tatty bojangles (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
apocalypsos) wrote2012-02-05 06:54 pm
apocalypsos) wrote2012-02-05 06:54 pm
Entry tags:
Oscarwatch: Midnight in Paris and The Tree of Life
Okay, I have to admit this much. I didn't actually finish watching "The Tree of Life." I got through about thirty minutes of it, if that, and walked away. Christ, what an awful pretentious pile of student-film bullshit.
That said, I actually quite liked "Midnight in Paris". I'm usually not much of a fan of Woody Allen's work -- I think the only film of his I've ever liked was "Radio Days", which I can easily blame on the music -- but it's a charming little movie for dorks. And when I say dorks, I mean the sort of person who would freak out just a little bit to meet people like the Fitzgeralds and Gertrude Stein and Toulouse Latrec. I made clappy-hands every time I recognized someone. And yeah, Owen Wilson does do the twitchy-mensch-protagonist that's in most every Woody Allen film, but then again he does that in a lot of his movies, so it's not so distracting. I feel weird recommending a Woody Allen film, but yeah, this was definitely worth it.
So now I have seen every Best Picture nominee, except for "The Tree of Life", which I don't think I was quite enough acid to watch. Anyway.
If I had to guess, I would say it would either go to "Hugo" or "The Artist". I think it depends on in what format the voters view the films. "Hugo" was brilliantly beautiful on a big screen in 3D, but in DVD screener form in 2D "The Artist" could give it a run for its money. That said, I think "The Artist" is the lighter of the two, the winner which would make a lot of people question the tastes of the voters in a few years' time. "Hugo" has the advantage of being wonderfully acted, intriguingly nostalgic, entertaining as all hell, and lovingly directed by Scorcese. I can't see people questioning the win if "Hugo" snaps up Best Picture.
As for the others, I could possibly see "The Descendants" sneak in as a dark horse, or perhaps "War Horse". "Midnight in Paris" is charmingly geeky in a way that's hard not to enjoy, but I'm just not sure it's substantial enough to award Best Picture. "Moneyball" wasn't bad, but it's also more about the numbers than the baseball. "The Help" is well-acted but even the Academy's voters must have noticed the glaring "Thank you, white lady, for this civil rights movement!" BS making up the plot. "Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close" suffers from the fact that the movie is saddled with a main character who's an irritating, aggravating little punk, and it's a 9-11 movie to boot, which the Academy probably doesn't have the stones to award. And "The Tree of Life" is ... ugh, don't even get me started.
By the way, apparently if you want to get a movie nominated for an Oscar this year, cast Brad Pitt ("Tree of Life" and "Moneyball"), Jessica Chastain ("Tree of Life" and "The Help"), Viola Davis ("The Help" and "Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close"), John Goodman ("The Artist" and "Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close"), Tom Hiddleston ("War Horse" and "Midnight in Paris"), and Benedict Cumberbatch ("War Horse" and "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy" with Best Actor nominee Gary Oldman).
That said, I actually quite liked "Midnight in Paris". I'm usually not much of a fan of Woody Allen's work -- I think the only film of his I've ever liked was "Radio Days", which I can easily blame on the music -- but it's a charming little movie for dorks. And when I say dorks, I mean the sort of person who would freak out just a little bit to meet people like the Fitzgeralds and Gertrude Stein and Toulouse Latrec. I made clappy-hands every time I recognized someone. And yeah, Owen Wilson does do the twitchy-mensch-protagonist that's in most every Woody Allen film, but then again he does that in a lot of his movies, so it's not so distracting. I feel weird recommending a Woody Allen film, but yeah, this was definitely worth it.
So now I have seen every Best Picture nominee, except for "The Tree of Life", which I don't think I was quite enough acid to watch. Anyway.
If I had to guess, I would say it would either go to "Hugo" or "The Artist". I think it depends on in what format the voters view the films. "Hugo" was brilliantly beautiful on a big screen in 3D, but in DVD screener form in 2D "The Artist" could give it a run for its money. That said, I think "The Artist" is the lighter of the two, the winner which would make a lot of people question the tastes of the voters in a few years' time. "Hugo" has the advantage of being wonderfully acted, intriguingly nostalgic, entertaining as all hell, and lovingly directed by Scorcese. I can't see people questioning the win if "Hugo" snaps up Best Picture.
As for the others, I could possibly see "The Descendants" sneak in as a dark horse, or perhaps "War Horse". "Midnight in Paris" is charmingly geeky in a way that's hard not to enjoy, but I'm just not sure it's substantial enough to award Best Picture. "Moneyball" wasn't bad, but it's also more about the numbers than the baseball. "The Help" is well-acted but even the Academy's voters must have noticed the glaring "Thank you, white lady, for this civil rights movement!" BS making up the plot. "Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close" suffers from the fact that the movie is saddled with a main character who's an irritating, aggravating little punk, and it's a 9-11 movie to boot, which the Academy probably doesn't have the stones to award. And "The Tree of Life" is ... ugh, don't even get me started.
By the way, apparently if you want to get a movie nominated for an Oscar this year, cast Brad Pitt ("Tree of Life" and "Moneyball"), Jessica Chastain ("Tree of Life" and "The Help"), Viola Davis ("The Help" and "Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close"), John Goodman ("The Artist" and "Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close"), Tom Hiddleston ("War Horse" and "Midnight in Paris"), and Benedict Cumberbatch ("War Horse" and "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy" with Best Actor nominee Gary Oldman).