For perhaps the first time in my life, I have seen every movie nominated for best picture by the Academy. I recognize that everyone’s taste in movies varies but I feel like I can give a very objective review since I’ve seen them all. I have broken divided each movie into five categories (directing, plot, writing, acting, overall design). Each area will be scored from 0-20 (zero being the worst and 20 being the best score.) If you want to skip my analysis then scroll to the end where I simply rank the movies with the scores all totaled.
SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE
The come out of no where and surprise us kind of movie
DIRECTION – 19 out of 20. I feel like the tandem of Loveleen Tandeen and Danny Boyle really understood the moment and the inner struggles of each of the characters. There were many hidden symbols and themes that made things really consistent throughout. The made a complex social struggle into a simplistic idea.
PLOT – 20 out of 20. There are so many movies out there that seem to mirror each other. This is not one of them. The concept of having a poor slumdog with very little education being on the verge of winning the top prize on a trivia game show really beacons the human curiosity.
WRITING –20 out of 20 - Simon Beaufy. His last name sounds so close to beautiful. As a fellow screenwriter, I can say with great certainty that this adaptation from the Vikas Swarup novel was brilliant in its movie translation. Everything seemed to flow nicely. The biggest compliment I can give to a writer is to say that they made a 3 hour movie feel like a 2 hour movie.
ACTING – 16 out of 20 –In all fairness there are not many famous actors of Indian descent. Word is that the directors cast the movie from real Mumbai teens. Making the movie more true to life and everyday reality.
DESIGN – 20 out of 20. This category is reserved for setting, costumes, lighting but in this case I include cinematography. The streets of
TOTAL SCORE – 95 out of 100
THE READER
The artistic movie that no one cared to see. I admit I was apprehensive myself to invest $10 and 2 hours of my time. I went a lone and I was blown away and greatly rewarded by this masterful movie. It was FAR better then I could have ever expected.
DIRECTION – 17 out of 20. The movie had 3 Acts as I see it. Act 1 – Michael Berg and Hannah Schmitz romance in a soft porn. Act 2 – A more mature Michael Berg struggles with his realization that Hannah is a Nazi Murderer. Act 3 – Michael Berg befriends assists and cares for Hannah while she is in jail. I think the director, Stephen Daldry definitely had a plan but I feel as though the movie over-teased and could of delivered more in terms of bringing the audience into the world of 1950’s and 1970’s post war Germany. There was one moment that captured my attention where Michael Berg, as a law student, walked the paths of army concentration camps. It made for an emotional moment. I love boobies, especially that of Kate Winslet. I know my manhood will be questioned for this next comment but I felt like the overexposure of her boobs is a good ploy to bring men into the theater but it didn’t do much to advance the plot. Thus having may say that there is such a thing as too much boobs.
PLOT – 20 out of 20. Far beyond expected and way better than the trailer provided. I was anticipating a slow paced, Nazi-focused period piece. Certainly the use of having English-speaking actors in
WRITING – 18 out of 20 – The movie was also adapted from a book. There were good lines, which were all delivered nicely but the best piece of writing came towards the end of the movie when an older Michael Berg confronted a holocaust survivor. I can’t divulge the circumstances of the conversation but it was very intrinsic, well-woven and spliced together in a really interesting dialogue. There was also a beautiful scene near the end with an aging Hannah Schmitz.
ACTING – 18 out of 20 -The supporting actors were very blah and in descript. The most surprising performance came from David Kross an 18 year actor who has to continually make love to Kate Winslet on film, a woman twice his age.
DESIGN – 17 out of 20 – Sometimes I forgot we were in
TOTAL SCORE 90 out of 100
THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON
If you liked Titanic and Forest Gump then you’ll like this one. This story is told by an aging woman, who may be involved in the plot. Such as the
DIRECTION – 18 out of 20 – Pretty strong. Especially for a period piece where lots of characters were introduced and interrogated into the movie.
PLOT – 16 out of 20 – Man is born old and ages backwards. Interesting concept but loses its flavor and novelty halfway through the film.
WRITING – 16 out of 20 – Poor job of having a steady consistency of movie momentum. It began very slowly and AGED forwards to a nicer flow of poignant scenes and developed some neat themes. It had some zinger lines and great writing concepts, particularly the scene where Benjamin went on a tangent about fate, which ironically played many roles in this film. The other fun writing came from a secondary character who enumerated his experiences of being struck by lightening.
ACTING – 19 out of 20 – Superb. The leads and the supporting actors were all solid. Dakota Fannings kid sister had a small role where she really glowed on screen. Particular kudos to the “no-name” actors who played the early role of Benjamin Button.
DESIGN – 20 out of 20 - Everything was so appropriate, from the evolution of time including the neighborhood, character attire to recalling the momentous events occurring in our country at that time.
TOTAL SCORE: 89 out of 100
FROST / NIXON
Niche audience would really like this film. As a political junkie, I loved this film. The problem is that this movie reaches out to a small audience.
DIRECTION- 18 out of 20- To illustrate what a brilliant director Ron Howard is, he took a very mundane story and magnified it on screen. He got the most out of each character.
PLOT – 10 out of 20 – Frost gets Nixon to speak. That doesn’t do it for people. There are other subplots, such as Frosts party-like persona, Nixon’s personal demons and gung-ho researching wonks clashing with Frost…oh and there is also a love story that never truly develops on screen.
WRITING – 16 out of 20 – Most of the writing is purely based on actual recordings, which is brilliant within themselves. They are hidden treasures. The writing outside of the interview recordings was surprising well done. There was one scene where Frosts’ researchers really deliver some zingers but the most memorable writing and perhaps best acting performance comes in a scene where Nixon makes a personal call to Frost while in a state of inebriation.
ACTING – 20 out of 20 – That aforementioned scene should net an Oscar for Frank Langella. His portrayal of Nixon was NOT hokey and seemed very realistic to me. From his sarcasm, dry humor and mannerisms, he bought this character to life. Surprisingly Michael Sheen was not nominated and I felt as though he had a breakthrough with this character. Frost transformed from a jolly TV show host, to an entrepreneur, to a sheepish reporter, to a hound dog getting his prey to be fully exposed.
DESIGN – 18 out of 20 – The moment was well captured. Including great scenes at Nixon’s home.
TOTAL SCORE: 82 out of 100
MILK
Excuse the pun but Milk was a good movie if you like man cream. In truth this was the movie I was looking most forwarded too seeing. Yet, I was somewhat disappointed.
DIRECTION- 16 out of 20- Gus Van Sant gets kudos for really unearthing the social and political feel of San Franciscos Castro neighborhood of the 1970’s. Much as I knocked points off for too much nudity in “The Reader,” I repeat my sentiments here. Yes, I know we are dealing with gay characters but that principle could have been better defined without the 25 kissing scenes and dozens of butts coming across the screen.
PLOT – 16 out of 20 - Gay man gets elected then assassinated. On that alone, it sounds like an empty plot but I enjoyed the journey along the way. It wasn’t gayness that made Harvey Milk an interesting figure. It was his no fear + vision for fair rights and humanity that bought him to life. It was ultimately greed from a straight man with a good Irish-catholic family that ironically bought him down. The murder wasn’t about sexual orientation. It was about political jealously and I’m glad the story made that clear. (I.E. There was no “I hate Faggot” mantra) as the backdrop of his ultimate assassination.
WRITING – 10 out of 20 – The best writing came in a montage where Harvey Milk debated gay right issues with other political figures. The big disappointment is we did not learn enough about Milk pre- age 40. I think we could have benefited more about his upbringing. Apparently his Dad was a rabbi. How did he feel about his gay son? Also Milk was highly educated. The writing made us feel like Milk was some hack that found his way into government. The reality is he was smart enough to know how to get there.
ACTING – 20 out of 20 – I know this seems unfair but there were 4 characters in the movie including Sean Penn and James Franco that had multiple kissing scenes. I would imagine that this within itself is a very difficult thing to do for a heterosexual actor. Beyond that, Sean Penn was unbelievable in this role. Josh Brolin and Emile Hirsch also shined as supporting actors.
DESIGN – 18 – 20. The cloths, the streets, the essence of the time, including some funkadelic hairstyles made things very realistic.
TOTAL SCORE: 80 out of 100
SUMMARY
1. Slumdog Millionaire– 95%
2. The Reader – 90%
3. Benjamin Button – 89%
4. Frost / Nixon – 82%
5. Milk – 80%
This whole blog is hillarious! Are am starting to wonder if your mother dropped you on your head or something. Funny Stuff keep it coming.
ReplyDelete