Il Postino (1994/95)

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

Nominated for 5 Oscars:

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

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

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

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

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

The Three Faces of Eve (1957)

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

Nominated for 1 Oscar:

Best Actress: Joanne Woodward (WINNER)

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

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

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

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

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

Nominated for 8 Oscars:

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

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

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

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

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

It Happened One Night (1934)

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

Nominated for 5 Oscars:

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

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

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

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

My rating for the film: 8/10. It's smart feel good and Claudette is charming.

*** Originally an 8.5, edited to an 8 :)

Braveheart (1995) (2nd time)

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

Nominated for 10 Oscars:

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

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

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

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

Amadeus (1984) (2nd time)

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

Nominated for 11 Oscars:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nominated for 7 Oscars:

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

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

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

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

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

Lorenzo's Oil (1992)

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

Nominated for 2 Oscars:

Best Actress: Susan Sarandon
Best Original Screenplay

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

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

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

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

The Bad Seed (1956)

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

Nominated for 4 Oscars:

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

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

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

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

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

Alfie (1966)

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

Nominated for 5 Oscars:

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

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

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

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

Cat Ballou (1965)

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

Nominated for 5 Oscars:

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

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

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

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

Love Field (1992)

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

Nominated for 1 Oscar:

Best Actress: Michelle Pfeiffer

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

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

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

Inside Daisy Clover (1965)

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

Nominated for 3 Oscars:

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

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

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

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

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

Heaven Can Wait (1978)

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

Nominated for 9 Oscars:

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

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

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

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

Legend (1985/86) (2nd time)

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

Nominated for 1 Oscar:

Best Makeup

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

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

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

Cavalcade (1933)

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

Nominated for 4 Oscars:

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

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

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

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

The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas (1982)

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

Nominated for 1 Oscar:

Best Supporting Actor: Charles Durning

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

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

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

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


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

Grand Hotel (1932)

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

Nominated for 1 Oscar:

Best Picture (WINNER)

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

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

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

Indochine (1992) (2nd time)

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

Nominated for 2 Oscars:

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

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

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

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

Poseidon (2006)

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

Nominated for 1 Oscar:

Best Visual Effects

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

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

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

Passion Fish (1992) (2nd time)

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

Nominated for 2 Oscars:

Best Actress: Mary McDonnell
Best Original Screenplay

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

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

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

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

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

Nominated for 3* Oscars:

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

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

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

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

Star Wars (1977) (3rd time?)

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

Nominated for 10* Oscars:

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

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

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

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

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

Cimarron (1931)

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

Nominated for 7 Oscars:

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

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

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

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

My rating for the film: 4/10. 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.