| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Joe Blevins 
"Don't I look handsome?"
|
 Posted - 02/17/2013 : 04:28:18
|
Well, my dearest FWFR, another year has elapsed. And the time for the AMC Best Picture Showcase -- a marathon of all the Best Picture nominees -- is once again upon us. I have survived Day One, with Day Two coming next Saturday.
Here, then, is a report.
Amour - Michael Haneke's unsparing look at old age, love, and death follows an elderly French couple whose final days are rapidly approaching. As the wife's health dramatically deteriorates, the husband tends to her as best he can under difficult circumstances. Amour is unhurried and observational, more about character development than plot. For most of the running time, we simply watch these two people as they go through their daily routines. Haneke forgoes a traditional score (though there is some source music) and prefers long, uninterrupted takes. This is all very thoughtful and poignant, yet I was curiously unmoved. I'm not exactly sure why. I guess it's all a little cold and formal. This is the kind of movie you admire rather than enjoy. Audiences will shuffle back to their cars in contemplative silence after the credits roll on this one. Still, a marvel of acting, cinematography, and direction. GRADE: A-
Les Miserables - Another film about dying French people, but this could hardly be more different than Amour. While Haneke's film hangs back and lets us draw our own conclusions, Les Miz definitely wants to grab you by the lapels and shake you vigorously for a couple of hours. Fans of the stage musical may feel it has been butchered. Non-fans of the stage musical may be baffled as to why everyone is singing so much. I'm amazed at how many critics seem to be unfamiliar with the stage show or its songs. I'm somewhere in the middle here. I'm familiar with the stage show, but I'm not protective of it. There have been some grumbles about the direction (too many closeups, they say) and about some of the cast members (too many non-singers, they say). None of that really bothered me. Well, I guess Russell Crowe's singing voice did eventually start to grate, but not until the second hour or so. If there was a problem for me, it was that I was much more interested in the first half of the film than the second. About midway through, we're expected to shift our sympathies from Jean Valjean to his now-grown adopted daughter Collette and her would-be revolutionary boyfriend Marius. Trouble is, Collette and Marius are really, really boring characters, and I got sick of them singing about their undying love and devotion to each other. The characters in this flick explain absolutely everything, no matter how obvious, to each other... in song after song after song. They don't want the audience to miss anything, I guess. It's all very melodramatic and heavy, so I was glad to have Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter hamming it up outrageously in comedic supporting roles. But here's the weirdest thing: as cornball as this film was, some of it genuinely got to me. I feel like a traitor for saying that, since this film is so gaudy and obvious. But it's true. GRADE: B-
Argo - The clear audience favorite, and it's obvious to see why. Amour goes the tasteful, intellectual route with virtually no flashy tricks or cheap manipulation. Les Miz goes the sappy, bombastic route and is nearly all flashy tricks and cheap manipulation. Argo achieves a nice comfortable middle ground. It tells an involving, suspenseful story with healthy doses of humor and action, and yet it doesn't feel too obvious or pandering. Argo boasts a great ensemble cast and a nice establishment of time and place. I do have some concerns, though. For one, I think the film just might fuel (or confirm) anti-Arab prejudice among Western audiences. For another, especially towards the end, it starts to feel a little too Hollywood and contrived. And I'm not sure I learned anything of importance either. It's a neat story well told and a swell way to spend a couple of hours. I completely understand why people love it. Is it a film for the ages? Let's wait and see. GRADE: B+
Django Unchained - The kind of film only Quentin Tarantino gets to make -- a top-shelf, marvelously-produced, critically respected "prestige" picture with the heart and soul of an exploitation flick. Is he just making B-movies on a grand scale? Possibly. I think other QT films have had more on their minds than this one (Reservoir Dogs leaves me emotionally wrung-out every time), and it's not as radical in story or structure as, say, Pulp Fiction or Death Proof. I'm surprised how much speculation and debate this film has provoked. From my perspective, it's a simple revenge tale and not particularly philosophical or political at all. I just think it's meant as grand entertainment, a fun time at the movies. Isn't that enough? I kind of wish this were just some weird cult movie you'd find on television at 3:00 in the morning and not an "important" film we're all supposed to dissect and discuss. GRADE: A-
This year, by the way, I switched theaters from an isolated multiplex to a theater embedded in a shopping mall. At least at the mall, I could wander around between movies. The audience at the mall was much, much, much smaller than the one at the multiplex. My old theater was pretty much packed every year -- with some very obnoxious and badly-behaved people. The mall had about 20 people -- very respectful and well-behaved for the most part. But I still couldn't get away from those phones with lighted screens. May God damn the inventor of those terrible devices. I'll never get used to the fact that people text during movies.
|
Edited by - Joe Blevins on 02/17/2013 04:43:23 |
|
|
lemmycaution 
"Long mired in film"
|
Posted - 02/17/2013 : 06:12:12
|
Hey, Joe, I have always enjoyed your Showcase reports. Glad to see you back this year!  |
 |
|
|
Joe Blevins
"Don't I look handsome?"
|
Posted - 02/17/2013 : 07:49:47
|
Thank you, lemmycaution. I don't really get out to the movies very often these days, so the Best Picture Showcase is my one time a year to see films in their natural habitat. A good crop of nominees this year with plenty of variety. In one day, there was a sober drama, a lavish musical, a suspense film, and a spaghetti Western for dessert.
Next week: Zero Dark Thirty, Silver Linings Playbook, Beasts of the Southern Wild, Life of Pi and Lincoln. So another variety pack. |
|
|
|
BaftaBaby
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 02/17/2013 : 19:35:32
|
I, too, love reading your take on the current crop, Joe, and looking forward to your next selection!
|
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 02/17/2013 : 20:52:32
|
I love these recaps, Joe: please keep 'em coming! I too do not tend to see most of the big ones with a real audience, so I really pay attention to what you write. ROCK ON!
P.S.: Have you seen JACKIE BROWN? I'd love to know your QT take with that one in mind [I haven't seen DJANGO yet]. And I couldn't agree more about the increasingly dipshit audiences in cinema houses these days. You think you're the only one who can see your goddam smartphone screen, fucko? Ahem. Sorry. Still, I prefer seeing a great movie with a room full of attentive people, which is why I continue to attend film festivals and FSLC preview screenings. |
Edited by - randall on 02/17/2013 21:11:19 |
|
|
|
Joe Blevins
"Don't I look handsome?"
|
Posted - 02/17/2013 : 22:07:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by randall
I love these recaps, Joe: please keep 'em coming! I too do not tend to see most of the big ones with a real audience, so I really pay attention to what you write. ROCK ON!
P.S.: Have you seen JACKIE BROWN? I'd love to know your QT take with that one in mind [I haven't seen DJANGO yet]. And I couldn't agree more about the increasingly dipshit audiences in cinema houses these days. You think you're the only one who can see your goddam smartphone screen, fucko? Ahem. Sorry. Still, I prefer seeing a great movie with a room full of attentive people, which is why I continue to attend film festivals and FSLC preview screenings.
Hi, Randall.
Thanks. I've seen all of QT's feature films, and Jackie Brown happens to be my favorite, largely because of the relationship between Robert Forster and Pam Grier. I just like their conversations and always think it's sweet that Forster buys a cassette of the Delfonics after Grier plays him "Didn't I Blow Your Mind This Time?" I guess I just like hanging out with them vicariously through the movie. Outside of Reservoir Dogs, it's QT's most intimate movie. In the last decade or so, he's favored large-scale revenge epics. He's very good at them, and Django is the latest model.
One theme throughout his career -- though it doesn't apply to every movie -- is what I'd call "running the gauntlet." You have a character with a clear goal in mind, and then that character has to survive a series of tests or challenges before achieving the goal. These characters have to stay strong, keep their wits about them, and usually kill at least one or two people along the way. Bruce Willis runs the gauntlet in Pulp Fiction. Pam Grier does it in Jackie Brown. Uma Thurman does it for two whole movies in Kill Bill. And now Jamie Foxx is running the gauntlet in Django Unchained. |
|
|
|
Joe Blevins
"Don't I look handsome?"
|
Posted - 02/17/2013 : 23:10:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
I, too, love reading your take on the current crop, Joe, and looking forward to your next selection!
Thanks. Me, too. I think the next crop will be just as interesting. |
|
|
|
demonic 
"Cinemaniac"
|
Posted - 02/18/2013 : 00:24:54
|
Delighted to see you're doing your marathon Joe... I look forward to it every year, probably as much as you do!
I'm seeing "Silver Linings Playbook" tomorrow to complete my run of seeing all the nominees on the big screen. It's been a pretty good year. Personally I would have left "Amour" in the Foreign Language category, where it will win anyway (or dropped it from that category and put in "Rust and Bone" - one of my favourites of the year, cruelly snubbed along with Marion Cotillard), and added two more worthy nominees from the current crop. Probably "The Impossible" and "The Master" - both better films than "Les Miserables". Actually even "The Dark Knight Rises" should have been there, thinking about it, much as "LOTR: Return of the King" was the catch all for that trilogy. |
|
|
|
Joe Blevins
"Don't I look handsome?"
|
Posted - 02/20/2013 : 01:17:05
|
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
Delighted to see you're doing your marathon Joe... I look forward to it every year, probably as much as you do!
I'm seeing "Silver Linings Playbook" tomorrow to complete my run of seeing all the nominees on the big screen. It's been a pretty good year. Personally I would have left "Amour" in the Foreign Language category, where it will win anyway (or dropped it from that category and put in "Rust and Bone" - one of my favourites of the year, cruelly snubbed along with Marion Cotillard), and added two more worthy nominees from the current crop. Probably "The Impossible" and "The Master" - both better films than "Les Miserables". Actually even "The Dark Knight Rises" should have been there, thinking about it, much as "LOTR: Return of the King" was the catch all for that trilogy.
I missed The Impossible and even The Dark Knight Rises, but I was shocked and disappointed by the omission of The Master. That absolutely baffled me. It just seemed totally out of the blue.
I don't understand the double nomination for Amour. As you say, it's a lock for Best Foreign Film so I don't see why a Best Picture nomination is necessary. It's a well-made film, though. The film's nationality is tough to determine. It's shot in France with French actors by a German director. It was produced by a whole slew of French and Austrian companies. (13 are credited, most French.) Its current distributor, Sony Pictures, is an American division of a Japanese corporation. That's as close as it comes to being an American film. I would say the film is more French than anything else.
Les Miz is tougher to justify. It's a big film, certainly, and has some strong moments and performances. But it also has some major problems and has no chance at winning Best Picture. It's worth seeing, I'd say, but is not by any means the best movie of 2012.
I tend to avoid movies the first time around if I think they're going to be nominated for Best Picture. It was a long wait to see whether my suspicion would pay off on Beasts of the Southern Wild, but it did.
I'm very curious to see the next batch of films. I've heard nothing but raves on Silver Linings Playbook and Beasts. Word of mouth has been excellent on Lincoln, too. Life of Pi has a slightly shakier reputation, but the people who love it really love it. As for Zero Dark Thirty,well, it's recently been attracting some unwanted negative publicity for its depiction of torture. I'm still eager to see it. |
|
|
|
TitanPa
"Here four more"
|
Posted - 02/20/2013 : 01:37:59
|
| Love this time of the year. So glad to see the reports are a fwfr tradition! |
|
|
|
Joe Blevins
"Don't I look handsome?"
|
Posted - 02/24/2013 : 06:23:56
|
Well, now I've done it. I've seen all nine of the Best Picture nominees. Here's my report on the second batch:
Beasts of the Southern Wild - Oh, Oscar, I know you too well. Every year, there has to be at least one movie about the desperately poor designed to make us suburban folks in the audience feel a little guilty about our cushy lifestyles. Generally, the protagonist is a determined young person whose parents are dead, absent, unreliable, or ill. In the past, we've had Winter's Bone, Precious, and Slumdog Millionaire. This year, it's Beasts of the Southern Wild, which deals with the colorful and fiercely independent residents of "the Bathtub," the perpetually flood-prone area south of the levee in New Orleans. Our protagonist is an indefatigable young girl known as Hush Puppy who, along with her ailing father, live a hardscrabble life in which the search for food is a top priority. This may sound like very grim stuff, but it's all told in a kind of dreamy, evocative, semi-surrealistic way complete with fantasy sequences involving long-extinct animals who symbolize the struggle for survival in nature. Overall, it's a worthwhile viewing experience and gets extra points for not overstaying its welcome (a rarity among BP nominees). GRADE: B+
Life of Pi- Imagine you gave $100 million to a freshman philosophy student and told him to make a movie that was really, like, deep, man. This is what he might come up with. It's a philosophical parable about a young man named Pi (there's a story behind that) and a tiger named Richard Parker (there's a story behind that, too) who end up stranded together on a lifeboat adrift in the Pacific Ocean. It's all a big metaphor for God... or something. The movie is calculatedly multi denominational. Catholicism, Hinduism, Islam, science, and skepticism are all given their due. There's also a rather gratuitous framing story about a novelist seeking guidance from the now-grown Pi. Life of Pi didn't have much effect on me as a parable or as a philosophy lesson -- it all seemed a little trite, to be honest -- but it is gorgeously filmed (in 3D, no less!) and contains any number of incredible sights as well as a great deal of action and suspense. In short, it's a great yarn and a dubious lesson. GRADE: B
Lincoln - When I learned that Steven Spielberg was doing an Abraham Lincoln biopic, I guessed that the results would be tasteful, stately, and a little dull. And that's pretty much how it is. What I was wondering beforehand was this: will watching this movie feel like being a witness to real, living, flesh-and-blood history unfolding before your very eyes or will it feel like a very fancy school pageant. Lincoln mostly feels like a pageant, but there are flickers of life every few minutes or so. Honest Abe is one of the secular saints of American history, so it's tough to don the stovepipe hat and whiskers without looking like you're posing for the penny. But over the course of this (longish) film, Daniel Day-Lewis does at least partially succeed in making Lincoln feel like a person who actually once lived and not just a walking, talking statue. He's ably supported by an excellent supporting cast, including the ever-cantankerous Tommy Lee Jones and the ever-smarmy James Spader. Spielberg has made moves which have truly shaken me. This is not one of them, but I respect it. GRADE: B
Silver Linings Playbook - I had completely forgotten that this was a David O. Russell film, but all through it I kept having flashbacks to The Fighter. The two films are cut from the same cloth: compelling, region-specific, slice-of-life family drama but with a very conventional narrative structure. If there's a flaw to Silver Linings, it's that it caves in too much to Hollywood convention in its third act. Most movies would have been content to climax with "the big game," "the big dance contest," or "the big I-Love-You," but this movie hedges its bets and includes all three. Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence are both quite fine here, but to me, they're too pretty for people with these problems. It's also nice to see Bobby DeNiro in something respectable for a change, but has anyone noticed that his character here is not that far from his role in the Fockers franchise? GRADE: B
Zero Dark Thirty - This is the kind of movie I wish I liked more than I actually do. There's nothing to fault here. The acting, writing, and direction are all very good, I guess. This kind of thing -- serious, reality-based geopolitical drama with lots of tense meetings and people shouting at each other or staring at vital information on computer monitors -- is not my idea of a good time at the movies. Apparently Bin Laden's death happened while the movie was in production, necessitating some major script changes. Perhaps as a result of that, ZDT feels almost like two movies grafted together. For at least its first hour, the movie is about Jessica Chastain and her CIA coworkers using often-brutal interrogation techniques to glean information from detainees. Then Osama himself becomes the Moby Dick to Chastain's Ahab... except in this movie, the "Ahab" character is vindicated. The Bin Laden raid, which takes place deep into the movie, does not exactly feel triumphant, and Chastain herself looks no happier at the end of this movie than she did at the beginning. Of the three movies in the marathon based on real-life events, ZDT feels the least Hollywood-ized, but the movie certainly takes some cues from police procedurals, suspense thrillers, and even horror movies (that climactic raid reminded me of The Blair Witch Project). For those squeamish about torture, please know that the movie wastes no time getting right into it. In a way, it's a bold choice by the filmmakers, because it keeps the movie from becoming any kind of jingoistic propaganda. Those merciless opening scenes cast a shadow over the rest of the film. GRADE: B+
So what should win? Well, I guess the best-made movies I saw over the course of the marathon were Amour and Zero Dark Thirty -- both very somber and low on humor. I'll likely never watch either of them again. But they are significant statements about significant issues.
My favorite, purely from a standpoint of enjoyment? No question here: Django Unchained. It's probably the only one of the nine I'll ever rewatch.
What will win? Argo, though the more I think about that film, the more it troubles me. |
|
|
|
BaftaBaby
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 02/24/2013 : 08:59:53
|
Hi again Joe
Firstly - BIG thanx for the 2nd instalment of your Oscar-prep. I may not agree with every molecule of your scalpel-sharp analysis, but to have films discussed with such wit and care and consideration is welcome indeed, and, for me, the raison d'etre of fwfr!
I must, however, strongly dispute the conclusions you draw for Life of Pi. Of course we're in the realm of opinion here, so ... blah blah blah ...
But I really think it ain't about god or whatever. It's about us - us fallible, adorable, striving, callow and wise human beans who just won't give up, won't give up, won't give up ... and all for what?
Well, for what is not the point. It is what is, nothing more nor less. And, atop that rather swampy, moveable base layer is the absurd topping. Namely, that yes, fine, sure - our species has pretty well always been accompanied by stories. Ever since we codified speech, we've been tale-tellers.
These stories are bound to be primarily about us, whoever, wherever, whenever. But, and here's the thing about Pi and his/our lives -- in the retelling of tales we simply just must embellish. A tad here. A tidge there. Till, before your very eyes, a fishy becomes a whale, a wild bunny becomes an island full of meerkats, and a kitten becomes a tiger. A tiger who disappears deep deep into the island - The Island of Fantasy.
But that's not all, as Pi so wisely offers to his final interviewers - it is part and parcel of our common selves that we prefer the fantasy - however fantastical - to the muddy mundanity of the actuali-tay.
All of which is to say that Ang Lee's treatment of these so often ignored ideas is a perfect fit for the story. Pi's story. Our story.
Sadly, though, I predict, not Oscar's story
But you, my fwfr friend, hereby win my own award for loving cinema.
|
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 02/24/2013 : 10:24:58
|
quote:
Originally posted by Joe Blevins
My favorite, purely from a standpoint of enjoyment? No question here: Django Unchained. It's probably the only one of the nine I'll ever rewatch.
I've seen none of them, will likely watch all except Les Mis this year, and am looking forward to Django Unchained the most. I'm a big Tarantino fan, and an even bigger Spaghetti Western* fan.
*I found a "Best 200 Spaghetti Westerns" list a couple of months ago, and am doing a bit of a catch-up as I realised how few I'd seen (very much doubt I'll get to the bottom though). Tarantino's homage to that golden era will fit in my viewing nicely, I expect. |
|
|
|
Joe Blevins
"Don't I look handsome?"
|
Posted - 02/24/2013 : 19:16:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
I must, however, strongly dispute the conclusions you draw for Life of Pi. Of course we're in the realm of opinion here, so ... blah blah blah ...
Don't get me wrong. I enjoyed watching Life of Pi. I guess my resistance to it is that it's so blatantly framed as a parable and that the symbols are so clearly identified as being... well, symbolic.
I mean, right away you have the novelist coming to Pi for the story that will make him believe in God. To me, this was just another variation on the story of the curious Westerner seeking enlightenment from the Mysterious East -- like the Beatles going to India to meet the Maharishi in 1967 or the cartoon character "Ziggy" climbing the mountain to meet the bearded, cross-legged guru at the top. I guess I resented the idea that the whole point of the movie was the edification of the white novelist and that otherwise we would not be hearing Pi's story. I suppose I would have preferred a version in which all we see is Pi's life, presented to us without as much explanation or comment so that we in the audience can draw our own conclusions from it. And perhaps the whole thing should have been in Hindi with subtitles.
One of the major stories this season on the American version of The Office is that the boss, Andy -- a somewhat pretentious and ineffectual prig who grew up in luxury and privilege and knows very little of life -- takes a long leave of absence to take a boat trip and "find himself." Of course, he makes a lot of pronouncements about how much he's learned and how spiritual he now is, but it's all skin-deep. It's merely a pose adopted by an over-aged college frat boy, and he's actually learned nothing. Besides, Eastern religion and philosophy don't exist for the sole purpose of bettering those of us in the West, but that's often the way pop culture portrays it. It's as if India is our one-stop convenience shop for wisdom. Anyway, as part of the aforementioned Office story, Andy specifically mentions seeing The Life of Pi and how it really made him think... even though he remains as selfish and stupid as ever. I guess my real, fundamental problem with Ang Lee's film is that it caters too much to people like Andy. Lessons have a better chance of reaching me if they're not overtly labeled as lessons. Pi himself remains largely enigmatic and noncommittal -- gurus in these stories always are -- but the look of wide-eyed astonishment on the face of the white novelist conveys a clear message to the audience that we're all supposed to marvel at the wisdom being related to us.
I'm rambling now, for which I apologize. But this is something which really bothered me as I watched Life of Pi. To me, the way the story was framed prevented me from experiencing it as I would have liked. My advice to Ang Lee would have been one of the oldest axioms in film: "Show, don't tell."
|
Edited by - Joe Blevins on 02/24/2013 19:18:58 |
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 02/24/2013 : 20:16:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by Joe Blevins
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
I must, however, strongly dispute the conclusions you draw for Life of Pi. Of course we're in the realm of opinion here, so ... blah blah blah ...
Don't get me wrong. I enjoyed watching Life of Pi. I guess my resistance to it is that it's so blatantly framed as a parable and that the symbols are so clearly identified as being... well, symbolic.
I mean, right away you have the novelist coming to Pi for the story that will make him believe in God. To me, this was just another variation on the story of the curious Westerner seeking enlightenment from the Mysterious East -- like the Beatles going to India to meet the Maharishi in 1967 or the cartoon character "Ziggy" climbing the mountain to meet the bearded, cross-legged guru at the top. I guess I resented the idea that the whole point of the movie was the edification of the white novelist and that otherwise we would not be hearing Pi's story. I suppose I would have preferred a version in which all we see is Pi's life, presented to us without as much explanation or comment so that we in the audience can draw our own conclusions from it. And perhaps the whole thing should have been in Hindi with subtitles.
One of the major stories this season on the American version of The Office is that the boss, Andy -- a somewhat pretentious and ineffectual prig who grew up in luxury and privilege and knows very little of life -- takes a long leave of absence to take a boat trip and "find himself." Of course, he makes a lot of pronouncements about how much he's learned and how spiritual he now is, but it's all skin-deep. It's merely a pose adopted by an over-aged college frat boy, and he's actually learned nothing. Besides, Eastern religion and philosophy don't exist for the sole purpose of bettering those of us in the West, but that's often the way pop culture portrays it. It's as if India is our one-stop convenience shop for wisdom. Anyway, as part of the aforementioned Office story, Andy specifically mentions seeing The Life of Pi and how it really made him think... even though he remains as selfish and stupid as ever. I guess my real, fundamental problem with Ang Lee's film is that it caters too much to people like Andy. Lessons have a better chance of reaching me if they're not overtly labeled as lessons. Pi himself remains largely enigmatic and noncommittal -- gurus in these stories always are -- but the look of wide-eyed astonishment on the face of the white novelist conveys a clear message to the audience that we're all supposed to marvel at the wisdom being related to us.
I'm rambling now, for which I apologize. But this is something which really bothered me as I watched Life of Pi. To me, the way the story was framed prevented me from experiencing it as I would have liked. My advice to Ang Lee would have been one of the oldest axioms in film: "Show, don't tell."
Actually, that's one of the oldest axioms in all literature. I can't dive in here just now b/c I haven't yet seen PI. But I can say that I always love reading cogent critiques which have the brains and courage to state a clear point of view, and bub, that's you. Now, on to the ceremonies, and the only remaining question of all: who's wearing what? |
|
|
|
Wheelz 
"FWFR%u2019ing like it%u2019s 1999"
|
Posted - 03/08/2013 : 03:34:15
|
Hi Joe!
Glad you're carrying on the tradition. I didn't make it to the Showcase this year due to being in the middle of a cross-country move. Hopefully next year I'll be back here comparing notes with you!
I did get a chance to see Argo, Silver Linings Playbook, and Lincoln. I really enjoyed all three.
Argo was definitely the best film I saw in the past year, and I was happy to see it win.
I was prepared to be bored during Lincoln, but I wasn't at all; it kept me completely engaged throughout. Daniel Day Lewis was transcendent. I would have also been happy if this film had taken the prize.
Silver Linings is a terrific rom-com, but despite its dark side... it's a rom-com. I liked it a lot, but was a bit surprised it was nominated at all. As for comparisons to The Fighter, the difference is that I hated just about every character in that film. In SLP, Russell and the cast make the characters flawed yet still likeable.
Though I'm sure I would have enjoyed seeing all nine films, the only one left that I really want to see is Django Unchained. Tarantino seldom disappoints me. The others, meh. I freely admit that this attitude is why I "force" myself to watch all of the nominees most years. I'm often pleasantly surprised, and there have been very few films over the years I've actively disliked (cough*Precious*cough).
See you next February! |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
2013 Best Picture Showcase: a report
