Rio (2011)

When Blu, a domesticated macaw from small-town Minnesota, meets the fiercely independent Jewel, he takes off on an adventure in Rio de Janeiro. [imdb]

Nominated for 1 Oscar:

Best Original Song

We can all agree how messy this years's Original Song category was, with only 2 nominees... ridiculous! But this nomination for the film was the only motivation I had to see Rio, and it wasn't as bad as I expected it to be. Getting back to the song: it's ok, it's nicely used in the film, especially at the ending and, as I still have to see Muppets, I can't say if it deserves to win or not.

Rio doesn't really bring anything new to the table; it's colorful, but otherwise nothing too impressive in the visual department. The characters are nice, but not so memorable, and Jesse Eisenberg's voice for the leading character was distracting to me: I don't think he was the right choice to carry the film. On the good side is the some of the writing: there were 2 or 3 scenes where I laughed (I think all of them had to do with the monkeys) and there is a REALLY touching scene that maybe should've been exploited more: when the chain is cut and Blu is left behind watching as the others fly away... it was unexpectedly heartbreaking and you could feel the loneliness of the character.

My rating for the film: 6.5/10. Could've been better; unfortunately the human characters are poorly constructed.

Moneyball (2011)

The story of Oakland A's general manager Billy Beane's successful attempt to put together a baseball club on a budget by employing computer-generated analysis to draft his players. [imdb]

Nominated for 6 Oscars:

Best Picture
Best Actor: Brad Pitt
Best Supporting Actor: Jonah Hill
Best Adapted Screenplay
Best Editing
Best Sound Mixing

Just like your regular European guy, I know nothing about Baseball, I don't know the rules of the game, I don't know the teams; it's strictly American. But otherwise, I love competitions in general, and you don't have to be a baseball expert to enjoy Moneyball. This is a smart film, one of the smartest I've seen in the past year.

I'm happy for Brad and the wonderful year he's had, with this & Tree of Life, both as producer and actor. I really admire his career, because he consistently gives good performances, sometimes even great ones. In Moneyball, he gives one of his most likeable performances yet; it's not a ground-breaking one, but it's so damn natural and he makes it look so easy: from delivering the lines that aren't always so flexible to the way he moves his hands or talks on the phone. He was very much connected to the character and this is reassuring for the audience.

The screenplay is good, it has Sorkin's fingerprints all over it, and I'm sure the final version is more his than Zaillian's. Sure, the ending could've been shorter, that's a weakness, but I wasn't bored or anything. The editing is fantastic, the direction is sharp and Jonah Hill... well, I don't see the Oscar potential in his performance, but he does a good job and I liked him (though not enough to justify the nomination).

My rating for the film: 8/10. It's well put together, so I enjoyed it, even if I don't seem to be the target of the film.

The Descendants (2011)

Seen on January 18th, 2012

A land baron tries to re-connect with his two daughters after his wife suffers a boating accident. [imdb]

Nominated for 5 Oscars:

Best Picture
Best Director: Alexander Payne
Best Actor: George Clooney
Best Adapted Screenplay (WINNER)
Best Editing

It's good to know I've never been much of an Alexander Payne fan and I didn't become one after watching this film. Strangely enough, I guess this IS my type of film and I was definitely charmed by some elements from it. But overall, just like most of the 2011 film, this is also overrated like hell. What's most surprising to me is the amount of awards for Adapted Screenplay, which is an obvious mess at times.

I guess the problem really IS the writing, too many scenes just thrown in there: the guy going back to the hospital and shouting at the wife who's in a coma and clearly not hearing him?! WTF... And that's not the only weird oh-I-am-trying-to-impress writing choice: there's plenty. The verdict with the land is also predictable, while the film does have an incomplete feeling to it.

I generally like Clooney as an actor, I thought all of his previous nominations were GREAT, but this is far from his best. It's not as bad as the haters suggest it, but it's not much of a performance, outside that touching goodbye scene. So, then, what's good about it? The mood, the pace, the fact that it felt relaxed, sometimes enjoyable and easy to watch (like a soap-opera or a bit better). What made this a 6.5 for me (and not a 5, let's say) was Judy Greer's presence, especially in her final scene; she's quite great and, in a limited role, definitely improves the ending of the film, and saving it as much as she can.

My rating for the film: 6.5/10. Another film that doesn't feel like a Best Picture contender.

The Artist (2001)

Seen on January 21st, 2012

Hollywood, 1927: As silent movie star George Valentin wonders if the arrival of talking pictures will cause him to fade into oblivion, he sparks with Peppy Miller, a young dancer set for a big break. [imdb]

Nominated for 10 Oscars:

Best Picture (WINNER)
Best Director: Michel Hazanavicius (WINNER)
Best Actor: Jean Dujardin (WINNER)
Best Supporting Actress: Berenice Bejo
Best Original Screenplay
Best Cinematography
Best Original Score (WINNER)
Best Art Direction
Best Costume Design (WINNER)
Best Editing

This is a film I don't feel comfortable talking/writing about; the film itself is a dilemma for me, and also I have no idea how to judge it. If I judge it based on my experience while watching it, then it doesn't sit well at all. If I judge it based on my respect for it, based on my movie-knowledge and stuff like that - then I can easily admit The Artist is an achievement. But what's the right way to look at it?

I don't really like it for one simple reason: it's a silent film and it has all the problems that come with a silent film. Yes, the dog is adorable; Yes, Dujardin gives a wonderful performance, but this doesn't stop the film from looking like it's 60 minutes too long (which is bad for a 100 min film). It really was difficult to watch, and I often hoped it would end sooner; the story is nice, but, by respecting rules & cliches of silent films, it becomes quite predictable.

As I said, the work put into this film is impressive. I liked the direction much more than the film itself, I think Hazanavicius did a fine job, considering the film needed a lot of care for details - and it succeeds. I even liked the ending, which again is to he director's credit. Dujardin is wonderful and I kinda hope he wins on Oscar night. The music is nice and the dog is adorable.

But is it worthy of Best Picture? Probably not. In any other year, I suspect it wouldn't have been a front-runner and The King's Speech (another film I'm not a fan of) would've easily kicked its ass. But this is weak year, and somehow most Academy voters seem to embrace a black-and-white French-produced silent film. How this film got so far in the race is still a mystery to me.

My rating for the film: I have no idea... let's say 7/10*. It would've made a nice SHORT film.

***updated it to a 7, instead of a 6.5

War Horse (2011)

At the outbreak of World War I, Joey, young Albert's beloved horse, is sold to the cavalry and shipped to France. [wiki]

Nominated for 6 Oscars:

Best Picture
Best Cinematography
Best Original Score
Best Art Direction
Best Sound Mixing
Best Sound Editing

I didn't have any expectations going into this film, I knew very little about the book or about the play - only knew that the play had won the Tony award. And I actually think my lack of info or expectations helped a lot here. What I discovered was a very traditional film, following a familiar structure, but overall it was a very pleasant experience.

I was afraid the film was gonna be all about the boy & the horse, and thankfully it wasn't. Once the war started, it was nice to see new characters and each of them was an interesting discovery. Of course, the screenplay exagerates at times and there's a bit too much epic attempt going on here, but the story is interesting, it rarely gets boring and I was quite curious to see what will happen in the end.

I guess people had too many expectations going into this, which might explain the lack of love from critics AND Oscar. This wouldn't have made it had there been only 5 nominees for Best Picture and the rest of the nominations are for techical stuff, which of course I appreciated. I wouldn't be surprised if it won Sound & Sound Editing, it's a beautifully shot film, nicely put together and with an interesting story.

My rating for the film: 8/10. Maybe a more realistic ending would've gained it more fans.

Midnight in Paris (2011)

Seen on October 15, 2011

It tells the story of Gil, a writer who is forced to confront the shortcomings of his relationship with his fiancée after he experiences magic events when walking at midnight in Paris.

Nominated for 4 Oscars:

Best Picture
Best Director: Woody Allen
Best Original Screenplay (WINNER)
Best Art Direction

The success of this film is still surprising to me; next to The Artist, this might just be the most overrated film of the year. This could be an explanation: his 2 previous films (Whatever Works and You Will Meet...) were so disastruous that, by comparison, a mediocre film such as Midnight in Paris feels like a masterpiece.

This film is nothing new when it comes to Woody Allen films, all the chichés are there and the style of the film is pure Vicky Cristina, with the main difference being that he's replaced Barcelona for Paris; but the cinematography has the same style, the story has a similar rhythm, not so many differences. Though truth is I thought Vicky Cristina Barcelona was much better, more focused and funnier.

The contemporary parts of Midnight are mostly boring and predictable. Owen Wilson, the actor playing the typical woody allen character, is fine, but it's a copycat of what Woody would do in this role. Poor Rachel McAdams gets an annoying character, while Michael Sheen is as annoying as ever, regardless of whoever he's playing. The midnight part of the film, aka Paris in the 1920s, is a bit more fun, but all those supporting characters just don't glue together. Marion is nice to look at, the guy playing Hemingway overdoes it, Kathy Bates is nice, while Adrien Brody probably gives the best cameo.

It's nice to see Woody stepping away from monstrosities like Whatever Works, but the step taken is not far enough: the screenplay feels way too familiar, with characters that he's been doing over and over again. Sure, it's an easy film to watch, the direction is ok, but it's far from anything original or his best work.

My rating for the film: 6/10. The Art Direction nomination is not bad, but there were better contenders.

The Tree of Life (2011)

Seen on December 27th, 2011

The story centers around a family with three boys in the 1950s. The eldest son witnesses the loss of innocence. [imdb]

Nominated for 3 Oscars:

Best Picture
Best Director: Terrence Malick
Best Cinematography

What do you write about a film that is almost perfection?!

I have no idea.

What makes Tree of Life so miraculous for me? That I don't remember ever feeling something like this when watching a film. The best way to describe it is that I saw it with my soul, as cheesy as that might sound; I don't know how to say it in any other way... If you are open to see it and feel it than it's an unmatchable experience. It is a film that feels alive, and yes, an experience more than anything else.

It's poetry. So it needs to be seen with an open heart and an open mind, otherwise... well, otherwise you won't like it. It doesn't need to be explained, because that is not its purpose, it's a pure sensorial film.

Of course, I think it's technically perfect, it should've been nominated for everything, Pitt & Chastain probably deliver their best work. Terrence Malick is a fantastic director and this might just be the best Cinematography I have ever seen.

My rating for the film: 10/10. But that's because I'm exactly its target.

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (2011)

In the bleak days of the Cold War, espionage veteran George Smiley is forced from semi-retirement to uncover a Soviet agent within MI6's echelons. [imdb]

Nominated for 3 Oscars:

Best Actor: Gary Oldman

Best Adapted Screenplay

Best Original Score

Well the good news is Gary Oldman is finally an Oscar nominee... we can take him out of the list for the best never-nominated actors outthere. And this makes me happy: I adored him in Dracula, thought he was impressive in Leon and The Contender and I even liked him in The 5th Element. It was about time. That being said, Tinker Tailor itself is not much of a film.

It needs to be said this was directed by Tomas Alfredson, the Sweedish director behind the 2008 masterpiece Let the Right One In. He has such an unique style and I can see his fingerprints all over Tinker Tailor, though this can't overcome the problems in the screenplay. But this would be a higlight: the film is mostly well directed, it has a mood, it's stylish, cool and everything. Also, on the plus side: Gary's performance; while he doesn't get that much to do, his simple presence is mesmerizing and he does give an impressive almost-monologue describing an episode from his past. The supporting actors are equally great (especially Firth, Hardy and Cumberbatch), the cinematography is beautiful and the art direction seems appropriate.

Then, where's the problem? I'd say in the screenplay or maybe in the book, which I haven't read. This is a mystery film, but it doesn't build up to anything; in the end, I couldn't care less who the spy was, and this is something the film tries to put a lot of attention into. The whole film just moves along too slowly, I thought the screenplay would've needed some heavy editing or some serious restructuring. And there's something else that bothered me about the ending, but I wouldn't wanna spoil it right now.

The elements are there, but in the end it feels incomplete in the suspense department, overcrowded when it comes to unnecessary details, and overall nothing to get that excited about. Though I'm sure some will really like it. Even its more tense scenes felt a bit flat and not so creative.

My rating for the film: 6/10. I didn't get to talk about it's 3rd nomination for Original Score: Alberto Iglesias does a fine job, as usual, and it's a worthy nomination.

Bowling for Columbine (2002)

Filmmaker Michael Moore explores the roots of America's predilection for gun violence. [imdb]

Nominated for 1 Oscar:

Best Documentary, Features (WINNER)

This really was the first time I've seen Bowling for Columbine, even though I'm a fan of Michael Moore: Fahrenheit 9/11 is a 10/10 for me, at least on a documentary level. So why did I stay away from Bowling? I have no idea; I was probably saving it for later.

And it was worth the wait: it's an impressive, very interesting, very captivating documentary on violence in America. As a European, I really enjoyed it and was moved by it in a couple of key scenes; I'm not sure I would've been as excited had I been an American. He's criticizing the American society in a manner that would really annoy conservative patriots.

The comedy is also there and I liked a lot the short animation inside the documentary, about the history of violence in the United States. It really is the kind of film that people should learn a lesson from.

My rating for the film: 9/10. Truth hurts.

Morocco (1930)

It's the story of a Foreign Legionnaire who meets and falls in love with a singer. [wiki]

Nominated for 4 Oscars:

Best Director: Josef von Sternberg
Best Actress: Marlene Dietrich
Best Cinematography
Best Art Direction

The only thing people remember about this film is Marlene wearing a man's suit during a musical number and kissing a woman. Wow! Shocking! And I bet it was shocking, for 1930. And once you go past that scene, this isn't much of a movie. The worst thing about it is actually the love story, which I found hard to believe and not something that would come naturally to these characters.

Marlene is beautiful, Gary Cooper is gorgeous, the cinematography impressive for that era. The musical numbers were a bit flat for me, but even with the unconvincing screenplay, I am surprised this wasn't among the 5 films nominated for Best Picture: while I am not a fan, this is much better than winner Cimarron.

My rating for the film: 5.5/10. But it had real potential.

A Free Soul (1931)

An alcoholic lawyer who successfully defended a notorious gambler on a murder charge objects when his free-spirited daughter becomes romantically involved with him. [imdb]

Nominated for 3 Oscars:

Best Director: Clarence Brown
Best Actor: Lionel Barrymore (WINNER)
Best Actress: Norma Shearer

In a movieworld dominated by trailers and spoilers, it's nice to see a film you know so little about. I had little expectations while watching A Free Soul, but I quickly became involved in the story. While it's not a masterpiece, nor a very complex film, it sure tells an interesting story and the acting is quite good.

What also impressed me is the way some scenes were shot, and I'll give credit to the director for that. Norma is a delight and I can totally understand why Lionel Barrymore won his Oscar for this - it could easily be classified as more of an Honorary win, given he was a veteran actor; but there's plenty of good stuff in the performance. Where it does disappoint a bit is in the screenplay: the final scene especially is really out of nowhere, and also Leslie Howard is not giving his best.

My rating for the film: 7/10. Clark Gable creates a charistmatic bad boy.

Holiday (1930)

The story of two sisters and a young man who is torn between his free-thinking lifestyle and the tradition of his wealthy fiancée's family. [wiki]

Nominated for 2 Oscars:

Best Actress: Ann Harding
Best Writing, Adaptation

This was the first film adaptation of the play written by Philip Barry, but not the best known one. Nowadays, there's seem to be a lot of passion for the 1938 version, with Katharine Hepburn & Cary Grant, a film I have yet to see. Almost nobody talks about this 1930 stagey film, as few have heard of an actress called Ann Harding.

And it's true: nothing groundbreaking about this film, but it's not bad either. Ann Harding has lots of charisma and energy, so I can understand why the nomination. But it was her bitchy sister played by Mary Astor (gorgeous!) that I would've wanted to know more about. The film itself moves along fine, never too boring, never demanding, but not a great thrill either.

My rating for the film: 6/10. And I will also watch the Hepburn version at one point.

Min and Bill (1930)

Min, the owner of a dockside hotel, is forced to make difficult decisions about the future of Nancy, the young woman she took in as an infant. [imdb]

Nominated for 1 Oscar:

Best Actress: Marie Dressler (WINNER)

Not much to write about this film, which unfortunately holds a length of only about 65 minutes. I don't think it's bad by 1930 standards, but it just looks dated and rushed. And also predictable.

To me, there are 2 reasons why the film is not a massive failure: first, there's Marie Dressler, who is above material here, even if her performance is not without its flaws. However, she's an undeniable presence and a consistent acting force. The second is the fantastic (!) Marjorie Rambeau in a supporting role as the drunken selfish villain; she steals every scene she's in and, had there been a Supporting Actress category back then, she would've easily been in the run for a win. Her big moment towards the end makes for the most delicious 5 minutes this film has to offer.

My rating for the film: 5/10. Many will be much more generous. I'm not. And can someone explain that silly fighting scene?!

Gigi (1958) (2nd time)

A rich playboy and a youthful courtesan-in-training enjoy a platonic friendship, but it may not stay platonic for long. [imdb]

Nominated for 9 Oscars:

Best Picture (WINNER)
Best Director: Vincente Minnelli (WINNER)
Best Adapted Screenplay (WINNER)
Best Cinematography, Color (WINNER)
Best Music, Scoring of a Musical Picture (WINNER)
Best Original Song (WINNER)
Best Editing (WINNER)
Best Art Direction (WINNER)
Best Costume Design (WINNER)

Yes, Gigi is the musical that could; it won Oscars for all of its 9 nominations, including Best Picture: making it the 31st winner of this category. It's incredible how memory plays a lot of tricks on you: I remember liking this film a lot, as I had seen it once, many years ago on TCM. I was probably fascinated by all the costumes and nice sets, because otherwise, today, I'd find it hard to explain. The film is a mess in many ways.

While I don't think it's among the worst this category's ever seen, how could I defend the song Thank Heaven for Little Girls, sang by 70-year-old Maurice Chevalier... Unfortunately, I suspect this is a pedophile's dream... But even getting past this, I don't remember/admire ANY of the songs - and when the film is a Musical, that's a huge problem (a very similar problem that I had with An American in Paris, the previous Minnelli BP winner that fails in the music department).

So the songs are either outrageous or uninspired, the film is mostly boring... what's left: ah, the performances - no, nothing there worth mentioning as they're all either mediocre or just ok. Leslie Caron, however, is among the best of the group, at least because she looks so sweet, and does create a character outside the musical numbers.

The costumes are dreamy, the art direction is beautiful, the cinematography is ok, but what makes me more forgiving of Gigi is the subject of the film - this is the thing that charms me: romances with great costumes, rich people, sentimental dilemmas, and there's a scene or two (with Gigi's hesitation of becoming only his mistress) that speaks plenty of truth. I also found the film to be surprisingly & pleasantly non-misogynistic, considering a rather delicate subject matter.

My rating for the film: 6/10. I'm being too generous, but what can I do...

The Color Purple (1985) (3rd time)

The life and trials of a young African American woman. [imdb]

Nominated for 11 Oscars:

Best Picture
Best Actress: Whoopi Goldberg
Best Supporting Actress: Margaret Avery
Best Supporting Actress: Oprah Winfrey
Best Adapted Screenplay
Best Original Score
Best Original Song
Best Cinematography
Best Art Direction
Best Costume Design
Best Makeup

You know when you've seen a film once or twice a couple of years before and you are certain it's one of your alltime favorites? So much that you include it in your Top 5 ever? Well, this is what happened to me and The Color Purple - but when I've seen it now, years later, for my blog: some of the magic was lost. :( And I can see the flaws, which are plenty. This doesn't mean I've stopped liking the film, I still think it's magic: only that I can't call it an alltime favorite anymore, if I'm being honest with my choices.

The first 30 minutes are really the weakest, with the story lacking a clear focus and with more of a naive way of telling us what happens. As soon as Whoopi gets on screen as grown-up Celie, everything moves better, with the characters of Sophie & Shug also bringing plenty of great stuff to see. Overall, it remains an impressive achievement, and the film grows in quality as we get more used to the characters. Two scenes are filled with emotions and so representative for the heart of the film; both towards the end: God Is Trying to Tell You Something and the cheesy, but so heart warming reunion at the ending.

Talking Oscar, you surely know the film holds an unfortunate record: it ties The Turning Point (1977) for most nominations for a film, without a single win; it deserved better than this. Also, its director, none other than Steven Spielberg, didn't get nominated although he had won the prestigious Directors Guild Award, usually an Oscar indicator. Whoopi Goldberg was a favorite to win and had the chance to make history as the first African American to win Best Actress, but lost to veteran actress Geraldine Page. Margaret Avery & Oprah Winfrey give fantastic supporting performances, and any of them would've deserved a win.

I hope I'm never asked to choose a Best Picture winner for 1985, as you might remember my renewed love affair with winner Out of Africa. Having to choose between that one and The Color Purple would be an impossible task for me.

My rating for the film: 9/10. If you haven't seen it, run to it immediately.

The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957)

After settling his differences with a Japanese PoW camp commander, a British colonel co-operates to oversee his men's construction of a railway bridge for their captors - while oblivious to a plan by the Allies to destroy it. [imdb]

Nominated for 8 Oscars:

Best Picture (WINNER)
Best Director: David Lean (WINNER)
Best Actor: Alec Guinness (WINNER)
Best Supporting Actor: Sessue Hayakawa
Best Adapted Screenplay (WINNER)
Best Original Score (WINNER)
Best Cinematography (WINNER)
Best Editing (WINNER)

The Bridge on the River Kwai is an excellent film that is also the 30th winner of the Best Picture Oscar. I had seen scenes from it before, I knew the ending, but I never enjoyed it from beginning to end and I gladly did it now for my Best Picture series. It's a beautiful action film, interestingly divided in chapters with some that are simply fantastic. The first hour-hour and a half is the best. Guinness and Hayakawa both deliver remarkable performances and it's in their scenes that the film reaches the highest quality of writing, acting, directing.

It was very enjoyable seeing the two working together, as their scenes of rivalry are really entertaining, in a dramatic way. While I didn't care so much about the William Holden part of the film, I understand its role and it does contribute to the action element of this picture. The cinematography, the music, the editing, the art direction are all fascinant and very efficient. David Lean's direction is subtle and it's another proof that he was a great storyteller.

The film's final hour is not as captivating as the first part, but the fabulous ending is exactly the right choice. It probably deserved most of its wins, though I'm holding back a bit on Guinness - he's great, he really is, but he was competing against Charles Laughton in Witness for the Prosecution, so it's difficult to choose between such fascinating performances.

My rating for the film: 8.5/10. Good piece of action-drama.

Sweet Dreams (1985) (2nd time)

Lange portrays Patsy Cline, the velvet-voiced country singer who died in a tragic plane crash. [imdb]

Nominated for 1 Oscar:

Best Actress: Jessica Lange

Sweeeeeeeeeeet nonsense. And it's not even sweet. Whoever wrote this (by the way, he also wrote Mommie Dearest) has real limitations as a screenplaywriter. The film fails massively and mostly because of the writing, and also because of a very very lazy direction.

I actually HATED the writing, to be honest: the film is so much about the relationship between the two, and not enough about her music, her personality, her individuality. Also, it sickens me how much it justifies the abusive behavior of the husband. Seriously! It's insane! Other than Patsy's songs, there isn't much (or anything for me) to rally behind; and it's not even accurate for most part.

I know some go crazy over Jessica Lange here, I don't; had problems both seeing her as Patsy and dealing with her Southern girlish atittude. But more on that performance on the other blog, in a day or two.

My rating for the film: 3.5/10. To have Patsy calling her abusive husband's name right before she dies (something we know didn't happen) is BEYOND offensive.

The Chalk Garden (1964)

A grandmother seeks a governess for her 16 year old granddaughter, Laurel, who manages to drive away each and every one. [imdb]

Nominated for 1 Oscar:

Best Supporting Actress: Edith Evans

There isn't much to say about this film, as it was mostly a very uninteresting cliched experience. The film focuses on 4 performances, of which I'm sorry to say Deborah Kerr's is the most boring. Nobody is fantastic, or even great, but each of the other actors has a good scene to put a bit more effort into.

Famous teenage-actress Hayley Mills does the best she can and shares an intense scene with her real-life father, John Mills. But I mostly payed attention to Oscar nominated Edith Evans, waiting for something to justify the nomination. It's a fine performance, which I'm sure some would really like. She gets plenty of screentime in the role of the grandmother, but I was not entirely convinced and didn't find the role to be as demanding... so a win would've seemed too much for me. Though she surely had a shot at the trophy.

The film lacks in story; it's based on a successful play, but judging from the film it's hard to say why the success. There's nothing fascinating and it ends up looking too predictable, with a flawed direction.

My rating for the film: 4/10. I don't hate it, but it's hard to find real qualities.

Around the World in 80 Days (1956)

Adaptation of Jules Verne's novel about a Victorian Englishman who bets that with the new steamships and railways he can travel around the world in 80 Days. [imdb]

Nominated for 8 Oscars:

Best Picture (WINNER)
Best Director: Michael Anderson
Best Adapted Screenplay (WINNER)
Best Original Score (WINNER)
Best Cinematography (WINNER)
Best Editing (WINNER)
Best Art Direction
Best Costume Design

The Best Picture winner for 1956 is considered by many to be one of the worst in Oscar's history. As I go to each of them chronologically, I was quite happy to reach this one, as I suspected it would be easy to watch, maybe even fun. And I was right: I think the critics are overreacting; it's not a terribly smart film, it doesn't even explore its own potential, but it's far from worst.

Out of its competition, I've only seen Giant which is a better film, and definitely more serious & important. Around the World starts out very well, but loses focus along the way, or maybe it all seemed to rushed. It has a good story, but the writing could've been better in the second half, and the ending is not what I might've hoped for. Best in show is Cantinflas, a Mexican celebrity/actor playing the servant: he's very funny here and most of all likeable, and the success of this film depends a lot on his charisma.

How did this win Best Picture? Probably because it was the cool stuff, and it was also a competitive year, so Giant and The King and I were real contenders and could've split the votes. The Art Direction is very impressive and the film looks well-done technically.

My rating for the film: 6/10. I just wish they had paid more attention to the second half.

Out of Africa (1985) (2nd time)

In 20th century colonial Kenya, a Danish baroness/plantation owner has a passionate but ultimately doomed love affair with a free-sprited hunter. [imdb]

Nominated for 11 Oscars:

Best Picture (WINNER)
Best Director: Sydney Pollack (WINNER)
Best Actress: Meryl Streep
Best Supporting Actor: Klaus Maria Brandauer
Best Adapted Screenplay (WINNER)
Best Original Score (WINNER)
Best Cinematography (WINNER)
Best Editing
Best Art Direction (WINNER)
Best Costume Design
Best Sound (WINNER)

I had a farm in Africa at the foot of the Ngong Hills... [I melt]

I really like this film. It's no masterpiece, but I really really like it, because it's so pretty and well put together. It's definitely one of my favorite Best Picture winners of all times. It has a nicely organized screenplay, allowing the story to flow properly, and I'm sure it was not an easy adaptation to do. Its focus is on Meryl's character, the very interesting real-life Baroness Karen Blixen, and I especially appreciated the way the character is put together - there's nothing incredible about this woman, but on her feelings and reactions I could really stand behind, and found them believable.

Redford is just a pretty face, Klaus has charisma, but I don't think it's an awards-worthy performance. Meryl is beautiful & great, but more on her on the other blog. The original score is one of the best I've ever heard, and the cinematography is dreamy. Pollack's direction is not perfect (what's up with the obvious studio screen in 2 scenes?!), but he sure also made some smart choices. I think the beginning of the film is perfect, and the ending is nearly just as good. Yes, you should always start a film with fabulous music & a voiceover from Meryl. All films should have that.

My rating for the film: 9/10. From its competition, I'd probably go for Color Purple, but this is a great winner.

Agnes of God (1985)

When a naive novice nun is discovered with a dead newborn in her convent quarters, a court appointed psychiatrist investigates her case. [imdb]

Nominated for 3 Oscars:

Best Actress: Anne Bancroft
Best Supporting Actress: Meg Tilly
Best Original Score

I'm not gonna spend too much time writing about this; to keep it short: I honestly believe it's a mess. The worst thing about it is the screenplay, offering some RIDICULOUS dialogues, not only too stagey, but with no rhythm and sense of how people really talk. It's predictable, overhyped and doesn't live up to the tension and mystery it tries to build.

The performances are nothing special. Meg Tilly is in her own universe, I'll write about Anne on the other blog very soon & Jane Fonda is trying the hardest, but there's only so much you can do with such bad dialogue. A big mess, with only one or two better scenes, one of them being the second hypnosis (nicely shot, but a silly idea to begin with).

My rating for the film: 3.5/10. The deconstruction will continue on the other blog.

Swing Shift (1984)

A woman finds romance when she takes a job at an airport plant to help make ends meet after her husband goes off to war. [imdb]

Nominated for 1 Oscar:

Best Supporting Actress: Christine Lahti

Oh boy, this film is a mess. I wanted something easy to watch, also with some Oscar nominations, and I chose this, because I had previously seen some scenes on TV. But it wasn't really what I expected (some romantic drama); in fact, it's a boring, predictable, melo non-sense with only one good performance.

Christine Lahti did deserve the Oscar nomination, because she's clearly the best by far; her acting gives such a contrast it's embarassing for the rest of the cast. With such a bad screenplay, she manages to create a likeable character, and the only real emotional one. Ed Harris is ok, Kurt Russell is ignorable, but Goldie Hawn gives... her worst performance ever. She can't even manage the easy scenes, while also being surprisingly dislikeable. It's sad.

My rating for the film: 3.5/10. I can't believe Jonathan Demme directed this waste of time.

Marty (1955)

Marty is a 34-year-old butcher whose Italian family is constantly after him to get married. He then meets plain-looking schoolteacher Clara. [imdb]

Nominated for 8 Oscars:

Best Picture (WINNER)
Best Director: Delbert Mann (WINNER)
Best Actor: Ernest Borgnine (WINNER)
Best Supporting Actor: Joe Mantell
Best Supporting Actress: Betsy Blair
Best Writing, Screenplay (WINNER)
Best Cinematography, Black-and-White
Best Art Direction, Black-and-White

You don't hear many people talking about Marty these days, even though it won Best Picture for 1955, making it the 28th winner of this category. There's a reason for the lack of interest nowadays, and mostly because it's a very very low-key film. As the film started, I actually enjoyed it and found it pleasant to watch. However, it quickly turned into pure misogyny and the ending especially managed to annoy me quite a lot.

I'm not a fan of Borgnine, and I'm sure had James Dean not died in 1955, he would've given him some serious competition for East of Eden. But given the situation, Borgnine had an easy win for Best Actor, one I can't fully agree with, even though it's not a bad performance. I just didn't like the character and didn't feel the role was challenging enough. This is strange case of film which I would've preferred more had it been a bit idealized. It gets a bit too cruel, misogynistic as I said, and also too crowded with uninteresting supporting characters.

Betsy Blair gives a flawed performance, and I guess she got nominated just because of the film. The same with supporting actor Joe Mantell, who does almost nothing in his role. The direction is better than the screenplay & the film itself, but far from being a justified winner. And yet how did Marty win all these top prizes? Simple enough: very weak competition, with a surprisingly strange Best Picture line-up of nominees.

My rating for the film: 6/10. Some will enjoy it more. It lost my interest towards the end. It sure don't look like a Best Picture winner to me, though that didn't affect my rating for it.

The Trip to Bountiful (1985)

The film, set in the 1940s, tells the story of an elderly woman, Carrie Watts (Page), who wants to return home to the small town where she grew up. [wiki]

Nominated for 2 Oscars:

Best Actress: Geraldine Page (WINNER)

Best Adapted Screenplay

I didn't know this film was a teleplay before it was taken to stage by Horton Foote; it's usually the other way around. Legendary Lillian Gish first played the leading role on TV in 1953. Without knowing how that one worked out, I was a bit saddened by the way they chose to do this film, which starts off very stagey, and not in the good way.

The film fails on many many levers, mostly by having some pretty bad actors creating some very boring supporting characters. Who cares about them?! when you have such an intriguing leading female character. It should only focus on Mrs. Watts, not on some frustrated, badly cast performances. Geraldine carries the film is so many ways and you can easily tell her acting puts all the rest to shame. But there's only so much she can do, and the screenplay really lets her down in the ending.

My rating for the film: 6/10. Without Geraldine it would be a 4 or so.

On the Waterfront (1954) (2nd time)

An ex-prize fighter turned longshoreman struggles to stand up to his corrupt union bosses. [imdb]

Nominated for 12 Oscars:

Best Picture (WINNER)
Best Director: Elia Kazan (WINNER)
Best Actor: Marlon Brando (WINNER)
Best Supporting Actor: Lee J. Cobb
Best Supporting Actor: Karl Malden
Best Supporting Actor: Rod Steiger
Best Supporting Actress: Eva Marie Saint (WINNER)
Best Writing, Story and Screenplay (WINNER)
Best Cinematography, Black-and-White (WINNER)
Best Original Score
Best Editing (WINNER)
Best Art Direction, Black-and-White (WINNER)

As I am continuing my Best Picture series, I'm at winner no. 27, On the Waterfront, a film I had already seen a couple of years ago. It remains one of the most talked about Best Picture winners of its era, mostly because of Marlon Brando's iconic performance. I didn't like it that much the 1st time, I thought it was better now, but it definitely has its flaws. I dunno why, but the second part felt a bit flat to me, inconsistent, unsatisfying. I fell there was more potential that needed exploited.

It should be known I'm not a fan of Elia Kazan's personal life-changing testimonies, and how funny it is that he directed this film, a film about unions and such. Where did he get the balls to do this... If you have no idea what I'm talking about, click HERE.

But all of this did not influence my perspective on the film and I did try to be as objective. Talking about direction, it has a lot of great moments, but also some unfortunate choices towards the end, one of which is using a stunt-double in a scene, and we can clearly tell it's not Brando.

The best element of the film is the acting. Brando gives an Oscar-worthy performance, and he did win, being his 4th consecutive nomination. While I admit he has some impressive scenes, and probably is above competition, I don't find it to be one of the best male performances in history - it's just a very good one, but not the one. The supporting men are terrific, all 3 receiving very worthy nominations; Lee J. Cobb is like a 1950s Tony Soprano and he's great at it, while Karl Malden is probably the best of the bunch, playing a very honest determined priest.

Eva Marie Saint won the trophy for this, but I question the choice, as I know at least one other better performance in her category; you can tell she lacked some acting experience. The win for Art Direction is a bit silly, but the Cinematography is quite impressive. The film works nicely, but I didn't find myself to be connected to any of the characters and while it starts great, I feel they could've found a less happy, more believable ending.

My rating for the film: 8/10. I was tempted to go for more, but in my BP lineup I just can't have it above All Quiet on the... or Wings.

From Here to Eternity (1953) (2nd time)

In 1941 Hawaii, a private is cruelly punished for not boxing on his unit's team, while his captain's wife and second in command are falling in love. [imdb]

Nominated for 13 Oscars:

Best Picture (WINNER)
Best Director: Fred Zinnemann (WINNER)
Best Actor: Montgomery Clift
Best Actor: Burt Lancaster
Best Actress: Deborah Kerr
Best Supporting Actor: Frank Sinatra (WINNER)
Best Supporting Actress: Donna Reed (WINNER)
Best Writing, Screenplay (WINNER)
Best Cinematography, Black-and-White (WINNER)
Best Original Score
Best Editing (WINNER)
Best Costume Design, Black-and-White
Best Sound (WINNER)

I'm continuing my Best Picture series with winner number 26, a film that still enjoys a certain amount of popularity. I myself was not a fan the first time I saw it - not that I've changed my mind, but now it feels a bit better. Of course, the film was much more relevant back then, considering only 12 years separated it from the attack on Pearl Harbor - respectfully ilustrated towards the end of the picture.

Otherwise, the film carries a bit too many stories, none of them fully described; it's a bit too segmented and often enough relies on hard-to-believe screenplay decisions. The acting itself seemed a bit different the 2nd time: now I think Monty is pretty bad in the role and I just don't get it why he was considered a good actor in those days. Frank Sinatra himself is quite loud here and the performance seems to be far from Oscar material. I was more impressed with the ladies: Deborah Kerr has much too limited screentime to be considered a lead, but she's intriguingly playing an against-the-type character and she gives a good performance. Donna Reed was better than I remembered, while Burt Lancaster does justice to a very macho role.

While it was a huge success in its era, it feels dated. It has good acting moments, one or two wise directorial choices, but I just don't see it as a classic or anything.

My rating for the film: 6.5/10. The final scene is completely wrong, and I just don't see what they were going for.

Hush...Hush, Sweet Charlotte (1964) (2nd time)

An aging, reclusive southern belle, plagued by a horrifying family secret, descends into madness after the arrival of a lost relative. [imdb]

Nominated for 7 Oscars:

Best Supporting Actress: Agnes Moorehead

Best Cinematography, Black-and-White

Best Original Score

Best Original Song

Best Editing

Best Art Direction, Black-and-White

Best Costume Design, Black-and-White

The story behind this film is maybe much more interesting than the film itself; as you know, it was supposed to reteam real-life rivals Bette Davis & Joan Crawford, but Bette did all she could to push Joan away from the project, and got it her way. An entire soap opera behind it, and I recommend the trivia page on imdb for details.

I knew this was gonna be cheesy, with a feeling of B-series horror. I remembered it like that, but it actually proved much more satisfying. The second time around I learned to appreciate Agnes Moorehead's performance - I actually thought she was quite great as the loud-mouthed noisy housekeeper; it's overacting at its best. The screenplay is kinda messy, but Aldrich's directing is quite solid, something you wouldn't expect from a horror flick. Personally, I'm also a bit surprised Bette Davis didn't get nominated for this; sure, it's a performance gone to far at times, but it does have its highlight, and the field was pretty weak.

My rating for this film: 7.5/10. It's no Baby Jane, and I might be a bit too generous, but it does have its charm, for sure.

The Bells of St. Mary's (1945)

At a big city Catholic school, Father O'Malley and Sister Benedict indulge in friendly rivalry, and succeed in extending the school through the gift of a building. [imdb]

Nominated for 8 Oscars:

Best Picture
Best Director: Leo McCarey
Best Actor: Bing Crosby
Best Actress: Ingrid Bergman
Best Original Score
Best Original Song
Best Editing
Best Sound (WINNER)

I usually like to put here the original poster of a film, but I just couldn't do that for Bells of St Mary's because it was way too ridiculous: the original one has Crosby & Bergman on it, but in street clothes, as if just coming home from dinner. :)) how silly is that, considering they stay in their priest / nun outfits during the entire film.

Also good to note that this is the first sequel to get nominated for Best Picture. It is, of course, the sequel of Going My Way, the film that had won way too many Oscars in the previous year, including Best Picture, Director & Actor. Considering I wasn't a fan of it (look for my review in the tags on the right), I had hoped that the new presence of Ingrid Bergman might bring a breath of fresh air and avoid another dull film. It succeeded in a way, but not completely.

Ingrid is fine, though the role could've been richer. Crosby, I thought, was actually better than in Going My Way, mostly because of the emotional scenes at the end. The biggest problem can be found in the screenplay which, sometimes predictably, goes for plenty of cheesy moments, mostly boring ones and any excuse to make Bing Crosby sing another song. I was actually well prepared to give it a 5 until the last 10 minutes, which completely changed the quality of the film; not only is Bergman fantastic in the end, but the screenplay finally brings some emotion to the leads.

My rating for the film: 7/10. Too bad it didn't make the right choices earlier that it did; but better than Going My Way, for sure.

My Favorite Wife (1940)

Ellen Arden arrives 7 years after being given up for dead in a shipwreck, to find her husband Nick just remarried to Bianca. [imdb]

Nominated for 3 Oscars:

Best Writing, Original Story
Best Original Score
Best Art Direction, Black-and-White

I've seen this film of course because it had Cary Grant & Irene Dunne in it, because I've heard it was a romantic comedy, and I knew it would be easy to watch. And it proved easy to watch, but it sure didn't have the comedy that The Awful Truth gave. Leo McCarey produced this one, but didn't direct, though the direction is not its problem.

Unfortunately, the screenplay isn't that funny. It has a great idea, but doesn't know what to do with it. The film tries too much to be like The Awful Truth and it fails for most parts (the ending & the pretending scenes are practically reinterpretations from the 1937 comedy, but without that charm & freshness). Irene is wonderful, but Cary is completely unfocused. It could've been much much better.

My rating for the film: 6/10. A couple of kinda funny moments, but almost no laughs.

The Tempest (2010)

Shakespeare's epic play is translated from page to screen, with the gender of the main character, Prospero, changed from male to female. [imdb]

Nominated for 1 Oscar:

Best Costume Design

This was, I think, the only Oscar nominated film I didn't get to see in time for my annual AIM Awards. Having seen it now, I can't say I've missed too much, and it would've definitely not made any of my lists. With the major box-office failure of this, and the failure of Spider-Man on Broadway, 2010 really hasn't been much of a year for director Julie Taymor.

The Tempest sure has a style of its own, and I appreciated that. But the occasional flashy style and Ben Whishaw as Ariel, the spirit (he's unusually erotic with this performance) are the only elements of the film to go above average. Helen Mirren is ok, but the role is not challenging enough. And the worst is how boring the film is - I couldn't care less about the characters, and there's only so much of Shakesperean language I can take when there's no major plot to carry the weight.

And don't get me started on Sandy Powell's costumes... Sure, some are fabulous, but at one point the young man was wearing what looked like black jeans and undershirt... Really, Sandy, I know it's part fantasy, but why make him look so L.A.?!

My rating for the film: 3.5/10. A film I could definitely live without. They should make one all about Whishaw's spirit.

Leave Her to Heaven (1945)

The story revolves around a femme fatale who entraps a husband and commits several crimes motivated by her insane jealousy. [wiki]

Nominated for 4 Oscars:

Best Actress: Gene Tierney
Best Cinematography, Color (WINNER)
Best Art Direction, Color
Best Sound

According to Wikipedia, this film was Fox's highest-grossing picture of the 1940s, it got only positive reviews, it has 100% positive on Rotten Tomatoes and it's one of Martin Scorsese's favorite films... The only thing I can say is that all of them need a reality check. This is a film that hardly makes any sense, and that's because of the completely unjustified actions of the leading character.

While watching it I could only think: who wrote this?! Who actually believes that this woman would've deliberately done all those things. Don't tell me she's a psycho, that's not how the film presents it. SPOILER ALERT (though it happens in the first hour): What woman would kill her husband's younger brother just because she doesn't want him around, because she's too possessive?! Few things in this film make sense. Gene Tierney is not talented enough to make it coherent, the direction is ignorable, the cinematography is fine but not Oscar worthy; and I've seen 2 Cornel Wilde films in a week, and let's just say I'm not in the mood for more.

My rating for the film: 4/10. I'm being generous; it's easy to watch just because it's mediocre all around.

The Greatest Show on Earth (1952)

The dramatic lives of trapeze artists, a clown, and an elephant trainer against a background of circus spectacle. [imdb]

Nominated for 5 Oscars:

Best Picture (WINNER)
Best Director: Cecil B. DeMille
Best Writing, Story (WINNER)
Best Editing
Best Costume Design, Color

I'm continuing to see the Best Picture winners, and winner number 25 was Greatest Show on Earth, a film I've heard only bad things about. Many seem to consider it one of the worst to get Oscar's big prize, but as I always say: You've probably never seen Cavalcade. Anyway, I started watching it with low expectation and guess what: it's not a good film, but it's definitely not the least deserving. I can defend it by saying some of the scenes were entertaining and the film itself never annoyed me.

Its biggest problem is that it doesn't take itself seriously - sure, the costumes are fine, the art direction is good, the story has potential to be interesting, but the direction is lazy, the editing is sloppy and the film as a whole feels quite cheesy, and very dated today. Betty Hutton is a charismatic lead, while Gloria Grahame is definitely more interesting than in her Oscar-winning role in The Bad and the Beautiful. James Stewart gives a nice, low-key performance, while the big train scene at the end is nicely shot.

My rating for the film: 5.5/10. I hear all other 4 nominated film from that year were much more deserving. It's possible, I won't argue with that, I've only seen Moulin Rouge.

The Valley of Decision (1945)

It tells the story of a young Irish house maid who falls in love with the son of her employer, a local steel mill owner. [wiki]

Nominated for 2 Oscars:

Best Actress: Greer Garson
Best Original Score

Finally a Greer Garson film without Walter Pidgeon as a co-star... this was one of Gregory Peck's first films, and what a chance starring opposite a star like Garson... who was also I think 12 years older than him... but the romance is not the biggest problem of Valley of Decision. The main thing I can accuse it of is that it has nothing special or surprising in the screenplay; it's a flat story, doesn't feel intelligent enough and it loses focus in the 2nd part.

The highlight of the film is the acting - no, not from the 2 leading stars, but from the strong supporting players. I don't understand how Hollywood legend Lionel Barrymore didn't get a nomination for this - he's GREAT as the angry, obsessed father of Mary; and has enough screentime and emotional shots to create a good performance. A young Jessica Tandy is also impressive as the female villain and Gladys Cooper does something I never seen her do before: she gets to play a gentle, kind, loving woman, which is very different from the roles she used to get.

My rating for the film: 5/10. OK to see for the acting, not for the story.

An American in Paris (1951)

A struggling American painter in Paris, is "discovered" by an influential heiress, while falling in love with a young French girl. [imdb]

Nominated for 8 Oscars:

Best Picture (WINNER)
Best Director: Vincente Minnelli
Best Writing, Story and Screenplay (WINNER)
Best Cinematography, Color (WINNER)
Best Music, Musical Picture (WINNER)
Best Editing
Best Art Direction, Color (WINNER)
Best Costume Design, Color (WINNER)

I am continuing my series of trying to watch all Best Picture winners, some for the first time. And that's how I got to winner number 24, An American in Paris, a musical I was never really interested in seeing. My instincts were right: had it not been for my dedication to the blog, I might have not bothered. It's not as bad as I make it sound, and definitely not the worst BP winner, but far from the top of the list.

Its biggest problem is that it has no humor; it also doesn't have any great songs. All that it has is good dancing, and a lot of it. The film is never really bad, just terribly boring until it gets closer to the end: I will admit I thought those 20 minutes of dancing moments were mostly nice. Not all, the one with Lautrec was ridiculous, but some were really ahead of their times and one cannot deny the great camera work. It sure helps the film redeem itself a bit. And Leslie Caron looks like a terrific ballerina; I was impressed. The acting lacks greatness, with Nina Foch being the only intriguing one.

My rating for the film: 5.5/10. I still feel like I'm giving it waaaaay to much. And no, no word on Kelly, we all know he's more of a dancer than an actor. The film certainly DIDN'T deserve the Best Picture win.

***Best Picture winner number 23rd, All About Eve, has been previously discussed: click HERE.

Love Letters (1945)

Allen Quinton writes a fellow soldier's love letters; tragedy results. Later, Allen meets a beautiful amnesiac who fears postmen. [imdb]

Nominated for 4 Oscars:

Best Actress: Jennifer Jones

Best Original Score

Best Original Song

Best Art Direction, Black-and-White

I'm not sure if you have to be a romantic to like this film or just to ignore the big number of screenplay silly-choices and way-to-convenient solutions. I went through the film constantly surprised by how uninspired the writing is, and can you believe the screenplay was written by the (in)famous Ayn Rand? I would've expected much more. Sure, the subject is interesting, but it's very far from reaching its potential.

There's hardly any mystery going on, with the exception of the scenes towards the end, which are good, but spoiled by a fake-looking Hollywood ending. I generally couldn't care less. The acting is mediocre, even though Gladys Cooper has 2 good scenes as the adoptive mother.

My rating for the film: 4/10. Would only recommend it to Best Actress & Oscar fanatics, who'd see it no matter what.

Mildred Pierce (1945) (2nd time)

After her husband leaves her, Mildred Pierce proves she can become independent and successful, but can't win the approval of her spoiled daughter. [imdb]

Nominated for 6 Oscars:

Best Picture
Best Actress: Joan Crawford (WINNER)
Best Supporting Actress: Eve Arden
Best Supporting Actress: Ann Blyth
Best Writing, Screenplay
Best Cinematography, Black-and-White

I was quite young when I saw Mildred Pierce on TCM one night, and I was really impressed by it. Now, many years later, I'm not as crazy about it as I used to be back then. It's easier to notice the flaws, but even so it remains an interesting film. It has a great leading role, and Joan Crawford delivers one of her classic performances, though also not as flawless as remembered.

The performances are ok, the direction is good and the cinematography special, definitely helping with the noir mood of the film. The one element stopping the film from being great is the screenplay, which feels very rushed at times, not exploiting enough scenes with a lot of dramatic potential. And it's a pitty, because you can tell there's a lot of juicy stuff here. But at one point it just becomes a succession of scenes and actions.

My rating for the film: 7.5/10. I would've given it an 8, but Mildred lost Best Picture to The Lost Weekend, and that one got a 7.5 from me; so now I'm thinking that I'm not really sure if Mildred is a better film. They're very different.

It's worth mentioning that I've seen only 5 minutes of the Winslet mini-series, and have no clear intention of giving it a try; I hate the character Veda, so 5 hours of something that annoys me doesn't seem like much of a treat.

It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World (1963)

The dying words of a thief spark a madcap cross-country rush to find some treasure. [imdb]

Nominated for 6 Oscars:

Best Cinematography
Best Original Score
Best Original Song
Best Editing
Best Sound
Best Sound Effects (WINNER)

I saw this film because I suspected I might find it to be entertaining - and it really was. And quite easy to watch for a film way longer than 2 hours. It's a wacky comedy that would probably never work today, but it sure seemed right for that era. It has a couple of boring parts, but also outloud funny scenes, and I love this kind of film chases.

Its biggest asset is the incredible stunt work - those guys who actually drove the cars did more than an impressive job. The acting is as fun as it gets for this kind of comedy - except for Spencer Tracy: sorry to say it, but he was quite bad here, maybe because of age, maybe because of not getting the silly rhythm of the story. The treasure performance for me: Ethel Merman who is crazy funny in the annoying mother-in-law kind of role.

My rating for the film: 7/10. Not always interesting, but easy to watch, with a satisfying feeling to it. I do recommend it for a light-comedy mood, despite the 7 I gave it.