has the distinction of being the first film to win the Oscar for Best Picture (in 1929); it's also the only silent film to ever win in this category. By mentioning it here, I'm announcing my intention to see all the Best Picture winners, mainly in chronological order, though exceptions will happen. Even if I've seen a certain BP winner already, I'll watch it again if I hadn't profiled it already here on the blog.

...And getting back to Wings: I was fooled by the fact that this was a silent film and I'm not that much of a fan. But don't make the same mistake I did: despite the shaky, naive beginning, this is an excellent war film. I'm telling you: I was shocked by the incredible camera work (!!!) and the visual effects are stunning! It took me by surprise. And I didn't expect the direction to be so cohesive; especially knowing that 27 years later, William Wellman also directed the shitty High and the Mighty.

The not so good part about this film: everything NOT connected to the war scenes. :) This is where it gets dated. But I've forgiven most of it; come on, it's been 82 years! The two men give decent performances and Clara Bow is gorgeous, sweet and touching! (it's funny how Clara, being the big star of those days, gets the top billing, even if she's obviously a supporting character). I would love to talk about the tragic events happening 15 minutes before the film's over, but I don't want to spoil it in case somebody's reading this; it was unexpectedly emotional, especially while it happens.

My rating for the film: 8/10. It's hard to rate a silent film, but I think 8 is right. I respect it, admire it, but don't love it. It's a must see, especially for the 2nd half. Way to start, Oscar! (no irony intended).

Sleepy Hollow (1999) (3rd time?)

Ichabod Crane is sent to Sleepy Hollow to investigate the decapitations of 3 people with the culprit being the legendary apparition, the Headless Horseman. [imdb]

Nominated for 3 Oscars:

Best Cinematography
Best Art Direction (WINNER)
Best Costume Design

I've catched this on tv the other night. It's a film I've adored ever since I first saw it almost 10 years ago. It's probably my favorite Tim Burton film! I correct that: it's definitely, not probably. I've read something today: that the film has few in common with the original short story written 200 years ago. Honestly, I can't say I care, because the plot of Sleepy Hollow is so interesting & captivating I doubt it could've been much better.

If there is such a category, then I name Sleepy Hollow my favorite Gothic film. The mood of the film is so fascinating, and that's due to the excellent direction and the gorgeous cinematography from legendary Emmanuel Lubezki (who also shot The New World and Children of Men); the tones of gray are sublime. Actually, all the technical part is fabulous: the costume design, the art direction (a much much deserved Oscar!), the original score, the makeup, the fx, the editing. The performances are good, with a special mentioning for the short (but very memorable) performances given by Christopher Walken (!!!) and Miranda Richardson. And Christina Ricci looks better than ever.

It's rare that you find a film to satisfy both the blockbuster hunger in me (we all need a bit of action and scare once in a while), the desire for a great story and mystery (you have it here), the need to see something executed without technical flaws (perfect!) and to have something that's both a fantasy and a costume drama :D

My rating for the film: 9.5/10 I hesitated a bit. But I'm going with 9.5. Sleepy Hollow probably makes it in my Top 30 ever. A smart captivating fantasy, with style and class.

Rachel, Rachel (1968)

Rachel is a 35 year old school teacher who has no man in her life and lives with her mother. When a man from the big city returns and asks her out, she begins to have to make decisions about her life and where she wants it to go. [imdb]

Nominated for 4 Oscars:

Best Picture

Best Actress: Joanne Woodward

Best Supporting Actress: Estelle Parsons

Best Adapted Screenplay

This film was the directorial debut of Paul Newman (who in real life was Joanne Woodward's husband - for those not familiar with their bios). And it's a rather daring directing effort; however the Academy chose not to nominate him for Best Director - which caused quite a stir back then (because he had already won the Golden Globe AND the New York Film Critics Circle Award for this film); so it was considered a big snub.

Anyway, the film itself is not that good. I can see how it's ahead of its time, but if you dissect it you'll find that there's no real subject to it and, more damaging I would say, there's not really anything to love about it. I can respect the direction and Joanne's adequate (but not brilliant as some consider it) performance, but the leading character is such a mixed bag of emotions, and none that would really make you hope for her or at one point ever care about what happens.

I might be a bit too harsh on it. But it's slow, and not in that Ingmar Bergman good way. Estelle Parson's nominations is almost deserved; a win would've been absurd. I can see why some people would love this (rather impossible to find until this year) movie. They might fall for the artistic part. I myself was captivated by Rachel's daydreaming in the beginning, but too much of something is not always a good choice.

My rating for the film: 6/10. Maybe I could've went for less. I do terribly respect Newman's direction.

A Patch of Blue (1965) (2nd time)

A blind, uneducated white girl is befriended by a black man, who becomes determined to help her escape her impoverished and abusive home life. [imdb]

Nominated for 5 Oscars:

Best Actress: Elizabeth Hartman
Best Supporting Actress: Shelley Winters (WINNER)
Best Cinematography, Black-and-White
Best Original Score
Best Art Direction, Black-and-White

This is the film that introduced Elizabeth Hartman to the world (funny to see that her name is not on the poster, though she has the only leading character). This film is so touching and emotional and heartbreaking that I can't find the right words to express all that. I'm not sure if it can be described as a tearjerker, but if you like a good emotional story, SEE IT.

This film deserved AT LEAST a Best Picture nomination. Shockingly enough, it wasn't nominated for Screenplay or Director either. It's the story of Selina a blind innocent 18 yo girl who befriends a black man. It's such a pure and touching movie. The acting is great all the way: Elizabeth's take on Selina is excellent (even though she doesn't seem to have much emotion to desplay) and Shelley Winters gives a true Oscar worthy performance playing the evil abusive mother. Sidney Poitier is ok, but the film is not about him. The music is excellent (!!!) and the cinematography very relevant.

My rating for the film: 9/10. I'm not sure it's a film I'd want to see over and over again (that's why I though about giving it an 8.5); but it leaves such a strong impact once you see it (I was as moved when I 1st saw it 3 or 4 years ago), that you want to recommend it to everybody. See it.

***I've watched the film again because of the 1965 Best Actress profiles I'm doing on the other blog. I'll post soon about Elizabeth's performance.

A Thousand Clowns (1965)

A middle-aged man, doggedly avoiding the tedium of employment and conventional life, faces the prospect of losing custody of his young nephew. [imdb]

Nominated for 4 Oscars:

Best Picture
Best Supporting Actor: Martin Balsam (WINNER)
Best Adapted Screenplay
Best Music, Adapted

I'm not gonna write much. I just don't understand how this film received a Best Picture nomination. It's based on a play and the film keeps using the stagey mood; you also get piles of dialogue. Some of it it's good, but too much talking makes it an exhausting movie and difficult to sit through.

A Thousand Clowns is not funny. It's some kind of a dramedy. The performances are ok, but none spectacular. Jason Robards is the best, but his character is more dislikeable that anything else, so it's hard to give him proper credit. Barbara Harris gives a shaky debut performance and Martin Balsam is ok, quite good actually, but I don't think he deserved the Oscar win.

My rating for the film: 5.5/10. An intelligent, but way too slow movie. I can see it did wonders on stage, but it doesn't work that well on the big screen.

Other 1965 Best Picture nominees discussed here (clickable):

Darling
Doctor Zhivago
Ship of Fools

My Big Fat Greek Wedding (2002) (2nd time)

A young Greek woman falls in love with a non-Greek and struggles to get her family to accept him while she comes to terms with her heritage and cultural identity. [imdb]

Nominated for 1 Oscar:

Best Original Screenplay

I had difficulty deciding on how I should rate this film. First of all, I had no intention of seeing it again. I saw it like 5 or 6 years ago, I thought it was fun, but that's that. However, seeing an interview with Nia Vardalos made me go to youtube and check out the trailer again and I discovered later that the film can be watched online - so no effort. And I was tired and I wanted something easy to watch, Oscar nominated, that didn't require much brain activity. My Big Fat Greek Wedding is that film.

Its biggest problem is that the 2nd part (from the wedding announcement on) doesn't have the same sarcasm and comedy timing like the beginning. But overall it's a good screenplay and I think it deserved the nomination. If they would've cut down on the cheesy part it would've been much better. The acting is good, Nia Vardalos has a great acting debut (she's also the writer) and Lainie Kazan stands out from the crowd, charmingly playing the mother.

My rating for the film: 7/10. I thought of 7.5 first, but the film gets rather predictable and not as interesting. But a very relaxing light comedy.

You Can't Take It With You (1938)

The children of 2 very different families fall in love. But when the rich stuffy family meets the other good-natured but eccentric one, disaster ensues.

Nominated for 7 Oscars:

Best Picture (WINNER)
Best Director: Frank Capra (WINNER)
Best Supporting Actress: Spring Byington
Best Writing, Screenplay
Best Cinematography
Best Editing
Best Sound

I started watcing this film quite sure that I won't like it; I had seen a couple of scenes from it before, so I was familiar with its mood and story. However, I was part wrong: it's a sweet little movie, easy to watch and with a couple of laughs here and there.

It's not as wacky or screwball as they wanted it to be, and although it's a good movie, I'm not sure it deserved the Oscars for Best Picture and Best Director (I haven't seen the competition, so I really can't tell; however, it doesn't really feel like an... Oscar movie). The nomination for Best Supporting Actress is rather absurd as the actress playing one of the mothers does nothing else but sit around, with no big scenes and no subtle moves either. Lionel Barrymore (playing the grandfather of the crazy family) is quite great and he would've deserved a Best Actor nomination.

It's fun at times, very talkative (thaaaa, it's based on a play) and with lots of moral stuff in it. Jean Arthur (the blonde chick) is sweet and funny; James Stewart is ok, but rather ignorable. It's a film that has boring moments, but when it goes really nutty, you can spot one or two creative ideas that will actually make you laugh.

My rating for the film: 8/10. I'm being generouse; it's a feel good story.

Bugsy (1991) (2nd time)

The story of how Bugsy Siegel started Las Vegas. [imdb]

Nominated for 10 Oscars:

Best Picture
Best Director: Barry Levinson
Best Actor: Warren Beatty
Best Supporting Actor: Harvey Keitel
Best Supporting Actor: Ben Kingsley
Best Original Screenplay
Best Cinematography
Best Original Score
Best Art Direction (WINNER)
Best Costume Design (WINNER)

So not as good as I remembered it to be; fortunately enough, it was The Silence of the Lambs who won the Oscar for Best Picture. Bugsy is a fine drama, well done technicaly. The screenplay is ok, the direction is good, but I somehow... I don't like it. There's nothing attracting me to it, making me LOVE it, or at least an aspect of it.

If you'd ask me, Warren Beatty's performance is overrated. He's ok, maybe good, but that's it! My problem with him is his lack of generating true emotion and I can see moments in his performance when he did look lost, and it wasn't the character. Also, Annette Bening's performance is mediocre at best; I really can't see how she got a Globe nomination for it. The supporting actors are fine and the nominations (judging by a weak category) seem relevant.

I'm not sure if the wins for Art Direction and Costumes are fair. I seem to say only bad things about it: but as I've said, it's an ok movie that lacks that certain charm that would make you fall for it. It's not a biopic, and it's not a big budget drama. It's the story of a flawed man and his dream.

My rating for the film: 7/10. Hmmm. Am I being too generous?

The Landlord (1970)

At the age of twenty-nine, rich Elgar Enders "runs away" from home. This running away consists of buying a building in a black ghetto. [imdb]

Nominated for 1 Oscar:

Best Supporting Actress: Lee Grant

This one is a film I saw out of curiosity. And because (what a silly reason) it's rather difficult to find. Does that make it somewhat precious? :) hmmm, not really. It's a dramedy looking like an independent feature; it's also I think the directorial debut of Hal Ashby and probably some kind of movie vehicle for the rising star Beau Bridges (who is just adorable here).

The direction is daring and very playful, like any debut should be. The story is not that interesting, nor that funny. It has some moments of drama, but they're not heavy. The film always sticks in the middle, sometimes a bit higher than mediocrity. It's an easy watch. Lee Grant got her nomination for playing Elgar very excentric (often way too exagerately presented) mother. I'm not sure if her nomination is worthy; I tend to say yes, because I like wacky supporting characters and hers is memorable from the excentricity point of view.

My rating for the film: 6.5/10. A film you might like, but I doubt you'll love it.

Damage (1992) (2nd time)

A member of Parliament falls passionately in love with his son's fiancée. Lots of sex. [imdb]

Nominated for 1 Oscar:

Best Supporting Actress: Miranda Richardson

I'm not a fan of this highly pretentious British movie. It's drama, with lots of fucking in it: sometimes less justified. It's suppose to be very European, I guess; and it is, in some ways. It has a mysterious Juliette Binoche (nice looking, but her character's edge is not that believable, so her screen presence often comes as absurd) and a very horny Jeremy Irons, who tries to act, but what can you do when the screenplay is so... so... naive.

Oscar nominated Miranda Richardson is probably the only one giving a really good performance. Her madness scene towards the end is played with lots of skill, so the nomination is worthy, but a win would've been too much. An interesting thing about her: she was probably 33 when she filmed this, but in the movie she's meant to be like... 45+ I guess (as she has a 20 something son); strangely enough, you believe her.

My rating for the film: 5/10. Nice music and Miranda Richardson save it a bit.

Howards End (1992) (2nd time)

A man ignores his wife's deathbed wish to leave an estate to a woman friend. [imdb]

Nominated for 9 Oscars:

Best Picture
Best Director: James Ivory
Best Actress: Emma Thompson (WINNER)
Best Supporting Actress: Vanessa Redgrave
Best Adapted Screenplay (WINNER)
Best Cinematography
Best Original Score
Best Art Direction (WINNER)
Best Costume Design

Ever sincer since I first saw it, this film has been in my Top 50 ever. I might just keep it there. To me it's an almost perfect British drama: it has great performances, excellent technical work, sharp direction, a very interesting story and a good screenplay and... and it's a costume drama, as (I guess) the action takes place sometimes around the beginning of the 20th century.

All the Oscar nominations are well deserved. If it was up to me, it would've also won Best Picture, Best Director, Best Cinematography and Best Original Score. The cinematography in particular is breathtaking, perfectly capturing the gorgeous England landscape. The direction is subtle and reassuring and the two Oscar nominated performances dead-on. Emma Thompson gives one of her best performances ever, even if for most parts it's low key. And Vanessa... she on the screen just for the first 40 minutes (playing the woman who dies), but her character is a crucial one and her performance is, I dare to say, the most memorable. The only wrong casting choice for me was Anthony Hopkins: a rather weak performance with clumsy acting choices.

My rating for the film: 9/10. A very relaxing drama; some might find it boring, but I am spelled. It fills my heart with romance, grace and arrogance. :D

Woman in the Dunes (1964/65)

An amateur entomologist searching for insects by the sea is trapped by local villagers into living with a mysterious woman who spends almost all her time preventing her home from being swallowed up by advancing sand dunes. [imdb]

Nominated for 2 (1+1) Oscars:

Best Foreign Language Film: Japan (for 1964)
Best Director: Hiroshi Teshigahara (for 1965)

To explain that, it's something that the Academy doesn't allow anymore: for a film to get nominated in two different years, in one of them as representing its country for Foreign Language Film and in the next year for representing itself (judging by the American release date).

Now this is what I call and ART FILM. It's so unusual, so stylish, with excellent excellent excellent camera work and fascinating direction. Is it a film I would consider seing twice? I don't think so, but that doesn't take away the impact of the first watch. You can easily tell this one is a special film even from the first frames. The subject is so strange, but it gets to you; it's not a feel good movie, it's like a painting: intimidating to look at and I have lots of respect for it.

The only other auteur I can connect it with is some early Ingmar Bergman.

Of course it deserved the Best Director nomination. It would've even deserved the win, but the nomination itself is a huge achievement (as the Oscar has NEVER went to the director of a foreign language film; I think Ang Lee came closest with Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon). It also deserved many other nominations: like Best Actor, Best Cinematography (!!!), Best Editing, Best Sound, Best Adapted Screenplay...

My rating for the film: not sure :) I have no idea. I wish the ending would've been perfect, but it wasn't. I'll go with 8.5/10. I might move it to a 9 pretty soon. I don't love it, but I'm humble in front of this great achievement of moviemaking.

Doctor Zhivago (1965) (2nd time)

Life of a Russian doctor/poet who, although married, falls for a political activist's wife and experiences hardships during the Bolshevik Revolution. [imdb]

Nominated for 10 Oscars:

Best Picture:
Best Director: David Lean
Best Supporting Actor: Tom Courtenay
Best Adapted Screenplay (WINNER)
Best Cinematography, Color (WINNER)
Best Original Score (WINNER)
Best Art Direction, Color (WINNER)
Best Costume Design, Color (WINNER)
Best Sound
Best Editing

An epic film in David Lean style; just not as good as Lawrence of Arabia or other of his movies. Because it was such a hit, it was also the favorite (I guess) for Best Picture. It lost to Sound of Music.

I've had multiple problems with this film even at a 2nd viewing. I just cannot get over Julie Christie being cast as Lara, the object of desire. She IS gorgeous, but I couldn't buy the youth or the decency that the character required. And her acting is not that good to start with. Another casting mystake: Alec Guinness playing Omar Sharif's half brother. What?! And a few other casting failures. But not all actors are bad: Rod Steiger and Tom Courtenay (deservedly Oscar nominated) are both GREAT! and I also liked Geraldine Chaplin's delicate touch of innocence as Zhivago's wife.

The technical part is brilliant and all the Oscars won are rightfully deserved! The Art Direction and Cinematography are spectacular, capturing gorgeous landscape, a ton of set decorations and doing daring shots of the battle scenes. Which reminds me: there's a violent confrontation between the Reds and the Whites that left me like: wow. How did David Lean make those horses fall and film it to look so believable?

As much as the technical and historical parts seem dead on, I was still feeling like there's something I don't like about this movie and I can't put my finger on it: oh, yeah, the fact that I'm not buying a minute of this so called love story. Omar Sharif and Julie Christie don't match and their characters' love intentions don't justify. It just doesn't work. :(

My rating for the film: 7.5/10. A true epic, but the love story and Julie's casting as Lara brings it down. But I could never hate it or dislike it. Oh year: and Omar Sharif did deserve and Oscar nomination (it was a shock back then that he wasn't nominated despire winning the Golden Globe for Best Actor Drama).

Other BEST PICTURE nominees from 1965 mentioned here:

Darling

Ship of Fools

Ship of Fools (1965)

Passengers on a ship traveling from Mexico to Germany in the 1930s represent society at large in that era. [imdb]
Nominated for 8 Oscars:

Best Picture
Best Actor: Oskar Werner
Best Actress: Simone Signoret
Best Supporting Actor: Michael Dunn
Best Adapted Screenplay
Best Cinematography, Black-and-White (WINNER)
Best Art Direction, Black-and-White (WINNER)
Best Costume Design, Black-and-White

This is a real ensemble cast, with 7-8 big names attached. The best performances were given by Oskar Werner (excellent in playing the ONLY leading character of the film: the ship's doctor), Simone Signoret (playing La Condesa, the most interesting character of the book, which I've read years ago) and Vivien Leigh (playing a stiff middle aged American going nuts). This was also Vivien Leigh's last film performance :( she died two years later.

There's a mix bunch of people of this ship. The characters are faithful to the book, though I imagine it was a nightmare trying to adapt 700 pages in 140 minutes of film. Overall, I'm satisfied. It did get the spirit of the book: strangers on the same boat, representing various aspect of society; and somewhat taking a peek at the origins of Nazism. The film however is not always good. It really is boring sometimes, and some might find it quite long. I was curious about this adaptation, so I can say I enjoyed it.

The nominations are mostly worthy. Oskar Werner IS as I've said GREAT and quite touching. Though Simone Signoret gives the best female performance of the film, I bet she's not on the screen more than 20% of the film. So, this could've easily gone supporting instead of leading. The film really isn't about her character.

My rating for the film: 7.5/10. If you're not into slow dramas/ensemble pieces, don't bother.

Husbands and Wives (1992) (2nd time)

When their best friends announce that they're separating, a professor and his wife discover the faults in their marriage. [imdb]

Nominated for 2 Oscars:

Best Supporting Actress: Judy Davis
Best Original Screenplay

The last film colaboration between and Woody Allen and his long-term girlfriend and muse Mia Farrow (filmed right before Woody got involved with Mia's adopted daughter); that's some trivia, right?!

This is a very smart dramedy about relationships, about how men and women connect to eachother. It has a sharp screenplay (as always), it's easy to watch and the camera work is rather groundbreaking :) for Americans, at least. The film is shot with hand-held camera and often times there's a cut right in the middle of the dialogue. It also has an interview perspective, with actors sometimes talking directly into the camera and someone asking them questions.

To me, it deserved to win both Oscars, especially the one for Best Supporting Actress (Judy Davis). Her energy and dead-on honesty will blow you away. But acting is great all the way, I would've also nominated Mia Farrow for Best Supporting Actress and maybe Sydney Pollack for Supporting Actor. Though I loved The Crying Game's original screenplay, I think Husbands and Wives should've taken the Oscar for it. It also deserved a nomination for Best Director and maybe even one for Best Picture.

My rating for the film: 8.5/10. Though I loved it more the first time around, it still is a great achievement and everybody should see it.

The Collector (1965)

A man kidnaps a woman and holds her hostage just for the pleasure of having her there. [imdb]

Nominated for 3 Oscars:

Best Director: William Wyler
Best Actress: Samantha Eggar
Best Adapted Screenplay

Someone called it a missed opportunity. In a way, that's exactly what it is. But on the other hand, it still is a very interesting story. I didn't know about the storyline, so I was curious. The ending - booooo, not that interesting, but William Wyler is such a good director that the tension was always present, despite being a rather static film (with only 2 characters).

I bet the book is excellent, I haven't read it. But I'm quite sure the screenplay could've had more meat on the bones during the middle of the film, where there isn't much happening and even so it feels rushed at times. But then again: the legendary director William Wyler really knows what he's doing. He has a couple of scenes so strong that they really make it worth watching: the dragging through the rain and, before than, when she wakes up and he's standing by her bed, with his face in the dark looking almost monstruously.

I'll write about Samantha Eggar next week on the other blog. Though shaky at first, her performance got better and better. She has one or two scenes that knock your socks off.

My rating for the film: 7.5/10. It's mostly because of the interesting concept (and not so much the final chapter) and the great direction.

My Cousin Vinny (1992) (2nd time)

Bill and Stan are mistaken for murderers while on vacation, and Bill's family sends his cousin Vinny to defend them for his first case as a lawyer. [imdb]

Nominated for 1 Oscar:

Best Supporting Actress: Marisa Tomei (WINNER)

This was one of the most surprising wins in Oscar history. It was indeed an open field, but for other 3 actresses, not for Marisa. I don't think such a surprise could be possible today, because of how crazy & influential the Oscar campaigning has been in the past 5-10 years.

The film is a mediocre happy ending comedy that doesn't require much brain. I will admit that the 2nd part is much better than the awful double language comedy style from the beginning. Marisa, who's playing Vinnie's white trash but good hearted girlfriend, is not that bad. She has one or two good moments, but you can see her trying, as it doesn't always come natural. Not a fair win, but she was the only American actress of the 5 nominees, so that's your explanation.

My rating for the film: 5.5/10. I smiled a couple of times, in the 2nd half. :)

Darling (1965) (2nd time)

A beautiful but amoral model sleeps her way to the top of the London fashion scene at the height of the Swinging Sixties. [imdb]

Nominated for 5 Oscars:

Best Picture
Best Director: John Schlesinger
Best Actress: Julie Christie (WINNER)
Best Original Screenplay (WINNER)
Best Costume Design, Black-and-White (WINNER)

I bet it's good to be Julie Christie. Boy she was GORGEOUS. And this is a very special film that I really recommend to all movie lovers. It's very British and very 1960s, which were a huge boom for European directors. I've seen this film again for my Best Actress discussions happening on my other blog. I'll be doing 1965 next and I'll be posting Julie's profile soon.

The big star of the film is the director. John Schlesinger deserved an Oscar for this, even with the strong competition he had. Unfortunately, no win (he won 4 years later for Midnight Cowboy, but this was better). His direction is subtle, creative, surprising and in a great mix and understanding of the screenplay. Fabulous.

The film is rather easy to watch. It's a drama, but not a complicated one. Even when there's crying, it still feels light, with a lot of sarcasm and a bit of a comedy touch. Julie's performance is not your usual Oscar performance; it's mostly playful and kind of subtle and when she goes for it it's not the loud crying/shouting you're expecting to find in an Oscar actress. I'm not sure yet if she was the best of the 5, but it's a very inspired, creative performance. And the casting in dead on!!!

The screenplay is very witty so the win comes natural. Yes, it's a very good screenplay, especially in the 2nd half. The costumes are contemporary, but it was a weak category and that's why it won.

My rating for the film: 8/10. Really can't say why not more. I appreciated the parts of it, but maybe they didn't always glue together. Anyway: I totally recommend it!

Enchanted April (1992) (2nd time)

Four women rent a chateau on a remote Italian island to try to come to grips with their lives and relationships. [imdb]

Nominated for 3 Oscars:

Best Supporting Actress: Joan Plowright
Best Adapted Screenplay
Best Costume Design

Don't trust the poster. Quality-wise, this has nothing to do with A Room with a View or Howards End. Not that it's bad, but those 2 previously mentioned are classics of their genre. This one is just ok. Yet I'll admit this really is a hell of a poster! :D

It's a slow, simple, relaxing movie. The performances are just ok, with the exception of Miranda Richardson who's (as usual) much more than average (but how did she win the Golden Globe for Best Actress in a Musical/Comedy for this?! when it really is a dramatic role). Enchanted April felt better the second time around; I've noticed some smart directorial choices and it did feel more relaxing than the 1st time.

Joan Plowright's nomination (and almost win) is one honouring her entire (mostly theatre?) career; that's how you can explain it, because it's quite unspectacular and I could give one or two names (even from her own film) who could have replaced her. The best (and only) thing about it is her voice-over work. The Adapted Screenplay nomination is acceptable and the one for Costume Design quite deserved.

My rating for the film: 7/10. If you're in the mood for a quiet British film, non-demanding and with a beautiful scenery, go for it!

Shampoo (1975)

Election Eve, 1968: the "adventures" of a Beverly Hills hairdresser and the women he's f*cking.

Nominated for 4 Oscars:

Best Supporting Actor: Jack Warden
Best Supporting Actress: Lee Grant (WINNER)
Best Original Screenplay
Best Art Direction

Warren Beatty, Julie Christie, Goldie Hawn - what a cast, right? but what a boring movie (for the most of it, that is). I'm being a big too harsh on it, but I expected a lot. What can I say: it looks good and it's rather stylish. All the 3 leading actors are CRAZY HOT. Though Goldie Hawn is more of a supporting actress here. The hair is fabulous, the clothes are fun :D

The screenplay is much better in the 2nd half and I guess it was the runner-up for the win (Al Pacino's Dog Day Afternoon won). Warren Beatty himself was the co-writter; he can do just about anything, can't he? I'd love to see him work again. To me, his performance was one of the best 2. The other one: nominee Jack Warden, playing Julie's Christie's rich old lover and the husband of Lee Grant (Oscar), one of Warren's lovers. Complicated stuff.

Though Jack Warden was good in this honest comedic performance, his competition was very serious, so no win for him. Lee Grant was ok, but she didn't really deserve the Oscar, as she was competing agains two of the Nashville ladies (Ronee Blakley would've been my choice). I guess her win was some kind of a career thing, cause it was her 3rd nomination and the other nominees were relatively unknown. The nomination for Art Direction is rather silly. :)

My rating for the film: 6/10. I just wished for it to be funnier and for Goldie Hawn to get better lines, because her role was rather dull.

Summer Wishes, Winter Dreams (1973)

Rita, a middle aged New York City homemaker, finds herself in an emotional crisis which forces her to re-examine her life. [imdb]

Nominated for 2 Oscars:

Best Actress: Joanne Woodward
Best Supporting Actress: Sylvia Sidney

Another film it took me forever to find. I might have a weak spot for Joanne Woodward, as I always find her to be beautiful, even when she's 43 or 60 (Mr. and Mrs. Bridge).

There isn't much subject to the film, it's that type of soft 70s movie. It resembles an Ingmar Bergman, it's slow, with a simple (but effective) screenplay and it tries to say something about time and how individuals change. The first 20 minutes are the best, but the 2nd part is not really weak either. Acting is top class, especially Sylvia Sidney's brief (but so much fun) performance as Rita's mother. Joanne Woodward is also very good - as always. I'd also mention Martin Balsam, playing the husband, he should've received a nomination for Best Supporting Actor.

My rating for the film: 7.5/10. It's an emotional drama, surprising at times and with great performances.

Room at the Top (1959) (2nd time)

An ambitious young accountant schemes to wed a wealthy factory owner's daughter, despite falling in love with a married older woman. [imdb]

Nominated for 6 Oscars:

Best Picture
Best Director: Jack Clayton
Best Actor: Laurence Harvey
Best Actress: Simone Signoret (WINNER)
Best Supporting Actress: Hermione Baddeley
Best Adapted Screenplay (WINNER)

Lots of interesting facts about this film. And it's fair, as it is an interesting film itself. It's a rough, very British, quite non-Hollywood drama. What you notice the most upon a second viewing is probably the precise, clean, subtle direction. He knew what he was doing and how to get the best out of his actors.

The trivia I was mentioning: at about 2 minutes and 20 seconds on screen, Hermione Baddeley holds the record for the briefest Oscar nominated performance ever. But you can't miss her because it's an important small part; she's like the conscience of the film.

The real leading actor of the film is Laurence Harvey and not Simone Signoret; Room at the Top is about one man's journey and this older woman, lover of his, is just a chapter. His nomination is worthy even though I don't like the character. Also it's good to see Simone Signoret nominated and she gives a strong subtle performance, though I'm not sure she deserved to win. And it must have been a surprising win back then, as Elizabeth Taylor was the favorite for Suddenly, Last Summer.

Though the subject might sound boring, the film is actually quite catchy, so it was pleasant to watch even the second time around. It's a film with a "real" feel to it; and as I've said all the performances are good, solid, dependable and the direction smart, clean and never boring.

My rating for the film: 8/10. Definitely better than Ben-Hur. :D

The Diary of Anne Frank (1959)

Harrowing true story of a young Jewish girl who, with her family and their friends is forced to hide in an attic in Nazi-occupied Amsterdam. [imdb]

Nominated for 8 Oscars:

Best Picture
Best Director: George Stevens
Best Supporting Actor: Ed Wynn
Best Supporting Actress: Shelley Winters (WINNER)
Best Cinematography, Black-and-White (WINNER)
Best Original Score
Best Art Direction, Black-and-White (WINNER)
Best Costume Design, Black-and-White

2 hours and 50 minutes; boy, that felt like 5 hours. And my #1 ever is Gone with the Wind, so I generally have no problem with longer films. But this one... interesting story, good direction, but sooo boring at times (especially the so-called romantic scenes).

It's a fascinating subject and I also felt like justice wasn't done. I love fiction, but when you take on a big story like Anne Frank's, you should show respect by trying to keep it as close to what really happened. Even though it's based on a stage play, the loyalty should be towards the truth more than a good adaptation of something fictionalized. That's just my perspective.

So, i didn't like it that much. Is it also because it felt a bit too Hollywood? Probably. The Oscar wins for Art Direction and especially Cinematography are well deserved; I can't say the same thing about Best Supporting Actress. In my humble opinion, Shelley Winters was the least deserving of the 5 nominees (and I've seen them all). So I don't agree with the general hype that surrounds this performance; I don't hate it, but nothing thrilled me. Almost the same story with the Ed Wynn nomination, though this one felt a bit more deserving.

My rating for the film: 6/10. Because of the good technical part, and not so much the acting.

Imitation of Life (1959) (2nd time)

A struggling young actress with a six-year-old daughter sets up housekeeping with a homeless black woman and her light-skinned eight-year-old daughter who rejects her mother by trying to pass for white. [imdb]

Nominated for 2 Oscars:

Best Supporting Actress: Susan Kohner
Best Supporting Actress: Juanita Moore

Another film I'm seing again for Stinkylulu's Supporting Actress Sundays. I'm glad I had this opportunity because I usually don't rewatch them. Imitation of Life is a soap-like, yet solid drama, not for everyone, but I do like this type of social conflict movies. While watching it, I kept saying to myself: remember this was made back in the 50s, 8 years before Guess Who's Coming to Dinner. So the impact of the film and how believable it is relies on your capacity to put all in a fair context.

I find it difficult to write about it. I can't really say WHY I liked it much more this time around. Maybe because I was in a certain mood that almost made me cry in the second to last scene. The film has lots of drama and depends a lot on what type of viewer you are. You can laugh and find it silly and dated or look at the substance of its performances and the message it sends.

The two nominations are worthy. Juanita Moore should have actually won (she plays the black woman and Susan Kohner her light-skinned teenage daughter). It's a movie worth seing if you like typical 1950s dramas and smart films with a soap-opera touch.

My rating for the film: 8/10. I'm being a bit too generous, but it did improve from the last time I saw it.

The Reader (2008) (2nd viewing)

Post-WWII Germany: Nearly a decade after his affair with an older woman came to a mysterious end, law student Michael Berg re-encounters his former lover as she defends herself in a war-crime trial. [imdb]

Nominated for 5 Oscars:

Best Picture
Best Director: Stephen Daldry
Best Actress: Kate Winslet (WINNER)
Best Adapted Screenplay
Best Cinematography

Kate Winslet as a nazi? How exciting!!! or not :(

Why didn't she win for Eternal Sunshine... or Little Children?!

As you can probably tell, I'm not a fan of this film, although it was a bit more watchable the 2nd time around. Is it because I just LOVE the book?! Is it because Hanna Schmitz (the nazi) is one of the best written characters of 20th century literature? She is fascinating in the book, but so unfortunately presented in the film.

The guy who wrote the screenplay knew shit. The story has 3 big parts, following different ages of Michael. My problem is with the 1st part. Maybe because he didn't use enough book material. Maybe because there was too much detail put on the sex. YES, this film can give you an erection, but that's not what I'm looking for in a non-porn; lots of homo-erotic stuff (though no gay characters).

Ralph Fiennes and David Kross (15 yo Michael) are ok, but not that worth mentioning. Lena Olin is excellent and should've gotten a Best Supporting Actress campaign!!! The music is beautiful, the direction is simple but not bad, the cinematography is good, but not excellent. I'll write more about Kate when I'll do her profile for Alex in Movieland (that's why I saw the film again). Kate is bad in the first part and way better in the other two. In the book, Hanna Schmitz knew how to be rough, but also how to be witty and playful; NOT in the film unfortunately.

Halfway through, The Reader gets better. But I don't really care that much by then. It's an incomplete story that doesn't do justice to the book. I'll post Kate's profile soon on the other blog.

My rating for the film: 6.5/10.

Pillow Talk (1959) (2nd viewing)

A man and woman share a telephone line and despise each other, but then he has fun by romancing her with his voice disguised. [imdb]

Nominated for 5 Oscars:

Best Actress: Doris Day
Best Supporting Actress: Thelma Ritter
Best Original Screenplay (WINNER)
Best Original Score
Best Art Direction

This is a film I saw again for Stinkylulu's Supporting Actress Sundays; we're doing 1959 this month. Anyway, about Pillow Talk: loved it the first time, adored it the 2nd time. It's an excellent romantic comedy from the 1950s and (I've heard) the best Rock Hudson - Doris Day film; cause they've made a lot of them.

Doris Day is very adorable & gorgeous and her nomination is well deserved. As known, she's also a great singer and right now I'm obsessed with the title song from this film, also called Pillow Talk. The Oscar win for Best Original Screenplay is no mistake and I'd say all the nominations are worthy. Thelma Ritter could do this role in her sleep, but her character & presence are very effective for the storyline and for the film in general and she always puts a smile on my face. There's also a snub for best supporting actor: Tony Randall should've been nominated; if you'll see the film, you'll understand what I mean.

I really really recommend this film. It's both funny and charming and better than most romantic junk they serve us these days.

My rating for the film: 9/10. I initially felt 8.5, but movies rarely get better at a second viewing; so, it's a 9.

Bell, Book and Candle (1958)

A modern-day witch likes her neighbor but despises his fiancee, so she enchants him to love her instead... only to fall in love with him for real. [imdb]

Nominated for 2 Oscars:

Best Art Direction
Best Costume Design

I love witches and cats. And I think Kim Novak is very beautiful. These are the reasons why I chose to see this film. But it didn't work out for me. :(

James Stewart is too old for her, the screenplay seems to have lots of gaps and the supporting characters are quite annoying and don't help the film. It doesn't have enough magic, it should've been more creative & crazy.

But it's rather chic, Kim does look like a cat :P and the 2 Oscar nominations are well deserved. It's a missed opportunity and a remake IS needed.

My rating for the film: 5/10. I'm afraid I might not be a James Stewart fan.

Rachel Getting Married (2008) (2nd viewing)

A young woman who has been in and out from rehab returns home for the weekend for her sister's wedding. [imdb]

Nominated for 1 Oscar:

Best Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role: Anne Hathaway

My oh my. How do I start here?! First of all, I've watched it again, so that I could do the profile of Anne for the other blog (soon). I won't go into too many details right now. The film itself felt better upon a second viewing. Watching it again also allows you to notice the details in Anne's performance and the small tricks that the screenplay has (the lighted candle on the pool for example).

The screenplay is far from perfect; I can only think of how underused Debra Winger (the mother) is. But it's a strong drama, deliberately uncomfortable at moments, it has its chill scenes, some cheesy stuff, an excellent direction and strong performances. It did deserve more than one nomination, but I guess its campaign wasn't strong enough and it's also not your typical Oscar movie (you know, it has no indian kids or lots of moving images).

In my opinion, the film also deserved 2 nominations for Best Supporting Actress: Rosemarie DeWitt as Rachel (the good sister who's getting married) and Debra Winger as the mother, the most mysterious character of the film, in a very cold performance that in the end steals the show (to me, it's the most interesting character of the film; was she like this before the tragedy or is her attitude a consequence?). Also love the cinematography & soundtrack and I would probably also nominate Bill Irwin for Supporting Actor (playing the father).

My rating for the film: 8/10. I don't know why not more; I guess because I dislike Kym, the lead. Who knows, it might change. A must see anyway.

Mrs. Parkington (1944)

The old and rich Mrs. Parkington remembers her life, starting with the moment when, as a poor girl, met & married her husband.

Nominated for 2 Oscars:

Best Actress: Greer Garson
Best Supporting Actress: Agnes Moorehead

Another long-searched very rare movie posted by some wonderful people on youtube. Happy I saw it, but I must say: it's a flop. :D The screenplay is too rushed, it almost entirely lacks emotion; the performances are dry and... well... you just don't care for the film.

The sympathy for Agnes Moorehead's performance (the Oscar nomination and the Golden Globe win) is ABSURD. She does nothing for the film but to give us an embarrassing French accent and, more than that, she's not even the best supporting actress in her own film, let alone of the year. Greer Garson is not that bad, but I've seen her doing this before. Her strongest part is the last scene which saves the performance. For a third of the film Greer appears with heavy makeup (she's supposed to be like 90 years old); at first, she's not believable, but as the film progresses the old Mrs. Parkington becomes the best part of her performance.

My rating for the film: 4.5/10. It's for die hard Oscar fans only.

Come to the Stable (1949)

Two nuns from a French convent arrive in a small New England town with a plan to build a children's hospital.

Nominated for 7 Oscars:

Best Actress in a Leading Role: Loretta Young
Best Supporting Actress: Celeste Holm
Best Supporting Actress: Elsa Lanchester
Best Writing, Motion Picture Story
Best Cinematography, Black-and-White
Best Original Song
Best Art Direction, Black-and-White

This is a film I've also been searching for a long time. And found it on youtube, among many others. I wanted to see it not because I thought it was gonna be real good, but because I was very curious about it, especially about the performances.
It's a very quiet, drama but not dramatic, very 40s, catholic movie. It has a very simple storyline (the screenplay was probably written in a week) and I guess it could be boring for some, though it wasn't for me.

The 7 nominations are too much. The leading performance (for those not familiar, in the picture she's the one on the right) is good, but nothing spectacular. But Loretta Young looks soooo beautiful here and she's kind, delicate, pure, warm, so it makes it a perfect casting and a very lovable character. Elsa Lanchester is just awful (!!!) and poor Celeste Holm (the other nun) has no material to work with.

My rating for the film: 6.5/10. In an objective manner, it probably deserves less. But it didn't bother me, it was quite relaxing and there's a scene (just before the last one) that I found to be quite emotional.

The Mating Season (1951)

Impossible to simply express the plot. It's a screwball comedy. There's a newly married couple with very different backgrounds. His mother is a simple woman, the bride hasn't met her yet, there's a mix-up and the wife thinks she's the maid and things just go crazy from there.

Nominated for 1 Oscar:

Best Supporting Actress: Thelma Ritter

This is a very rare film that's not available on vhs or dvd. I've looked for it for years and finally found it on... youtube. :D So I didn't care how it was going to be, I just wanted to see it. But it was FUN. Very relaxing, sweet, not very original (we've seen the story before) but the actresses made it worthy.

Oscar nominee Thelma Ritter (LOVE HER!) who's playing the mother is actually the leading actress of the film, but Gene Tierney - the bride - had the big name so she got the top billing. But as I was saying, Thelma gave a very good performance (as always). She didn't have a big Oscar moment, but she was constantly funny & witty (I know: as always) and perfectly cast as this very kind simple woman thinking only at what's best for her son.

A supporting performer that deserves credit is the queen bitch Mirian Hopkins who plays the wife's mother, a total opposite to Ritter's character. She deserved an Oscar nomination as well.

My rating for the film: 8/10. It was time well spent.

If you are a real fan of old movies, and want to give it a look, just click here and watch it on youtube. Enjoy!

Changeling (2008) (2nd viewing)

A mother's prayer for her kidnapped son to return home is answered, though it doesn't take long for her to suspect the boy who comes back is not hers. [imdb]

Nominated for 3 Oscars:

Best Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role: Angelina Jolie
Best Cinematography
Best Art Direction

I only watched this again so that I could write (and count her screentime) about Angelina's nominated performance. Which I'll do soon, on the other blog. It really is a mess of a movie that you'd never catch me see again. It's uncomfortable due to the subject, in the first part, and due to the boring genre mixture from the 2nd half.

The screenplay is destroying the film. When it's not obvious, it's pathetic or out of line. When it's not cheesy, it throws the plot all over the place. Clint Eastwood's direction is not that bad, but the fact that he always rushed the filming (not asking enough takes) is not helping him here. I blame the direction for the flaws in Angelina's performance (which I'll write more about on the other blog). Angelina is not bad. She just makes a couple of terrible acting choices.

It's a film that's too long. The best actress nomination is not worthy but it was expected. It was a bad year for art direction, so I can understand that nom. And the cinematography: quite good, but competition was better. The music is good, very jazzy, it would've deserved a nom. The (only) emotional scene for me was with the grown-up kid at the end and Angelina looking through the glass.

My rating for the film: 5.5/10. It's... a lot. But I don't hate it. Just find it a missed opportunity. Angelina's better than the project itself.

The High and the Mighty (1954)

When a commercial airliner develops engine problems on a trans-Pacific flight , it is up to the washed-up co-pilot Dan Roman to bring the plane in safely. A so-called disaster movie.

Nominated for 6 Oscars:

Best Director: William A. Wellman
Best Supporting Actress: Jan Sterling
Best Supporting Actress: Claire Trevor
Best Music, Original Score (WINNER)
Best Music, Original Song
Best Editing

I watched this because I was curious about the supporting actresses. Jan Sterling's is worthy, as she plays this blond ex-beauty. Claire Trevor's nomination makes no sense.

It's a dumb, bad film wrongly promoted as a big disaster movie. The Towering Inferno, The Poseidon Adventure, those are the real thing. This one is shit. Bad acting all the way, with the exception previously mentioned, a horrible screenplay and a direction that's most certainly NOT worthy of an Oscar nom (the fact that Wellman was up against Billy Wilder for Sabrina, Hitchcock's Rear Window and Elia Kazan for On the Waterfront makes his nomination just... terribly absurd). The Oscar-winning music is overused and too dramatic and loud. Stay away from this movie!

My rating for the film: 3/10. I am being generous mostly because of Jan Sterling's two major scenes.

Mrs. Henderson Presents (2005) (2nd viewing)

Laura Henderson buys an old London theater and opens it up as the Windmill, a performance hall which goes down in history for, among other things, its all-nude revues.

Nominated for 2 Oscars:

Best Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role: Judi Dench

Best Costume Design

This was a film I remembered as being fun, with a great 1930s soundtrack. Unfortunately, upon a 2nd viewing I found it to be a bit too light in the first part: and by this I mean less funny and with a too rushed script. However, it got better and by the end of it I found myself rather satisfied, again.

I could probably see anything with Judi Dench in it. I love her and can't be really subjective about her. Her nomination is debatable, but as it was a weak category that year, it wasn't a surprise. Mrs Henderson Presents is more of a dramedy than a comedy or musical. The 2nd half is much more drama and you know what?, it works; I even appreciated some screenplay touches.

My rating for the film: 7.5/10. See it if you haven't already or have forgotten it. It's relaxing.

The Incredibles (2004)

A family of undercover superheroes, while trying to live the quiet suburban life, are forced into action to save the world. [imdb]

Nominated for 4 Oscars:

Best Animated Feature (WINNER)
Best Original Screenplay
Best Sound Mixing
Best Sound Editing (WINNER)

I kind of suspected why I've avoided this film for years. Something told me that it's just not my type of animated. And I was probably right; especially seing it right after Monsters, inc.
The Incredibles is more serious that people give it credit. In certain parts it's like a family soap transformed into animation.

I don't know which kid would really like The Incredibles. The target must be 14+, cause otherwise it's very contradictory (reading the plot or watching a trailer would probably suggest something very kid friendly, but what about those sexual references). Anyway, I should stop being such a conservative bitch :)

For me, the 2nd half really saved it: why? because the drama was over and we could finally see some real ACTION. something fun, dynamic and less talk talk talk. The screenplay nomination is not worthy (but I understand it because it was a weak year). The win for Animated Feature does not please me (now I can say I prefer Shrek 2), but the one for Sound Editing is very very worthy. Oh, yeah: and the Holly Hunter voice was the wrong choice for the female character.

My rating for the film: 7.5/10. I just wish the fun had started earlier.

Monsters, Inc. (2001)

It's rather impossible to tell the subject of the film in 1 or 2 sentences. It's the story of two monsters, a parallel world, an adorable little girl and an accident that generates a screwball comedy, with lots of action & fun.

Nominated for 4 Oscars:

Best Animated Feature
Best Music, Original Score
Best Music, Original Song (WINNER)
Best Sound Editing

This one lost Best Animated Feature to Shrek. And although Shrek is excellent, I'm not sure it was the right decision. Monsters is surely one of the top 5 best animated films this decade has given us (and that's saying a lot considering Nemo & Wall E). It's so much fun, the story is very very creative, the voices fit perfectly and I loved the mixture of sweeeeet and smart.
The technical part is flawless and the rollercoaster-like scene with all the doors is a classic chase scene "filmed" perfectly. Lots of colors and an adequate ending.
On an animated features scale, I'd probably give it a 10/10. But putting it in line with motion pictures, my rating for the film is: 9/10. Yet, make no mistake: Monsters, Inc. is from now on in my Top 100 favorite films EVER.

Murphy's Romance (1985)

A divorced mother moves to a small, rural, Arizona town and becomes friends with an older man. An unusual attraction arises.

Nominated for 2 Oscars:

Best Actor in a Leading Role: James Garner

Best Cinematography

It's a typical 80s film that I was curious about seing for years. It's not a comedy, it's not a drama. Romance would be the right word. The 1st half is slower, the second one is better, the dialogue is sharper and the ending is quite interesting.

I said it's a typical 80s because of its look: the cheesy wrong music, the cinematography and almost even the direction.

The performances are good (not spectacular) and none Oscar worthy, though I must say Sally Field was sweet as hell; I tried to think of an actress nowadays that would match her charm, but a name hasn't popped up yet. Garner's nomination must be some kind of an honorary thing. He does a great job, but the role's not that demanding.

The title IS a bit misleading. A sweet quiet film with a sweet actress. But I would say: for Oscar fans only or for Sally Field fans. My rating for the film: 7.5/10.

The Whales of August (1987)

The film tells the story of two elderly widowed sisters near the end of their lives, spending a summer in a seaside house in Maine.

Nominated for 1 Oscar:

Best Supporting Actress: Ann Sothern

What's so special about this film is that it really is a cinema event. There's no need for explanations if you are a huge movie fan. The two sisters are played by Lillian Gish and Bette Davis. Davis is my favorite actress of all times. Gish, who was 96 years old in 1987! (making her the eldest person to ever get a leading role) is probably the greatest film star from the silent movie era. Her career started in 1912!

Something funny: while filming a scene, Lindsay Anderson, the director of The Whales of August, said to Lillian Gish, "Miss Gish, you have just given me a perfect close-up." Davis observed, "She should. The bitch invented 'em." :))

Now about the film itself: it's slow, with good and decent performances, nothing excellent. The entire story happens in like 24 hours, there's nothing big going on, just quiet peaceful dialogue. For me, it was bliss cause I just got to see those 2 divas. I'm surprised Gish didn't get a nomination for Best Actress. Had she been campaigned in supporting (instead of Leading, as I suspect happened), Bette Davis would've gotten one too. The single nomination of the film, for Ann Sothern's showy performance, is rather pointless.

So: a must see for huge film fans cause it's film history; and probably a terribly boring experience for anyone else. My rating for the film: 7/10.

Of Human Bondage (1934)

A sensitive disabled medical student falls in love with a wicked waitress (Bette Davis) who selfishly takes advantage of his generosity and feelings towards her.

Nominated for 1 Oscar*:

Best Actress in a Leading Role: Bette Davis (*write-in nomination)

I promise this is the only time I'll be cheating :D Some don't consider Bette Davis to be an actual nominee for this, as she wasn't on the official list, but written in to correct a fatal error. However, the film is included here.
This is Bette Davis' breakthrough performance and her bitchy mad speech towards the end is a classic and very representative of her future work. Is she perfect in this? How could I be objective as she is my favorite actress of all times?! But nomination worthy SHE WAS.
Yet, the film is messy and the passage of time doesn't do it any favors. The direction is way too simple and the screenplay is mostly superficial. If you ever get to see it, do it for Bette.

My rating for the film: 5.5/10 and I'm being very generous.

In Bruges (2008)

Holed up in Bruges, Belgium after a difficult job, two very different hit men enjoy sightseing, talk about life and death and get caught in a crazy deadly unusual chase.

Nominated for 1 Oscar:

Best Original Screenplay

I wasn't that confident about seing this film. I felt like it wasn't my type of movie. Boy, was I wrong. This film is FUN. It's beautifuly written, very well thought and quite surprising in its storyline. Collin Farrell gives an unexpected fabulous performance (both dramatic and comedic); also great are Brendon Gleeson as the other hit man and Ralph Fiennes as the real villain.

The film is fast, easy to follow, nicely shot. A great relaxing movie.

My rating for the film: 8.5/10 and I might get even more generous with time.

Frozen River (2008) (2nd viewing)

A single mom living in a shitty town is in a desperate need for money, so she makes an illegal move by smuggling people across the border.

Nominated for 2 Oscars:
Best Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role: Melissa Leo
Best Original Screenplay

After watching it for the 1st time, I said to myself: all they needed was a digital camera, a car, 2 women and a frozen river. It rarely gets more low budget, indier, than this. That's a problem for me. It's hard to focus on the film when the camera work is a mess and when 95% of the cast (the 5% representing Melissa Leo and the dude playing her son) is made out of amateurs.
Some scenes (like the strip club towards the end) are ridiculous and Razzie worthy.
But what you do get from the film is a screenplay with decent parts (the ending outshines the rest of it) and (I hate to admit it because I dislike her presence offscreen) a good performance from Melissa Leo.

I'll write about her performance on the other blog.
My rating for the film: 5/10 though it's really not that bad.

An Introduction

La di da...

Hello there!

I've decided to make this second blog to write a few words about the Oscar nominated films I get to see. Not much, just a couple of sentences to keep track. It's not just about the Best Picture category; and not just 1st viewings.

I'll probably start with the most recent 3, to put a brick on the foundation of the blog: In Bruges, Frozen River and Of Human Bondage.

What is my picture doing on the left of this post? I have no idea. just a slash of me & a piece of narcisism.