2014--Birdman: Or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance), Alejandro G. Inarritu

 

2014—Bird Man: Or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance), Alejandro G. Inarritu

Nominated: American Sniper, Boyhood, The Grand Budapest Hotel, The Imitation Game, Salma, The Theory of Everything, Whiplash

Should have won: American Sniper

Be sure to see: Foxcatcher, Godzilla, Into the Woods, Nightcrawler, Wild, Wish I Was Here

“I'm an answer to a fucking trivial pursuit question!”--Riggan Thompson

      In 1948, Alfred Hitchcock's Rope had an interesting gimmick. The movie was about a dead body hidden in a trunk under everyone at a cocktail party's noses. The gimmick is that it was shot in 10 long takes, a movie people remember as “that Hitchcock done in one take”. This is risky because if there is a mistake deep into the scene, the whole thing would be started over since there is no other angles to begin. Not to mention, there are no edits to cover mistakes. 2002's Russian Ark and a recent but bad thriller called Silent House had the same approach. Then, in 2014, the Academy's best picture Birdman pulls it off again...to an extent.

      Because the movie takes place over a couple of days, we know it was not done in one take, it was done in 16 in fact, which is still pretty impressive. Careful viewers can spot the dark spots where the cuts were made and there is an effective time lapse to indicate night to day. The one-take gimmick is impressive, and no doubt meticulously blocked and rehearsed for each actor and crew member, but beyond that the movie itself was pretty neat. However, its artiness might not sit well with everyone. To add to the film's atmosphere, the score is entirely a man on the snare drums who, on occasion, appears on screen like the orchestra in Blazing Saddles. However, his appearances might or might not be for laughs.

     Michael Keaton, in an Oscar worthy role, plays Riggan Thompson, a stage actor who is acting in and directing the play “What we talk about when we talk about love”. He is a former film actor, best known for playing a super hero called Birdman. Twenty years ago he declined making Birdman 4. Incidentally 22 years prior to this movie was 1992 when Keaton portrayed the Caped Crusader in Batman Returns. He, like his character in this film, did not return for the next sequel.

      Though Keaton drives the movie, some others stand out like Emma Stone who plays his daughter and Edward Norton who plays is costar in the play. Both are Oscar nominated performances and surprisingly, Zach Galifianakis shines in a serious role as Riggan's agent.

     Riggan shows some telepathy throughout the movie. It opens with him floating in his dressing room wearing tighty whities and is able to throw items across the room with his mind. He also still hears his Birdman character's voice in his head as sort of an alter ego. Late in the film he takes his telepathic ability to a whole new level. That's all I'll say about that.

     The best and certainly most famous scene is when Riggan gets locked outside just before he goes onstage again. In his second time onscreen wearing only underwear, he has to walk through a crowd while trying to make it back to the theater. After this mishap gets blasted all over you tube, his daughter takes a positive spin on it. I liked her view. It turned a particularly goofy moment into a thought provoking one.

     The subtitle of the movie is a reference to the headline of an unfavorable review of his play, and I'm not sure it is necessary for the title of this movie, especially since it will never be referred to in its entire title, I predict. I compare it to Dr. Strangelove. How many people actually continue with Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb? And, yes, the parenthesis are supposed to be after the word “or”.

      The most important thing I'd like to point out is, though the movie is good, it is in no way better than American Sniper. But there is no way it would lose to that movie, not in liberal Hollywood. An artsy, gimmicky movie about show business vs a movie about a sniper in an unpopular war is a huge mismatch in this day and age. True, war movies have taken home the prize many times in the past but none with such subject matter as Eastwood's film. American Sniper is a far superior film, despite the fake baby.

*Note: Michael Keaton and Bradley Cooper were both beaten by Eddie Redmayne for The Theory of Everything despite giving knockout performances. Cooper continues to be snubbed year after year but there is another performance of which to take note. Jake Gyllenhaal's performance in Nightcrawler is my favorite performance of the year in my favorite movie of the year. Take a look. 

 

2013--12 Years a Slave, Steve McQueen

 

2013—12 Years a Slave, Steve McQueen

Nominated: American Hustle, Captain Phillips, Dallas Buyers Club, Gravity, Her, Nebraska, Philomena, The Wolf of Wall Street

Should have won: Dallas Buyer's Club

Be sure to see: Blue is the Warmest Color, The Conjuring, Evil Dead, 42, Star Trek: Into Darkness, You're Next

“I don't want to survive; I want to live,”--Solomon Northup

     Directed by British filmmaker Steve McQueen (no, not the Steve McQueen from The Blob and Bullitt), 12 Years a Slave is one of the most depressing, rough, unflinching movies about slavery ever made. Perhaps it is the most though Roots tells a broader story. But for a two hour movie, 12 Years a Slave certainly tells a more depressing story than Amistad does, though I think Amistad is the better movie. 

 

     I didn't really want to watch this movie. I was hoping Dallas Buyers Club would win the Oscar. It was a fantastic movie, for one, but also I just didn't want to see this movie. But since it won I knew I had to knock it out. It was very good and an important subject, but a slavery is a tale that is not new to Hollywood. Dallas Buyers Club, though set in the early '80s, is about an issue which still runs rampant today, the AIDS crisis. But both stories are important, of course. Both deal with characters in danger of death. And both are true.

     It is 1841 and Solomon Northup, a former slave and current family man living in Saratoga, New York, has a skill for playing violin. He seems to be well-liked around town, even by the whites and is especially friendly with Mr. Parker, a shopkeeper. When two men offer Solomon a position in their circus, he accepts. What he doesn't realize is the men intend to sell him into slavery and he wakes up in shackles and accused of being a Georgia runaway. Protesting his freedom does him no good as his papers have been lost.

     Northup is sold into slavery with the new name Platt and his new owner is is Ford. Ford seems to be a kind man, as far as a slave owner could be portrayed I suppose. Remember Robert Reed's character in Roots? Until he sold Kizzy away, he seemed to be more kindhearted than most slave owners would be. That is how Ford is shown here, even when Solomon tries to share his tale. Sure, he won't offer aide but he doesn't punish, either.

     Ford's chief carpenter is John Tibents (according to the credits; Tibeats according to IMDB) played by Paul Dano who is an actor who has kind of grown on me. Perhaps he is best known for his role in Little Miss Sunshine or There Will Be Blood, but he shines most in Ruby Sparks. Here he shines his acting skills too, but his character doesn’t shine. Tibents is a cruel man but not in the way some slave owners have been depicted in movies. His cruelty doesn't come from whipping or beating, it comes from intimidation. One of my favorite parts of the movie comes from Tibents. I'm hesitant to use the word “favorite” since it occurs in a negative light but not all great movie scenes have to come from an upbeat occurrence; take Psycho's shower scene or the final shot of Planet of the Apes for instance. Tibents has a number of his new slaves lined up, about to tell them what they are to expect. He does it in a song and has them clap along as he sings it. The song is about what they can expect if they try to escape and I thought of two things. One, it is clear he has sung this song on more than one occasion to various groups of workers and two, well, it is kind of a catchy tune. I know I'm supposed to be sickened by it and, in truth, I am. But I'd be lying if I said it wasn't effectively infectious.

     Solomon must have felt low. One could imagine how bad life would be as a slave but to know he was, and still should be, free would be infuriating. But he is an educated man and this causes a dilemma. On one hand, it is very dangerous to let anyone know he is able to read and write. On the other, he must use all his strengths to better a situation.

     McQueen does a fantastic job of letting the camera stay rolling, making for long shots. Two examples stand out. When Solomon fights back to Tibents' cruelty, he is strung up by the neck in a way that keeps his toes on the ground so he won't strangle. McQueen stays with this image for a full minute and a half. He hangs; people walk in the background, paying no attention. There is no music, only the wind blowing and cicadas chirping. However, before he is finally cut down a little over three minutes after being strung up, the camera angle had changed. I was a little disappointed in that. Staying in one shot was powerful for me, changing lessened the mood, but only slightly. I think McQueen made a mistake doing a different angle but the scene still works.

     Solomon is sold again to a man named Epps and here he meets Patsy (Lupita Nyong'o in an Oscar winning role). Along with having a good eye for letting the camera linger, McQueen is great at the use of depth in his foregrounds and backgrounds. Take when Solomon retrieves Patsy and tells her to stay clear of Epps. Epps wants to know what Platt and Patsy were talking about and proceeds to chase him around the yard and through a pigpen. Though we are supposed to focus on the two running, notice the people fleeing for cover in the background. Similar to the hanging sequence, it seems the background's purpose is to be ignored and noticed at the same time.

     One of the most powerful scenes occurs with Patsy is whipped after going missing trying to acquire an item and I don't think I should spoil what that item is. I feel it is this sequence that won Nyong'o her Oscar. And the scene is capped off by a camera tilt, showing the fallen item. A great shot in a movie filled with brilliant shots.

     An Amish man appears late in the movie and Solomon sees him as his last hope ticket back home. From this point the movie reaches its home stretch. The final 10 minutes or so are perfect and I think if they had gone any further with the ending, in a “What happened next?” style it would have been overkill. Instead, the movie wraps up in title cards explaining what happened to Solomon and the fate of his kidnappers. However the text was so small it was virtually impossible to read. As were the credits.

     It was a very good and moving film but I had two issues. One, there were never any title cards. Ever. So the title could or could not be true. I never saw a “two years later” or a date pop up, except early on. So there really is no indication that the title of the movie is accurate, not that I doubt it had spanned a dozen years, the filmmakers just expect us to take their word for it. The other issue I had was the way the slaves spoke. Their dialogue sounded straight out of a Shakespearean play, almost as though they were all educated. But it is a good film. I don't feel it should have beaten Dallas Buyers Club or Gravity, but years from now it certainly won't fall into the forgotten winners category. But I also have no desire to rush out see it again.
 

2012--Argo, Ben Affleck

 

2012—Argo, Ben Affleck

Nominated: Amour, Beasts of the Southern Wild, Django Unchained, Les Miserables, Life of Pi, Lincoln, Silver Linings Playbook, Zero Dark Thirty

Should have won: Beasts of the Southern Wild

Be sure to see: Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter, Cabin in the Woods, Frankenweenie,The Grey, The

Hunger Games

“There are only bad options. It's about finding the best one,”--Tony Mendez

     Some movies are based on true events. Others have situations so outlandish they could only happen in the movies. Argo happens to be a movie containing both.

     The opening narration explains that in 1950, Iran elected a prime minister they call a shah who was replaced a few years later by a tyrant. He was ruthless and people starved. When he became ill with cancer, he was given asylum in the United States and this caused the Iranian people to assemble outside the U.S. Embassy demanding the shah be turned over to the people to be hanged. The outrage of the people is where the movie begins.

     Upon the taking of the embassy, six Americans manage to escape and find temporary refuge with the Canadian ambassador in Tehran. Through some searching, using children in a sort of sweatshop style, the Iranians were able to assemble pictures of the missing Americans. The group knows if they are found they will be executed. Meanwhile, back in the States, there are meetings to try to find a way to get the people home safely. CIA Agent Tony Mendez is called to take the reigns. Mendez is played by the film's director, Ben Affleck. The role is unlike any I've seen Affleck play before and with his beard it makes him look like Die Hard's Hans Gruber. He hatches a plan to get the Americans home. It is a plan so risky, outrageous, and ridiculous it has to be made up for this movie...but it really happened. While watching a scene from Battle for the Planet of the Apes, Mendez figures he can go to Tehran posing as a movie producer, round up the wanted Americans who can pose as a film crew on a scouting project, and return home. Taking extra precaution, back home they make posters, have a script written, hold press meetings for the movie's release, making everyone think the movie is legit. Mendez goes into the project with an alias of Kevin Harkins; make-up wizard John Chambers, who is known for his B-movie schlock films, is in on the mission; and Lester Siegel (Alan Arkin in an Oscar winning role) helps with the project as well. Other than a choice few, nobody knows the project is a sham. The fake movie is to be called “Argo”. What does it mean? “Argo fuck yourself” Chambers, Mendez, and Siegel throw at each other off and on.

     Much of the movie is full of tension. While a good deal of it is set in America with the launch of the mission, the best scenes are in Tehran with the group, waiting in fear of what will become of them. They know they can't go outside; people are being hanged and shot. When the shredded papers are being pieced together to reveal the identities of the group, we know time is tight. And when “Harkins” is applying at the local film commission for a permit to film, finding the right moment to address the group, he sees a man hanging from a crane; a man who looks like him. Was it in his mind? Is it a foreshadowing to the audience? It is a chilling visual that could very well come true.

     Mendez introduces himself to the group as Kevin Harkins and gives them all new identities with Canadian backgrounds. They have to memorize every detail about their new lives and Mendez demonstrates how imperative it is they not buckle under pressure in a startling fashion. I felt for the group because on their location scout they know they are not filmmakers. When approached with common questions a film crew would be asked, a few hesitate. One looks through the wrong end of his viewfinder and “Bob” (the alias of the so called director of Argo) is asked what the theme of the movie will be. His answer is confusing, muddled, and uneducated. These scenes were key from a plot standpoint and an audience standpoint. The plot works because, knowing these people are not real filmmakers, they would make these kinds of mistakes. On the other hand it works from someone watching the movie's standpoint because it builds our tension and makes us worry for the group, and for Mendez who has risked his life to bring them home.

     The movie is full of intense sequences but the most might be when the group almost makes it to the plane but is pulled aside for further questioning. One of the best moments is when one who can speak Farsi, pulls out the storyboards and elaborates on what the plot of the movie is. I've been to a number of horror conventions and the security started acting like I do, excited about the space movie that is to be filmed in their country.

     From the opening escape from the embassy to hiding out to the scouting project to the escape, Argo offers intense emotions. The parallel story back in America is more lighthearted with Chambers and Siegel throwing jokes all the time. Usually I'm not a fan of comic relief in intense situations. It seems to be the thing to do but I always say if something is supposed to be scary, let it be scary; if it is supposed to be intense, let it be intense. Leave the humor out of it. This is a case I pushed that aside. Maybe because I've always liked Alan Arkin and John Goodman, and they furnish most of these moments. Not to mention the lines they throw out are in fact humorous and don't reach too far.

     The best moments are in the final act with the attempted escape that has a hitch. The final credits depicted the actors next to the real people involved is something any movie “based on a true story” should do. That term is getting thrown around so much I wonder what stories really are true. I liked the movie a lot but I know of a lot of people who are more knowledgeable of the actual case who didn't enjoy it because they said it wasn't accurate enough. I'm not the one to judge based on that, I just know what the movie told me. It held my attention, I cared for the characters' plight, and the whole rescue was accomplished because Tony Mendez was watching Battle for the Planet of the Apes. Just the fact an important part of history was sprung from one of the sequels of one of the greatest science fiction series ever produced says something in defense of film making.

     A bit of Oscar trivia: While Argo won best picture of 2012, Ben Affleck was not nominated for best director. This marks the first time since1989's Driving Miss Daisy the director of the movie that would win best picture was not given a nomination. Also, after watching this movie I would kind of like to see the movie Argo. Not Affleck's version, that's what this review is for. I'm talking about Kevin Harkins'. I bet it would be a blast. 

 

2011--The Artist, Michael Hazanavicius

2011--The Artist, Michel Hazanavicius

Nominated: The Descendants, Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, The Help, Hugo, Midnight in Paris, Moneyball, The Tree of Life, War Horse

Should have won: The Artist

Be sure to see: Contagion, Hannah, Insidious, The Muppets, Rise of the Planet of the Apes, Sinister, Super 8

“I won't work anymore, it's him or me. What I mean is it's him and me. Or it's neither of us. Hey, I'm blackmailing you, get it?”--Peppy Miller

     Right off the bat I have to mention that on a personal note I was intrigued by The Artist the first time I saw it in part because Peppy (Berenice Bejo) looked exactly like a woman I was dating at the time. Looking at the actress' profile I saw she had appeared in a lot of projects but I'd never seen her before. She is from Argentina and hopefully her career takes off. Upon rewatching a couple of years after I wasn't dating her doppleganger, I still enjoyed it. It is my third favorite winner of the 21^st century to date. But it also seems to be one of the least accepted movies ever made.

     The movie is silent, and takes a similar cue from Singin' in the Rain of how a silent star would be affected by the advent of talkies. I have seen around 20 or so silent movies. I enjoy them; I think they have a special charm about them, but I understand why they wouldn't appeal to modern audiences. What I don't understand, however, is why someone would see it knowing they wouldn't like it and then complain later. Some people just wouldn't like a silent movie, you know who you are, and there is nothing wrong with that. However, there is something wrong with seeing one and then complaining later. Did you not see a preview? Did you walk in blindfolded, unknowing what you were going into? The concept is brilliant. You see period pieces all the time. Civil War films, movies about life in the 1940s, etc. What is wrong with making one about the silent era that dares to be silent itself? I applaud this decision and also want to wink at Mel Brooks for making Silent Movie in 1976.

     In 1927 Hollywood, silent film star George Valentin shines on the screen. As a mob of fans surround a press shoot, Peppy Miller, a fan, inadvertently bumps into him. Their picture together is printed in the newspaper, and she takes the occurrence and uses it to her advantage, auditioning for a bit part in a movie. As her screen credits rise slightly each picture she makes, the new talkies cause Valentin to slide off the radar. Her new found fame goes to Peppy’s head, but all the while still has a little love for Valentin. You can sense a chemistry in one of the best scenes when Peppy is still an extra and George is a star. There is a scene that is shot in five takes in which they briefly dance with each other as George makes his way across a crowded room. You can sense a spark.

     The movie is loaded with bit characters and memorable scenes like Valentin's auction when his career is in shambles, the dog racing to find a police officer, Peppy's date telling Valentin that his father is a fan, a wonderful solo scene of Peppy being seduced by George's coat, and of course that final scene which was said to take 18 takes to get right. I won't reveal what this scene is because it is a solution to what will make George relevant again. I also like the scene where George is contemplating suicide while Peppy is rushing to be by his side, particularly the surprising climax.

     The novelty of a black and white silent movie in the 21^st century is part of the movie's charm but beyond that it is a good story and a pleasure to watch. A big selling point is the acts of the dog but I didn't feel very impressed by them. I've seen better stunts by other animals in movies. In one particular sequence it appears Valentin and the dog are doing the same motions together. Looking closely you'll see the dog acts first and Jean Dujardin just followed.

     Dujardin won best actor over George Clooney for The Descendants which I don't agree with but I was hoping Berenice Bejo had won her supporting actress award which she lost. If you haven't seen any silent movies, I recommend you pick up a Charlie Chaplin or Harold Lloyd movie to start off, Safety Last! would do nicely. My first was Nosferatu, the greatest vampire movie ever made. Perhaps A Trip to the Moon since it is shorter. Eventually, I'd recommend checking out classics like Phantom of the Opera or City Lights. But it would be fine to begin with The Artist, too. Other than one gimmicky segment in the middle, the movie looks like it could have come right out of the silent era. I've heard people complain about making a silent movie in the 21st century but why not? I'm surprised there haven't been more examples to tell you the truth. It comes recommended. Beyond the silent aspect it is a good story and a romantic experience. 

 

2010--The King's Speech,Tom Hooper

2010--The King's Speech, Tom Hooper

Nominated: Black Swan, The Fighter, Inception, The Kids are All Right, 127 Hours, The Social Network, Toy Story 3, True Grit, Winter's Bone

Should have won: Toy Story 3

Be sure to see: Easy A, How to Train Your Dragon, Let Me In, Machete, Shutter Island, Tucker and Dale vs. Evil

“Forget everything else and just say it to me. Say it to me as a friend.”--Lionel Logue

     I said there had never been and will never be a more dialogue-driven Oscar winner than 1977's Annie Hall; that was before I saw The King's Speech. Of course they rely on dialogue for different reasons. While the former is a sharp witted comedy with wise-cracking one liners, the latter is actually about the importance of the spoken word.

     It is 1934 and King George VI is presenting a speech at Wembley Stadium, but he has a serious stutter, has had it for as long as he can remember. Having a stutter would be embarrassing enough as it is, add to the fact he is a man of such power stuttering through important speeches only increases the need for help. So his wife seeks out Lionel Logue, an Australian speech therapist to coach him before he gives an important radio broadcast about Britain’s war against Germany. Logue's methods are unconventional to say the least. Not to mention he demands to call the king by his first name, and the king has a very explosive temper.

     The first therapy session reminded me of Good Will Hunting, in a sense, with similar banter back and forth between patient and therapist. It is revealed King George's childhood consisted of an abusive nanny who wouldn't feed him and, because he was left handed, forced him to write with his right hand.  After his father passes, he was to get the throne but instead it is handed to his brother. After he steps down, George gets the honor back.

     Certain topics make him stutter more but singing, waltzing around the room and cursing, of all things, help him defeat his stutter. It is at this point I'd like to get on my soapbox on the MPAA and its ridiculous rating system. There is a rule that if the word “fuck” is used either 1. to refer to a sexual manner or 2. more than once the movie is to be rated “R” so nobody under 17 will be admitted. This is the same reason the family comedy Planes, Trains and Automobiles is rated “R”. That is a real shame because the message seems to be an important one for high schoolers to experience. When the king swears he stutters less so while practicing his speeches he will utter a vulgar word a few times. This movie seems to be a great teaching lesson to students and certainly a must see for anyone with speech difficulties but, because of its rating, a vast number of the potential audience becomes lost. It is a pity.

     There is a nice surprise in what the doctor reveals and most movies need something like this. There is also a certain punishment which should be bestowed upon him, but King George has grown close to his new friend. And when it comes time for the apex of the movie, the big speech, the score was so sweeping and epic I forgot I was supposed to pay attention to the actual words. I was listening to the score and making sure George doesn't stutter rather than listen to his message.Maybe that was the movie's point rather than the speech itself. 

     The King's Speech is an enjoyable movie and is recommended, particularity for high schoolers. Ignore the ridiculous "R" rating and watch it. 

     *Note: This marks only the third time in Oscar history an animated movie was nominated for best picture. Beauty and the Beast lost to The Silence of the Lambs for 1991 and Up lost to The Hurt Locker the year previous to this movie. That being said, I think Toy Story 3 should have won, not just to finally set that standard but because it is a very, very good movie. 

 

 

2009--The Hurt Locker, Kathryn Bigelow

 

2009--The Hurt Locker, Kathryn Bigelow

Nominated: Avatar, The Blind Side, District 9, An Education, Inglorious Basterds, Precious, A Serious Man, Up, Up in the Air

Should have won: Avatar

Be sure to see: Black Dynamite, Drag me to Hell, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, The Princess and the Frog, Zombieland

“What's the best way to go about disarming one of these things?”--Colonel Reed

“The way you don't die, sir.”--Sgt. First Class William James

     In the first year to have numerous best picture nominees since 1943, The Hurt Locker features Staff Sergeant William James as a member of a three man squad who disarms bombs in the Iraq war. He is reckless and fearless, even disobeying Sergeant Sanborn. The movie is pretty good but a little repetitive. There are bombs; the men go to disarms them. Then there are more bombs. Lather, rinse, repeat. The best segment in the movie strayed away from the bomb aspect. There is a fourteen minute long sequence in the desert where the men meet up with other Americans and then fall under attack of a distant sniper. This scene kept me perked up a lot more than the rest but really, for me, those two aspects were the only reason the movie stays afloat: The sniper scene and all of the bomb scenes. However, though the sniper scene did keep me interested there is a gigantic flaw in it, I would guess. Keep in mind this is coming from someone with zero military experience but I questioned this aspect of the scene. The setup: A group of men are being shot at by a distant sniper. One man gets shot by the sniper and another remains in virtually the same spot the whole time firing at the sniper. How was he not picked off too? If you watch the scene you'll see what I mean. He never took cover, staying right in harm's way the entire time, knowing full well he is in danger since his partner was picked off right next to him.

     There is also a scene early on that kept my attention but might have been a little pointless. It is James' standoff with a taxi driver who won't move. I was on the edge of my seat and then as the scene ends I thought “Um, okay.” Even the people who watch the goings on of the trio kept me interested. What are they up to? Should we be suspicious of the ones holding phones?

     I've looked around doing my research and found an interesting post on imdb by a soldier about how Sandborn treated James. To paraphrase, he said there is no way Sandborn address him they way he did and and there is a scene where Sandborn punches James which certainly would not happen without dire consequences. Also, there is no way Eldridge would call James “Will”. He went into a lot more detail but the point was made. How realistic or credible is this movie? I've never been in the military myself so those reading this who have, please shed some insight on how realistic these circumstances are, both the way the men addressed each other and that sniper scene. I'm curious. 

      Director Kathryn Bigelow became the first woman to win best director and the movie was the first directed by a woman to win best picture (she is the second to be nominated; Sofia Coppola was nominated six years earlier for Lost in Translation). She won the award over James Cameron for Avatar, the highest grossing movie of all time.

     It is hard to say for sure what movie deserved the win the most. I'd say it was a shoe in for The Hurt Locker to win. A war movie directed by a woman in the 21^st century certainly has an “It is time” ring to it. But the last time the all time box office champion was nominated, it won (Titanic, 1997) so I certainly wasn't counting Avatar out. It would have been interesting if an animated movie, Up, had taken home the statue. It was only the second animated movie to be nominated for the award, following 1991's Beauty and the Beast which lost to Silence of the Lambs. A third animated movie, Toy Story 3, will be nominated next year but fell to The King's Speech. I felt Toy Story 3 actually stood a chance though; it is one of the best animated movies I've seen. 

     But check out The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo sometime. Another non-academy material movie that really stands out. I enjoyed The Hurt Locker but it didn't blow me away, pun fully intended. But I'm clearly wrong. The late Roger Ebert, one of the world's most well-respected critics, called The Hurt Locker the second greatest movie of the century only behind Synecdoche, New York. Yeah, I've never heard of it either. 

 

2008--Slumdog Millionaire, Danny Boyle

2008--Slumdog Millionaire, Danny Boyle

Nominated: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Frost/Nixon, Milk, The Reader

Should have won: Let the Right one in

Be sure to see: The Ruins, The Strangers, Tropic Thunder, The Wrestler

“What the hell can a slumdog possibly know?”--Police Inspector

“The answers. I knew the answers.”--Jamal Malik

     Is he a natural genius like Will Hunting? Did certain circumstances occur in his life with lessons and he retained them? How did a kid from the slums win the grand prize on the Mumbai version of Who Wants to be a Millionaire?? That is exactly what people want to find out, including those who arrest him on suspicions of cheating.

     Lots of movies have flashback scenes but Slumdog Millionaire is interesting because there are two sets of flashbacks. The opening scene is Jamal being interrogated but he flashes back to his time on the show and he flashes back farther to his childhood experiences. Of the three story lines, the latter is the most interesting. It tells of his friendships and also his love for Latika who, over time, he loses touch with. The main reason for going on the show is in hope that Latika is watching so they can reconnect. What I didn't understand though is I thought the show was taped, not live. If this is so, then when he uses a phone a friend lifeline, the friend rushes to the ringing phone as she is watching the television. Maybe it is live in other countries, I'm pretty sure the show is taped in the U.S.

     How far fetched is it to think if you beat a game show, the producers will accuse you of cheating? Maybe not so much. I remember when Michael Larson solved the Press Your Luck board by figuring out its pattern. He found a way to stop it on a large amount of money and an extra spin every time. After the show, the network considered not giving him the prize but recanted. He solved the game. Did he cheat? No. Same thing with Jamal in this movie. He knows the answers because his memory is a steel trap, but the show didn't see it that way.

     I took it that Jamal wasn't interested in the money at all though. He only wanted to stay on the air for as long as possible so he could reunite with Latika. Director Danny Boyle (also responsible for the creepy 28 Days Later and another best picture nominee 127 Hours) does keep the tension mounted in the correct spots and Chris Dickens' editing was impressive in tying in the three time frames. Being an Indian production, it was odd for a Bollywood film to win best picture but for the most part I found it to be pretty good just not one I care about enough to see again. The only flaw I had is the ridiculous dance at the the end. Song and dance sequences are a normalcy in Bollywood movies, I have learned, but this one seemed so out of place. I love musicals and I like spontaneous dance numbers. But this is no musical. It seemed to be the most out of place musical numbers in a non-musical.

 

     For the most part the movie is okay. It was shot well and I was on edge hoping things would turn out well for Jamal in the end. It is just a very forgettable movie. When quizzing myself in trying to recall all of the best picture winners, Slumdog Millionaire is typically the movie that slips my mind for a second. It is a pretty decent movie I guess. I'm willing to bet if it hadn't won it would be completely forgotten though.