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: 4/10. 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: 4/10. 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.