BEST PICTURE
What I Said: The Artist
What Won: The Artist
CORRECT
BEST DIRECTOR
What I Said: Michel Hazavanicius (The Artist)
Who Won: Michel Hazavanicius (The Artist)
CORRECT
BEST ACTOR
What I Said: Jean Dujardin (The Artist)
Who Won: Jean Dujandin (The Artist)
CORRECT
BEST ACTRESS
What I Said: Viola Davis (The Help)
Who Won: Meryl Streep (The Iron Lady)
INCORRECT
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
What I Said: Christopher Plummer (Beginners)
Who Won: Christopher Plummer (Beginners)
CORRECT
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
What I Said: Octavia Spencer (The Help)
Who Won: Octavia Spencer (The Help)
CORRECT
BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
What I Said: Woody Allen (Midnight In Paris)
Who Won: Woody Allen (Midnight In Paris)
CORRECT
BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
What I Said: Alexander Payne, Nat Faxon, and Jim Rash (The Descendants)
Who Won: Alexander Payne, Nat Faxon, and Jim Rash (The Descendants)
CORRECT
BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY
What I Said: Emmanuel Lubezki (The Tree Of Life)
Who Won: Robert Richardson (Hugo)
INCORRECT
BEST VISUAL EDITING
What I Said: The Artist
What Won: The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo
INCORRECT
BEST ANIMATED FILM
What I Said: Rango
What Won: Rango
CORRECT
BEST FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM
What I Said: Iran, A Separation
What Won: Iran, A Separation
CORRECT
BEST DOCUMENTARY FEATURE
What I Said: Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory
What Won: Undefeated
INCORRECT
BEST ORIGINAL SONG
What I Said: Bret McKenzie "Man Or Muppet" (The Muppets)
Who Won: Bret McKenzie "Man Or Muppet" (The Muppets)
CORRECT
BEST ORIGINAL SCORE
What I Said: Ludovic Bource (The Artist)
What Won: Ludovic Bource (The Artist)
CORRECT
BEST SOUND MIXING
What I Said: Transformers: Dark Of The Moon
What Won: Hugo
INCORRECT
BEST SOUND EDITING
What I Said: Transformers: Dark Of The Moon
What Won: Hugo
INCORRECT
BEST DOCUMENTARY SHORT
What I Said: Saving Face
What Won: Saving Face
CORRECT
BEST ANIMATED SHORT
What I Said: The Fantastic Books Of Morris Lessmore
What Won: The Fantastic Books Of Morris Lessmore
CORRECT
BEST LIVE ACTION SHORT
What I Said: Raju
What Won: The Shore
INCORRECT
BEST MAKE UP
What I Said: The Iron Lady
What Won: The Iron Lady
CORRECT
BEST VISUAL EFFECTS
What I Said: Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows, Part II
What Won: Hugo
INCORRECT
BEST COSTUME DESIGN
What I Said: Hugo
What Won: The Artist
INCORRECT
BEST ART DIRECTION
What I Said: Hugo
What Won: Hugo
CORRECT
Main Categories: 7/8
Visual Categories: 2/6
Sound Categories: 2/4
The "Short" Categories: 2/3
The Other Full Length Features: 2/3
OVERALL: 62.5% (15/24)
Showing posts with label Oscars. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Oscars. Show all posts
Redux: Who Will Win The 2012 Oscars?
Here is what i thought would win a month ago. But opinions and facts have changes. Not only have all the Guilds tallied a final vote, but momentum has changed in a month, and my opinion of who I think deserves to win has changed- mainly because I've seen more movies. The only movie of 2011 that I still need to see is Shame and that will probably only affect who I think will win Best Actor but here is my final* list.
As always I will break up these "winners" into three categories. First, who I think will actually win The Oscar for a particular category. Second, who I think SHOULD win based based off of the ACTUAL Oscar nominations. Third, who I think SHOULD win based upon every movie that was released in 2011.
BEST PICTURE
What Will Win: The Artist
What Should Win (Actual Nomination): The Artist
What Should Win (Every Movie): Young Adult
NOTE: Drive is probably the better overall film and is #2 on my year end list, but I just love Young Adult
BEST DIRECTOR
Who Will Win: Michael Hazanavicius (The Artist)
Who Should Win (Actual Nomination): Martin Scorsese (Hugo)
Who Should Win (Every Movie): Nicholas Winding Refn (Drive)
BEST ACTOR
Who Will Win: Jean Dujarian (The Artist)
Who Should Win (Actual Nomination): Brad Pitt (Moneyball)
Who Should Win (Every Movie): Ryan Gosling (Drive/The Ides Of March/Crazy, Stupid, Love)
BEST ACTRESS
Who Will Win: Viola Davis (The Help)
Who Should Win (Actual Nomination): N/A
Who Should Win (Every Movie): Charlize Theron (Young Adult)
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Who Will Win: Christopher Plummer (Beginners)
Who Should Win (Actual Nomination): Nick Nolte (Warrior)
Who Should Win (Every Movie): Andy Serkis (Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes)
SIDENOTE: Shout out to Patton Oswalt (Young Adult) who would be #2 on my list
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Who Will Win: Octavia Spencer (The Help)
Who Should Win (Actual Nomination): Melissa McCarthy (Bridesmaids)
Who Should Win (Every Movie): Shailene Woodley (The Descendants)
BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
Who Will Win: Woody Allen (Midnight In Paris)
Who Should Win (Actual Nomination): Annie Mumulo and Kristen Wiig (Bridesmaids)
Who Should Win: Diablo Cody (Young Adult)
BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
Who Will Win: Alexander Payne, Nat Faxon, Jim Rash (The Descendants)
Who Should Win (Actual Nomination): Steve Zaillian, Aaron Sorkin, Stan Chervin (Moneyball)
Who Should Win (Every Movie): Steve Zaillian, Aaron Sorkin, Stan Chervin (Moneyball)
BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY
Who Will Win: Emmanuel Lubezki (The Tree Of Life)
Who Should Win (Actual Nominations): N/A
Who Should Win (Every Movie): Newton Thomas Sigel (Drive)
ANIMATED FEATURE FILM: Rango
ANIMATED SHORT: The Fantastic Books of Mr. Morris Lessmore
FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM: Iran, A Separation
SONG: Man Or Muppet
SCORE: The Artist
ART DIRECTION: Hugo
COSTUME DESIGN: Hugo
MAKE UP: The Iron Lady
DOCUMENTARY: Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory
BEST DOCUMENTARY SHORT: Saving Face
LIVE ACTION SHORT: Raju
BEST VISUAL EFFECTS: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part II
BEST EDITING: The Artist
SOUND MIXING: Transformers: Dark Of The Moon
SOUND EDITING: Transformers: Dark Of The Moon
As always I will break up these "winners" into three categories. First, who I think will actually win The Oscar for a particular category. Second, who I think SHOULD win based based off of the ACTUAL Oscar nominations. Third, who I think SHOULD win based upon every movie that was released in 2011.
BEST PICTURE
What Will Win: The Artist
What Should Win (Actual Nomination): The Artist
What Should Win (Every Movie): Young Adult
NOTE: Drive is probably the better overall film and is #2 on my year end list, but I just love Young Adult
BEST DIRECTOR
Who Will Win: Michael Hazanavicius (The Artist)
Who Should Win (Actual Nomination): Martin Scorsese (Hugo)
Who Should Win (Every Movie): Nicholas Winding Refn (Drive)
BEST ACTOR
Who Will Win: Jean Dujarian (The Artist)
Who Should Win (Actual Nomination): Brad Pitt (Moneyball)
Who Should Win (Every Movie): Ryan Gosling (Drive/The Ides Of March/Crazy, Stupid, Love)
BEST ACTRESS
Who Will Win: Viola Davis (The Help)
Who Should Win (Actual Nomination): N/A
Who Should Win (Every Movie): Charlize Theron (Young Adult)
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Who Will Win: Christopher Plummer (Beginners)
Who Should Win (Actual Nomination): Nick Nolte (Warrior)
Who Should Win (Every Movie): Andy Serkis (Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes)
SIDENOTE: Shout out to Patton Oswalt (Young Adult) who would be #2 on my list
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Who Will Win: Octavia Spencer (The Help)
Who Should Win (Actual Nomination): Melissa McCarthy (Bridesmaids)
Who Should Win (Every Movie): Shailene Woodley (The Descendants)
BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
Who Will Win: Woody Allen (Midnight In Paris)
Who Should Win (Actual Nomination): Annie Mumulo and Kristen Wiig (Bridesmaids)
Who Should Win: Diablo Cody (Young Adult)
BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
Who Will Win: Alexander Payne, Nat Faxon, Jim Rash (The Descendants)
Who Should Win (Actual Nomination): Steve Zaillian, Aaron Sorkin, Stan Chervin (Moneyball)
Who Should Win (Every Movie): Steve Zaillian, Aaron Sorkin, Stan Chervin (Moneyball)
BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY
Who Will Win: Emmanuel Lubezki (The Tree Of Life)
Who Should Win (Actual Nominations): N/A
Who Should Win (Every Movie): Newton Thomas Sigel (Drive)
ANIMATED FEATURE FILM: Rango
ANIMATED SHORT: The Fantastic Books of Mr. Morris Lessmore
FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM: Iran, A Separation
SONG: Man Or Muppet
SCORE: The Artist
ART DIRECTION: Hugo
COSTUME DESIGN: Hugo
MAKE UP: The Iron Lady
DOCUMENTARY: Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory
BEST DOCUMENTARY SHORT: Saving Face
LIVE ACTION SHORT: Raju
BEST VISUAL EFFECTS: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part II
BEST EDITING: The Artist
SOUND MIXING: Transformers: Dark Of The Moon
SOUND EDITING: Transformers: Dark Of The Moon
The Oscar Races
BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY
Emmanuel Lubezki (The Tree Of Life) vs. N/A
I think Best Cinematography is the most underrated award the Academy offers up. The average movie goer doesn't realize how important cinematography is to a movie and for those of you who don't know, a cinematographers job is to determine the look of the film. He literally sits behind the camera and is the main person filming the movie. Now the director has some say in what the cinematographer shoots and, generally speaking, the two work together. However, how a movie looks to you is because of the cinematographer.
The Tree Of Life is a critics darling and while I will never see it because it looks boring as shit, everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, says that at minimum it's beautifully shot and just looks amazing.
Not only does (I'm sure) the film look good, as I said, very few people actually know what their looking for or know what they're doing when they talk about cinematography, it makes it tough for the average Academy member to vote on this category. That's why really the only people who vote on cinematography are cinematographers and those within the guild (The American Society of Cinematographers) are really the only ones who vote for this award. And the ASC this year voted Lubezki as the best cinematographer of the year and I expect they'll do the same when it comes to the Oscars.
WINNER: Emmanuel Lubezki
BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
Woody Allen (Midnight In Paris) vs. N/A
Leading up to the Oscar nominations, Allen was not only nominated for writing Midnight In Paris but he had won all the writing awards. Allen won the Golden Globe for writing Midnight (the Globes don't make a distinction between original and adapted screenplay) and won the Critics Choice for Best Original Screenplay. But then the Oscar nominations came out and that is when we saw how much the Academy REALLY loved Allen. Midnight In Paris was also nominated for Best Picture and Allen received another nomination for Best Director. Since the Oscar nominations came out the Writers Guild of America awarded Allen with Best Original Screenplay.
Midnight In Paris won't win any other major Oscar but I guarantee Woody Allen will get an Oscar this year for his screenplay
WINNER: Woody Allen (Midnight In Paris)
BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
Alexander Payne, Nat Faxon, and Jim Rash (The Descendants) vs. Steve Zaillian, Aaron Sorkin, and Stan Chevrin (Moneyball)
I think The Descendants is the full on favorite but I wouldn't be surprised if Moneyball wins as I would be if Woody Allen or Emmanuel Lubezki loses.
Payne, Faxon, and Rash have won the WGA for Best Adapted Screenplay but Zaillian, Sorkin, and Chevrin won that same award at the Critics Choice Awards and neither won the Golden Globes for Best Screenplay (that went to Woody Allen, see: above).
However, The Descendants have all the momentum as the WGA win is more important for their Oscar chances than a Critics Choice win is. Not only are members of the WGA members of the Academy who also vote on Oscars (something movie critics do not) but the WGA win came out later than the Critics Choice win.
The Academy honored Moneyball with 6 nominations and The Descendants with 5 so it clearly likes both films just as equally and I think Aaron Sorkin and Steve Zaillian are both extremely well received in the writing world (each has an Oscar for screenplay writing) but I think this is Alexander Payne and The Descendants year.
WINNER: Alexander Payne, Nat Faxon, Jim Rash (The Descendants)
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Octavia Spencer (The Help) vs. Melissa McCarthy (Bridesmaids)
OK, realistically this is absolutely Spencer's award. She won the Critics Choice, The Golden Globe, and the SAG award for Best Supporting Actress for her role as Minny Jackson in The Help. I just want to give McCarthy love not only because she was excellent in Bridesmaids but Hollywood now loves McCarthy. McCarthy won the Emmy for her role in the television show Mike and Molly mainly because she in now a bona fide movie star. I wouldn't be shocked if she is able to ride this wave of fame to an Oscar win but I think here the nomination is the win.
WINNER: Octavia Spencer (The Help)
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Christopher Plummer (Beginners) vs. N/A
Albert Brooks was the best person to dethrone a Plummer win for his role in Drive, but since he (shamefully) did not even get nominated, this award absolutely belongs to Plummer. Plummer won the Critics Choice, SAG, and Golden Globes and 15 other awards (like the San Diego Critics Choice Awards) for Best Actor In A Supporting Role. The only other actor to win more for Best Supporting Actor wins was Albert Brooks (he won 17). Not only was Brooks amazing in Drive (SIDENOTE: Everyone associated with Drive got fucked by the Academy- it didn't get nominated for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Cinematography, Best Actor, or Best Original Screenplay) but the Oscars have in recent years traditionally given awards to the great bad guys of film like Javier Bardem in No Country For Old Men, Heath Ledger in The Dark Knight, and Christoph Waltz in Inglourious Basterds. However, the closest thing to a bad guy out of the five nominations in 2012 in Nick Nolte in Warrior- and he's just a shitty dad. Christopher Plummer does deserve an Oscar for his life time of work but in the context of this one year, I would have liked to seen Albert Brooks at least have a chance to win this award. Or Patton Oswalt for his amazing work in Young Adult. Or really Andy Serkis for being Caesar in Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes.
WINNER: Christopher Plummer (Beginners)
BEST ACTRESS
Viola Davis (The Help) vs. Meryl Streep (The Iron Lady)
Again, another award that is realistically not up for debate and is not a contest. Meryl Streep always has a shot at winning an Oscar because she is Meryl effing Streep but this is Viola Davis' award. Streep won the Golden Globe but Davis won the Critics Choice award and the more important SAG award.
What also helps Davis is that people and Oscar voters have not only seen The Help, but loved The Help. I'm not quite sure how many of them have actually seen The Iron Lady and liked it and I'm under the suspicion that the Academy only gave Streep her nomination just because she is Meryl effing Streep.
WINNER: Viola Davis (The Help)
BEST ACTOR
George Clooney (The Descendants) vs. Jean Dujardin (The Artist)
This is the hardest main award to predict. Two weeks ago I would have said Clooney had this in the bag but now, it's a legit coin flip who I think will win. If I were a betting man this is absolutely a stay away.
Before the Oscar nominations even came out I thought this was Clooney's award to lose. Hollywood LOVES and I mean has a full on hard on for Clooney and he won the Critics Choice for Best Actor as well as won a Golden Globe for his role in The Descendants. Clooney always makes great speeches and he has never won an Oscar for Best Actor In A Leading Role (His acting Oscar win was for Syriana and that was a supporting role).
But what I missed and stupidly overlooked was that Jean Dujardian also won a Golden Globe for his role in The Artist. Clooney won for his role in a Drama whereas Dujardin won his for in role in a Comedy or Musical (which is silly because The Artist is really neither).
Then came the SAG awards came out and even though The Artist didn't win Outstanding Performance By A Cast (we'll get to that later) Dujardin did win and beat out Clooney for Best Actor.
And if there's anything Hollywood loves more than George Clooney, it's itself. And that's a huge appeal Dujardin and The Artist has (that and it is actually a good movie). So what does Hollywood do? Vote for George Clooney or itself?
WINNER: Jean Dujardin (The Artist)
BEST DIRECTOR
Michael Hazanavicius (The Artist) vs. Martin Scorsese (Hugo)
Hazanavicius has the DGA win and the Critics Choice win working for him but the fact that Marty won the Golden Globe and has an impossible name to say or spell working against him.
The Artist could easily sweep the Oscars this year and it will be lead by winning Best Director but Martin Scorsese is like Meryl Streep, he can never be counted out. The thing working for Scorsese is that he keeps getting screwed year in and year out at the Academys. He lost directing Oscars for directing some of cinemas greats like Raging Bull, Taxi Driver, and Goodfellas. Now the Oscars made it up to him by (finally) honoring him with the award in 2006 for The Departed but the Academy still owes a lot more to Scorsese. Another thing working for Marty is that he probably did the best job in terms of directing this year. I was bored to death by Hugo but that was more of a script problem than a directing problem.
What Hazanavicius has going for him is that out of all the films that got Oscar nominations (which basically just includes Young Adult and Drive) he directed the best one.
WINNER: Michael Hazanavicius (The Artist)
BEST PICTURE
The Artist vs. The Help vs. The Descendants
The last time a film won Best Picture but did not win Best Director was in 2005 when Crash won Best Picture yet Ang Lee won Best Director for Brokeback Mountain and has only happened one other time since 2001.
A lot of the reason I think Hazanavicius will win Best Director is because I believe The Artist will win Best Picture. Not only did The Artist win the PGA, the Critics Choice Award, and its Golden Glove nomination but it's actually a good film. The only reason I went in to see The Artist was because it was the Oscar front runner and I went in thinking it was going to be elitist garbage. I came out really enjoying the film. In this terrible, awful, no good year for movies, The Artists shines above the rest. Sure its partially by default but a win's a win.
What The Help has going for it is 1) No backlash like what The Artist has 2) Both average movie goers and Hollywood loved The Help and 3) It won and beat out The Artist for Best Acting Ensamble at the Screen Actors Guild eerily reminding us of 2005 when Brokeback Mountain was the clear favorite and then Crash won at the SAG awards and then (rightfully) stunned the world by winning the Oscar for Best Picture. Like 2011, 2005 was also a pretty bad year for films making it easier for an upset.
What The Help has working against it though is that it wasn't even nominated for Best Adapted Screenplay or Best Director. Paul Haggis received a nomination for both writing and directing Crash in 2005. It's hard to say you are the best movie of the year when you are both not well directed or well written. What The Help also has working against it is that a SAG win doesn't really mean all that much. In 2006, Little Miss Sunshine won the SAG award for Best Acting Ensemble when Babel was the favorite at the time yet lost the Oscar to The Departed and in 2009 when Up In The Air was the favorite and Inglourious Basterds won Best Cast at the SAG awards yet The Hurt Locker won the Academy Award for Best Picture. Both Inglourious Basterds and Up In The Air had lost steam by the time The Academy's rolled around. The Artist has not.
The Descendants still technically has a chance and has a better chance than Hugo and Moneyball and Tree Of Life and the rest of the field because it won at The Golden Globes but I still will be super surprised to see it win Best Picture. I can foresee a The Artist backlash and if it does then The Descendants will remain supreme but I wouldn't bet on it.
WINNER: The Artist
Emmanuel Lubezki (The Tree Of Life) vs. N/A
I think Best Cinematography is the most underrated award the Academy offers up. The average movie goer doesn't realize how important cinematography is to a movie and for those of you who don't know, a cinematographers job is to determine the look of the film. He literally sits behind the camera and is the main person filming the movie. Now the director has some say in what the cinematographer shoots and, generally speaking, the two work together. However, how a movie looks to you is because of the cinematographer.
The Tree Of Life is a critics darling and while I will never see it because it looks boring as shit, everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, says that at minimum it's beautifully shot and just looks amazing.
Not only does (I'm sure) the film look good, as I said, very few people actually know what their looking for or know what they're doing when they talk about cinematography, it makes it tough for the average Academy member to vote on this category. That's why really the only people who vote on cinematography are cinematographers and those within the guild (The American Society of Cinematographers) are really the only ones who vote for this award. And the ASC this year voted Lubezki as the best cinematographer of the year and I expect they'll do the same when it comes to the Oscars.
WINNER: Emmanuel Lubezki
BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
Woody Allen (Midnight In Paris) vs. N/A
Leading up to the Oscar nominations, Allen was not only nominated for writing Midnight In Paris but he had won all the writing awards. Allen won the Golden Globe for writing Midnight (the Globes don't make a distinction between original and adapted screenplay) and won the Critics Choice for Best Original Screenplay. But then the Oscar nominations came out and that is when we saw how much the Academy REALLY loved Allen. Midnight In Paris was also nominated for Best Picture and Allen received another nomination for Best Director. Since the Oscar nominations came out the Writers Guild of America awarded Allen with Best Original Screenplay.
Midnight In Paris won't win any other major Oscar but I guarantee Woody Allen will get an Oscar this year for his screenplay
WINNER: Woody Allen (Midnight In Paris)
BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
Alexander Payne, Nat Faxon, and Jim Rash (The Descendants) vs. Steve Zaillian, Aaron Sorkin, and Stan Chevrin (Moneyball)
I think The Descendants is the full on favorite but I wouldn't be surprised if Moneyball wins as I would be if Woody Allen or Emmanuel Lubezki loses.
Payne, Faxon, and Rash have won the WGA for Best Adapted Screenplay but Zaillian, Sorkin, and Chevrin won that same award at the Critics Choice Awards and neither won the Golden Globes for Best Screenplay (that went to Woody Allen, see: above).
However, The Descendants have all the momentum as the WGA win is more important for their Oscar chances than a Critics Choice win is. Not only are members of the WGA members of the Academy who also vote on Oscars (something movie critics do not) but the WGA win came out later than the Critics Choice win.
The Academy honored Moneyball with 6 nominations and The Descendants with 5 so it clearly likes both films just as equally and I think Aaron Sorkin and Steve Zaillian are both extremely well received in the writing world (each has an Oscar for screenplay writing) but I think this is Alexander Payne and The Descendants year.
WINNER: Alexander Payne, Nat Faxon, Jim Rash (The Descendants)
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Octavia Spencer (The Help) vs. Melissa McCarthy (Bridesmaids)
OK, realistically this is absolutely Spencer's award. She won the Critics Choice, The Golden Globe, and the SAG award for Best Supporting Actress for her role as Minny Jackson in The Help. I just want to give McCarthy love not only because she was excellent in Bridesmaids but Hollywood now loves McCarthy. McCarthy won the Emmy for her role in the television show Mike and Molly mainly because she in now a bona fide movie star. I wouldn't be shocked if she is able to ride this wave of fame to an Oscar win but I think here the nomination is the win.
WINNER: Octavia Spencer (The Help)
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Christopher Plummer (Beginners) vs. N/A
Albert Brooks was the best person to dethrone a Plummer win for his role in Drive, but since he (shamefully) did not even get nominated, this award absolutely belongs to Plummer. Plummer won the Critics Choice, SAG, and Golden Globes and 15 other awards (like the San Diego Critics Choice Awards) for Best Actor In A Supporting Role. The only other actor to win more for Best Supporting Actor wins was Albert Brooks (he won 17). Not only was Brooks amazing in Drive (SIDENOTE: Everyone associated with Drive got fucked by the Academy- it didn't get nominated for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Cinematography, Best Actor, or Best Original Screenplay) but the Oscars have in recent years traditionally given awards to the great bad guys of film like Javier Bardem in No Country For Old Men, Heath Ledger in The Dark Knight, and Christoph Waltz in Inglourious Basterds. However, the closest thing to a bad guy out of the five nominations in 2012 in Nick Nolte in Warrior- and he's just a shitty dad. Christopher Plummer does deserve an Oscar for his life time of work but in the context of this one year, I would have liked to seen Albert Brooks at least have a chance to win this award. Or Patton Oswalt for his amazing work in Young Adult. Or really Andy Serkis for being Caesar in Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes.
WINNER: Christopher Plummer (Beginners)
BEST ACTRESS
Viola Davis (The Help) vs. Meryl Streep (The Iron Lady)
Again, another award that is realistically not up for debate and is not a contest. Meryl Streep always has a shot at winning an Oscar because she is Meryl effing Streep but this is Viola Davis' award. Streep won the Golden Globe but Davis won the Critics Choice award and the more important SAG award.
What also helps Davis is that people and Oscar voters have not only seen The Help, but loved The Help. I'm not quite sure how many of them have actually seen The Iron Lady and liked it and I'm under the suspicion that the Academy only gave Streep her nomination just because she is Meryl effing Streep.
WINNER: Viola Davis (The Help)
BEST ACTOR
George Clooney (The Descendants) vs. Jean Dujardin (The Artist)
This is the hardest main award to predict. Two weeks ago I would have said Clooney had this in the bag but now, it's a legit coin flip who I think will win. If I were a betting man this is absolutely a stay away.
Before the Oscar nominations even came out I thought this was Clooney's award to lose. Hollywood LOVES and I mean has a full on hard on for Clooney and he won the Critics Choice for Best Actor as well as won a Golden Globe for his role in The Descendants. Clooney always makes great speeches and he has never won an Oscar for Best Actor In A Leading Role (His acting Oscar win was for Syriana and that was a supporting role).
But what I missed and stupidly overlooked was that Jean Dujardian also won a Golden Globe for his role in The Artist. Clooney won for his role in a Drama whereas Dujardin won his for in role in a Comedy or Musical (which is silly because The Artist is really neither).
Then came the SAG awards came out and even though The Artist didn't win Outstanding Performance By A Cast (we'll get to that later) Dujardin did win and beat out Clooney for Best Actor.
And if there's anything Hollywood loves more than George Clooney, it's itself. And that's a huge appeal Dujardin and The Artist has (that and it is actually a good movie). So what does Hollywood do? Vote for George Clooney or itself?
WINNER: Jean Dujardin (The Artist)
BEST DIRECTOR
Michael Hazanavicius (The Artist) vs. Martin Scorsese (Hugo)
Hazanavicius has the DGA win and the Critics Choice win working for him but the fact that Marty won the Golden Globe and has an impossible name to say or spell working against him.
The Artist could easily sweep the Oscars this year and it will be lead by winning Best Director but Martin Scorsese is like Meryl Streep, he can never be counted out. The thing working for Scorsese is that he keeps getting screwed year in and year out at the Academys. He lost directing Oscars for directing some of cinemas greats like Raging Bull, Taxi Driver, and Goodfellas. Now the Oscars made it up to him by (finally) honoring him with the award in 2006 for The Departed but the Academy still owes a lot more to Scorsese. Another thing working for Marty is that he probably did the best job in terms of directing this year. I was bored to death by Hugo but that was more of a script problem than a directing problem.
What Hazanavicius has going for him is that out of all the films that got Oscar nominations (which basically just includes Young Adult and Drive) he directed the best one.
WINNER: Michael Hazanavicius (The Artist)
BEST PICTURE
The Artist vs. The Help vs. The Descendants
The last time a film won Best Picture but did not win Best Director was in 2005 when Crash won Best Picture yet Ang Lee won Best Director for Brokeback Mountain and has only happened one other time since 2001.
A lot of the reason I think Hazanavicius will win Best Director is because I believe The Artist will win Best Picture. Not only did The Artist win the PGA, the Critics Choice Award, and its Golden Glove nomination but it's actually a good film. The only reason I went in to see The Artist was because it was the Oscar front runner and I went in thinking it was going to be elitist garbage. I came out really enjoying the film. In this terrible, awful, no good year for movies, The Artists shines above the rest. Sure its partially by default but a win's a win.
What The Help has going for it is 1) No backlash like what The Artist has 2) Both average movie goers and Hollywood loved The Help and 3) It won and beat out The Artist for Best Acting Ensamble at the Screen Actors Guild eerily reminding us of 2005 when Brokeback Mountain was the clear favorite and then Crash won at the SAG awards and then (rightfully) stunned the world by winning the Oscar for Best Picture. Like 2011, 2005 was also a pretty bad year for films making it easier for an upset.
What The Help has working against it though is that it wasn't even nominated for Best Adapted Screenplay or Best Director. Paul Haggis received a nomination for both writing and directing Crash in 2005. It's hard to say you are the best movie of the year when you are both not well directed or well written. What The Help also has working against it is that a SAG win doesn't really mean all that much. In 2006, Little Miss Sunshine won the SAG award for Best Acting Ensemble when Babel was the favorite at the time yet lost the Oscar to The Departed and in 2009 when Up In The Air was the favorite and Inglourious Basterds won Best Cast at the SAG awards yet The Hurt Locker won the Academy Award for Best Picture. Both Inglourious Basterds and Up In The Air had lost steam by the time The Academy's rolled around. The Artist has not.
The Descendants still technically has a chance and has a better chance than Hugo and Moneyball and Tree Of Life and the rest of the field because it won at The Golden Globes but I still will be super surprised to see it win Best Picture. I can foresee a The Artist backlash and if it does then The Descendants will remain supreme but I wouldn't bet on it.
WINNER: The Artist
Who Will Win The 2012 Oscars?
I will do three categories for each nomination. The first one is "What Will Win" which will be out of all the actual nominations which one do I think will actually take home the award. The second one is "What Should Win (Oscar Nominated)" which means out of all the actual nominations which one do I think deserves to take home the golden statue. The third one will be "What Should Win (All Movies)" which means out of every single movie of 2011 which movie or person do I think should take home the award, whether or not they were nominated.*
Best Picture
What Will Win: The Artist
What Should Win (Oscar Nominated): The Descendants or Moneyball
What Should Win (All Movies): Young Adult
Best Director
What Will Win: Martin Scorsese (Hugo)
What Should Win (Oscar Nominated): Martin Scorsese (Hugo)
What Should Win (All Movies): Bennett Miller (Moneyball)
Best Actor
What Will Win: George Clooney (The Descendants)
What Should Win (Oscar Nominated): Brad Pitt (Moneyball)
* Really though, I have no problem if anyone in this category wins it. All were great and no one really stood out above the rest
What Should Win (All Movies): Brad Pitt (Moneyball)
* I personally am a Brad Pitt fan and I would like to see him take home an Oscar
Best Actress
What Will Win: Viola Davis (The Help)
What Should Win (Oscar Nominated): N/A
*I've only seen The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo. I don't (along with the rest of America) watch movies that have Best Actress nominees in them
What Should Win (All Movies): Charlize Theron (Young Adult)
Best Supporting Actor
What Will Win: Christopher Plummer (Beginners)
What Should Win (Oscar Nominated): Nick Nolte (Warrior)
What Should Win (All Movies): Andy Serkis (Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes)
Best Supporting Actress
What Will Win: Octavia Spencer (The Help)
What Should Win (Oscar Nominated): Melissa McCarthy (Bridesmaids)
What Should Win (All Movies): Shailene Woodley (The Descendants)
Best Original Screenplay
What Will Win: Woody Allen (Midnight In Paris)
What Should Win (Oscar Nominated): Kristen Wiig and Annie Mumolo (Bridesmaids)
What Should Win (All Movies): Diablo Cody (Young Adult)
Best Adapted Screenplay
What Will Win: Alexander Payne, Jim Rash, and Nat Faxon (The Descendants)
What Should Win (Oscar Nominated): Steve Zaillian, Aaron Sorkin, and Stan Chervin (Moneyball)
What Should Win (All Movies): Steve Zaillian, Aaron Sorkin, and Stan Chervin (Moneyball)
Best Cinematography
What Will Win: Robert Richardson (Hugo)
What Should Win (Oscar Nominated): Robert Richardson (Hugo)
What Should Win (All Movies): Magdalena Gorka (Paranormal Activity 3)
Best Animated Film
What Will Win: Rango
Best Foreign Language Film
What Will Win: Iran (A Separation)
Best Original Score
What Will Win: Ludovic Bource (The Artist)
Best Original Song
What Will Win: "Man Or Muppet" by Bret McKenzie (The Muppets)
Best Costume Design
What Will Win: Mark Bridges (The Artist)
Best Make Up
What Will Win: Nick Dudman, Amanda Knight, and Lisa Tomblin (Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows Part II)
Best Visual Effects
What Will Win: Tim Burke, David Vickery, Greg Butler, and John Richardson (Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows Part II)
Best Sound Editing
What Will Win: Ethan van der Ryn and; Erik Aadahl (Transformers: Dark Of The Moon)
Best Sound Mixing
What Will Win: Greg P. Russell, Gary Summers, Jeffrey J. Haboush, and Peter J. Devlin (Transformers: Dark Of The Moon)
*NOTE: While I have not seen every movie in 2011 nor every Oscar nominated movie in 2011 I have seen most. The ones I actually will see from 2011 are: Drive, The Help, and Shame. This list will get updated accordingly once I have seen those flicks.
Best Picture
What Will Win: The Artist
What Should Win (Oscar Nominated): The Descendants or Moneyball
What Should Win (All Movies): Young Adult
Best Director
What Will Win: Martin Scorsese (Hugo)
What Should Win (Oscar Nominated): Martin Scorsese (Hugo)
What Should Win (All Movies): Bennett Miller (Moneyball)
Best Actor
What Will Win: George Clooney (The Descendants)
What Should Win (Oscar Nominated): Brad Pitt (Moneyball)
* Really though, I have no problem if anyone in this category wins it. All were great and no one really stood out above the rest
What Should Win (All Movies): Brad Pitt (Moneyball)
* I personally am a Brad Pitt fan and I would like to see him take home an Oscar
Best Actress
What Will Win: Viola Davis (The Help)
What Should Win (Oscar Nominated): N/A
*I've only seen The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo. I don't (along with the rest of America) watch movies that have Best Actress nominees in them
What Should Win (All Movies): Charlize Theron (Young Adult)
Best Supporting Actor
What Will Win: Christopher Plummer (Beginners)
What Should Win (Oscar Nominated): Nick Nolte (Warrior)
What Should Win (All Movies): Andy Serkis (Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes)
Best Supporting Actress
What Will Win: Octavia Spencer (The Help)
What Should Win (Oscar Nominated): Melissa McCarthy (Bridesmaids)
What Should Win (All Movies): Shailene Woodley (The Descendants)
Best Original Screenplay
What Will Win: Woody Allen (Midnight In Paris)
What Should Win (Oscar Nominated): Kristen Wiig and Annie Mumolo (Bridesmaids)
What Should Win (All Movies): Diablo Cody (Young Adult)
Best Adapted Screenplay
What Will Win: Alexander Payne, Jim Rash, and Nat Faxon (The Descendants)
What Should Win (Oscar Nominated): Steve Zaillian, Aaron Sorkin, and Stan Chervin (Moneyball)
What Should Win (All Movies): Steve Zaillian, Aaron Sorkin, and Stan Chervin (Moneyball)
Best Cinematography
What Will Win: Robert Richardson (Hugo)
What Should Win (Oscar Nominated): Robert Richardson (Hugo)
What Should Win (All Movies): Magdalena Gorka (Paranormal Activity 3)
Best Animated Film
What Will Win: Rango
Best Foreign Language Film
What Will Win: Iran (A Separation)
Best Original Score
What Will Win: Ludovic Bource (The Artist)
Best Original Song
What Will Win: "Man Or Muppet" by Bret McKenzie (The Muppets)
Best Costume Design
What Will Win: Mark Bridges (The Artist)
Best Make Up
What Will Win: Nick Dudman, Amanda Knight, and Lisa Tomblin (Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows Part II)
Best Visual Effects
What Will Win: Tim Burke, David Vickery, Greg Butler, and John Richardson (Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows Part II)
Best Sound Editing
What Will Win: Ethan van der Ryn and; Erik Aadahl (Transformers: Dark Of The Moon)
Best Sound Mixing
What Will Win: Greg P. Russell, Gary Summers, Jeffrey J. Haboush, and Peter J. Devlin (Transformers: Dark Of The Moon)
*NOTE: While I have not seen every movie in 2011 nor every Oscar nominated movie in 2011 I have seen most. The ones I actually will see from 2011 are: Drive, The Help, and Shame. This list will get updated accordingly once I have seen those flicks.
Sexy Rexy's 2012 Oscar Nominations Rants
Like all my Oscar rants, I will say I have not seen all the nominated films and in this terrible, terrible year for films I probably will not see any more except for Drive (I'll see it when it comes out this weekend on DVD). But nevertheless considering I'm able to write posts on the best television shows of the year and some music and fantasy sports and able to hold my own in an Oscar conversation, I think the fact that I have not seen Albert Nobbs and We Need To Talk About Kevin should give me a pass.
- Young Adult was by far and away the best film of 2011. It was made by Oscar veterans Jason Reitman (Juno, Up In The Air) and Diablo Cody (Juno) and starred Oscar veteran Charlize Theron (Monster). Yet it garnered absolutely no nominations. Hollywood hated the film which is absurd. The movie is not for everyone because it is purposefully not a feel good movie and purposefully left a sour taste in people's mouths at the end but so did No Country For Old Men and yet that swept the Oscars. I knew Hollywood hated the film so I knew Reitman would get screwed for Best Director and the film would get screwed for Best Picture but at minimum I thought it would get Best Original Screenplay and I had hoped Theron would squeak in as the 5th Best Actress slot. Instead, that went to Rooney Mara for The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo. Clearly, Hollywood did not see the great Sweedish original. Patton Osawlt also got fucked for his great, nuanced performance in YA. Overall, the film is walking funny, Lisbeth Salander style because of what the Academy did to it (Sorry, that might have crossed the line. My bad.)
- I knew Brad Pitt was going to get nominated for his portrayal of Billy Beane in Moneyball and while it wasn't a lock, no one was surprised to see Jonah Hill get nominated for his portrayal of Peter Brand/ Paul DePodesta. But I was pleasantly surprised to see Moneyball get nominated for Best Picture as well. I know my fellow GOI authors disagree with me on the film and all four of us are biased by the movie because of our intense love of the Michael Lewis book but the film was great. All sports movies are about the underdog willing their way to win at all in the end but Moneyball was different. It took the GM's perspective and (spoiler alert) they lost in the first round of the playoffs. It redefined sports movies and I'm glad it got its due. I would have liked to have seen Bennett Miller get nominated for Best Director because I loved his style but after all the other nominations I knew that was too much to ask.
- I love Gary Oldman and I'm glad he got his due for his years of great work by getting a Best Actor nomination for his role in Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. I also love Michael Fassbender but he did not get a Best Actor nomination for his role as a sex addict in the NC-17 rated Shame despite getting a BAFTA and Golden Globe nomination for his work. While I haven't seen Shame (it's extremely hard to see NC-17 rated movies because mainstream theaters refuse to show them and mainstream stores like Wal-Mart refuse to sell them) but when I do end up seeing Shame I'm sure I will say Fassbender got snubbed.
- Kristen Wiig can say she has an Oscar nomination! She and her writing partner Annie Mumolo get nominated for writing Bridesmaids. While I'm glad to see the Academy broadened their scope and nominated a raunchy comedy, I'm still a little bitter that it took them this long. Writers for The 40 Year Old Virgin, Knocked Up, Forgetting Sarah Marshall, and especially Superbad did not get nominated for Best Original Screenplay and all were much more deserving than Wiig and Mumolo. Melissa McCarthy also got nominated for her role in Bridesmaids for Best Supporting Actress although this was no surprise. Not only did she get nominated in everything before this and stole the movie but the Academy has always looked kindly towards comedic actors getting nominated in supporting roles. Robert Downey Jr. got nominated in 2009 for his portrayal of an actor undergoing surgery to become a black man in Tropic Thunder and Marisa Tomei won the Best Supporting Actress Oscar in 1992 for her work in My Cousin Vinny.
- To much of people's dismay, Tilda Swinton did not get anything for her role in We Need To Talk About Kevin. Not that I was going to see the film anyways but now I definitely do not have to see it because it didn't get any nominations.
- The Artist is going to sweep the Oscars this year and to be honest it's hard to argue with it. It was very well made, the acting (especially by its two leads) were great, and I was surprisingly entertained by it. No one is going to get Hurt Locker'd this year. I will say that as good as The Artist is, I never want to see it again. It's a one and done for me.
- My girlfriend was trying to force me to see The Help when it came out in theaters. I said "no" because it looked stupid and cheezy and I said the only way I will see it is if it gets nominated for Oscars. Thinking only chicks would like the film and it wouldn't get anything, I was fairly confident I wouldn't have to see it. Now I have to go see it as it got nominated for Best Picture, Best Actress, and two Best Supporting Actresses. Damn.
- Young Adult was by far and away the best film of 2011. It was made by Oscar veterans Jason Reitman (Juno, Up In The Air) and Diablo Cody (Juno) and starred Oscar veteran Charlize Theron (Monster). Yet it garnered absolutely no nominations. Hollywood hated the film which is absurd. The movie is not for everyone because it is purposefully not a feel good movie and purposefully left a sour taste in people's mouths at the end but so did No Country For Old Men and yet that swept the Oscars. I knew Hollywood hated the film so I knew Reitman would get screwed for Best Director and the film would get screwed for Best Picture but at minimum I thought it would get Best Original Screenplay and I had hoped Theron would squeak in as the 5th Best Actress slot. Instead, that went to Rooney Mara for The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo. Clearly, Hollywood did not see the great Sweedish original. Patton Osawlt also got fucked for his great, nuanced performance in YA. Overall, the film is walking funny, Lisbeth Salander style because of what the Academy did to it (Sorry, that might have crossed the line. My bad.)
- I knew Brad Pitt was going to get nominated for his portrayal of Billy Beane in Moneyball and while it wasn't a lock, no one was surprised to see Jonah Hill get nominated for his portrayal of Peter Brand/ Paul DePodesta. But I was pleasantly surprised to see Moneyball get nominated for Best Picture as well. I know my fellow GOI authors disagree with me on the film and all four of us are biased by the movie because of our intense love of the Michael Lewis book but the film was great. All sports movies are about the underdog willing their way to win at all in the end but Moneyball was different. It took the GM's perspective and (spoiler alert) they lost in the first round of the playoffs. It redefined sports movies and I'm glad it got its due. I would have liked to have seen Bennett Miller get nominated for Best Director because I loved his style but after all the other nominations I knew that was too much to ask.
- I love Gary Oldman and I'm glad he got his due for his years of great work by getting a Best Actor nomination for his role in Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. I also love Michael Fassbender but he did not get a Best Actor nomination for his role as a sex addict in the NC-17 rated Shame despite getting a BAFTA and Golden Globe nomination for his work. While I haven't seen Shame (it's extremely hard to see NC-17 rated movies because mainstream theaters refuse to show them and mainstream stores like Wal-Mart refuse to sell them) but when I do end up seeing Shame I'm sure I will say Fassbender got snubbed.
- Kristen Wiig can say she has an Oscar nomination! She and her writing partner Annie Mumolo get nominated for writing Bridesmaids. While I'm glad to see the Academy broadened their scope and nominated a raunchy comedy, I'm still a little bitter that it took them this long. Writers for The 40 Year Old Virgin, Knocked Up, Forgetting Sarah Marshall, and especially Superbad did not get nominated for Best Original Screenplay and all were much more deserving than Wiig and Mumolo. Melissa McCarthy also got nominated for her role in Bridesmaids for Best Supporting Actress although this was no surprise. Not only did she get nominated in everything before this and stole the movie but the Academy has always looked kindly towards comedic actors getting nominated in supporting roles. Robert Downey Jr. got nominated in 2009 for his portrayal of an actor undergoing surgery to become a black man in Tropic Thunder and Marisa Tomei won the Best Supporting Actress Oscar in 1992 for her work in My Cousin Vinny.
- To much of people's dismay, Tilda Swinton did not get anything for her role in We Need To Talk About Kevin. Not that I was going to see the film anyways but now I definitely do not have to see it because it didn't get any nominations.
- The Artist is going to sweep the Oscars this year and to be honest it's hard to argue with it. It was very well made, the acting (especially by its two leads) were great, and I was surprisingly entertained by it. No one is going to get Hurt Locker'd this year. I will say that as good as The Artist is, I never want to see it again. It's a one and done for me.
- My girlfriend was trying to force me to see The Help when it came out in theaters. I said "no" because it looked stupid and cheezy and I said the only way I will see it is if it gets nominated for Oscars. Thinking only chicks would like the film and it wouldn't get anything, I was fairly confident I wouldn't have to see it. Now I have to go see it as it got nominated for Best Picture, Best Actress, and two Best Supporting Actresses. Damn.
Sexy Rexy's Top 10 Movies Of 2011
EDITOR'S NOTE: Here is my new and improved list for the Best Films Of 2011.
_________________________
NOTE: You are going to disagree with this list. We here at Game Of Inches have no inherent qualms against disagreement but all comments WILL be done in a civil fashion. Any name calling or disrespectfulness of any sort will not be tolerated.
___________________________
2011 was a horrible year for movies. I've (maybe) said that a handful of times in recent years but no year in recent memory has ever been as bad as 2011. I thought overall 2007 was a pretty terrible year but at least that year had There Will Be Blood and Superbad. The same can not be said of 2011. You know it's a bad year when a trailer is one of the best things released. You know the year is a bad year for movies when you can't use the cliche "top 11 of oh-eleven". I could barely come up with up with ten!
I will say though that I (obviously) have not seen every movie released in 2011 nor have I seen every movie that has the potential to earn a spot on this list. I have not seen Drive or The Help, I have not seen award darlings The Artist or War Horse (nor do I really care to though- they look boring as shit), nor have I seen (essentially) any movie in which any of its leading ladies have a shot to win an Oscar (I rarely do and so do almost everyone else in America). When I see any of these movies I will update my list accordingly, but considering I have seen a shit ton of films this year, I think it's appropriate to create a list.
10) Moneyball dir. Bennett Miller
Michael Lewis' Moneyball is the greatest sports book ever written and probably GOI's favorite book ever. So we all had extremely high hopes when we saw the movie adaptation. The film fell extremely short of our expectations- which I knew would happen. If you love one medium you're going to hate the other. I went and a saw the film for a second time coming in with much lower expectations and tried to divorce myself from the book. Bennett Miller's Moneyball is not the same as Michael Lewis' version and I tried to watch the movie through that prism.
That still failed.
As I watched the movie I couldn't help thinking "No, no, no! Just do what the book does. Why aren't you explaining that better!?" But objectively speaking, this is one of the greatest sports movie ever made. Those who loved the movie are ones that did not read the book because they are not constrained in the prison of the novel which allowed them to appreciate the movie more.
No sports movie has ever took such a realistic look at a front office like what Moneyball did. Some of the best sports movies are about the team or specific players on the team. No one has ever been bold enough to follow around a GM like what this movie did.
Steven Zaillian (Gangs Of New York, American Gangster, The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo) and Aaron Sorkin (A Few Good Men, The Social Network, Charlie Wilson's War) are a writing Tour de Force and did a great job not only portraying the excellence and insecurities of Oakland A's General Manager Billy Beane (as well as the phenomenal acting job by Brad Pitt) but also portraying this world of the new world thinking versus the old world thinking. It's Billy Beane and Peter Brand (based after the Beane's actual assistant GM- Paul DePodesta) using these new statistics to help out their small market team to fight in an unfair game.
As a huge fan of the book, the problem occurs is that the fight that Bennett Miller chooses to portray is a different fight that what Michael Lewis does portray. But the essence of the fight is still the same. The film presents a battle between how Beane and Brand choose the see baseball (FYI: the correct way) and how everyone else chooses to see baseball. The main way the film portrays this fight is through Beane versus Art Howe (Phillip Seymour Hoffman) the Oakland A's manager. Although it was a story line invented for the movie, it works well for the movie so the audience gets a glimpse of the huge battle Billy Beane fights in.
In the book, Billy Beane was taught sabermetric methods from his GM predecessor Sandy Alderson and Beane used those methods to create a winning team the many years before the 2002 season (the movie and book follows the 2002 Oakland A's). Emotionally, I hate the movie for it. Objectively, I think what the movie did was great to help explain to the casual viewer about the overall struggle Beane was faced with.
I thought Bennett Miller (Capote) did a fantastic job with this movie. The purpose of the film is to humanize Billy Beane and a front office that's fighting an uphill fight and that's something that has never been done in movies before. Miller uses a lot of close up and medium shots to help achieve this affect that even though Miller ended up and the low man on the totem pole for this project, I'm glad Miller's vision was the one that ultimately succeeded. I think his use of camera work and framing helped give the movie the feel that it did.
9) Super 8 dir. J.J. Abrams
The best way to describe this movie is that it is a combination of Stand By Me, E.T., and Jaws. It is no surprise that two of those films are Steven Spielberg films and that Spielberg was an executive producer of Super 8.
The movie follows a group of young kids who set out to make a monster picture. While doing so they witness a horrific train crash which in turn causes a mysterious creature to be let loose on their kids' small town.
The film mainly focuses around the young kids specifically Joe (Joel Courtney) and Alice (Elle Fanning) and the film is presented through their point of view. The story is about how these kids grow up and have to while searching for the mysterious creature.
However, the film falls apart in the third act. The movie does a great job throughout the first two thirds of the film in the sense that you never see the creature. The movie is about the children and the creature is just a McGuffin. Like Jaws, the movie worked better when you don't see the creature. In the first two acts, it's all about the kids. You care about these kids and this creature is just a movie device to help see how these young people will react to them. Really, the "monster" could have been anything because I loved these youngsters.
But in the third act you do see the creature and that (not coincidentally) is when the film starts to unravel. The film shifts away from a coming of age story to a straight up monster movie which detracts from the overarching themes and plot.
Overall, the film was enjoyable and I recommend everyone to rent it but because of the third act I couldn't put Super 8 any higher than nine.
8) Mission: Impossible Ghost Protocol dir. Brad Bird
Sometimes you need fun, popcorn, action flicks and Tom Cruise is great at making those. You don't really remember what happened throughout the first three Mission: Impossible movies but I bet you do remember that you enjoyed them. The same holds true for the franchise's fourth installment: Ghost Protocol. In a few years this movie will probably fade into the dust, but as for this year (and especially for this weak year) Mission: Impossible Ghost Protocal rightfully earns a spot on my list.
We exist in a new age of action movies. Superhero movies like Spiderman II, The Dark Knight, and to a lesser extent Iron Man made it so that you need character depth in order to create a transcendent action movie. You almost need to take out the action to be a successful action movie nowadays. That, and a great and charismatic evil villain also helps.
Mission: Impossible Ghost Protocol does not have any of that.
But what it does have a fun action scenes. And Jeremy Renner who is just awesome in whatever he's doing. The movie has the suspense mixed in with the comic relief and sometimes you need that and that is what I enjoyed about the movie. But because in reality it was just another dime-a-dozen popcorn flick, I can only rank it #8 on my list.
7) The Descendants dir. Alexander Payne
The movie follows along Matt King (Clooney) a Hawaiian real estate attorney, one of the descendants of the former king of Hawaii, and the trustee of a great deal of land that him and all of the descendants of the former king own.
Recently, Matt's wife was involving in boating accident in which her life hangs in the balance. Matt must balance preparing his two young daughters for the eventual death of his wife, the fact that he found out his wife was cheating on him, and the fact that him and all of his cousins have to sell the land they inherited "due to something like the Rule Against Perpetuities" (as someone in law school I'm impressed with myself that I actually know what this means) and is going through the process of entertaining bids for the land.
The movie follows Matt King as he struggles to deal with all of the problems that have suddenly come up in his life. He enlists the help of his oldest daughter Alexandra (Shailene Woodley) to not only be a "(wo)man" but to help him and her younger sister Scottie get through these troubling times. The movie rides on the strong acting performances by both Clooney and Woodley and both deserve, at minimum, Oscar nominations for their performances.
The major flaw of the film is that it is way too long. At least 15 minutes could be cut from it. Alexander Payne is a smart man and he knows what he's doing when it comes to making movies but I thought he could have achieved the same effect with a better editing job.
6) Larry Crowne dir. Tom Hanks
A lot of people did not like this movie. At all. It received a "rotten" rating on Rotten Tomatoes with only 34% of critics liking the movie and only 44% of fans. That's saying something. At least more than half the people liked Grown Ups. I honestly can not understand why people did not like Larry Crowne.
I get that Larry Crowne is not a very deep movie. I get that more thematic elements could have been brought out, but overall, the movie is a light-hearted romp with Tom Hanks as the focal point.
The movie follows around Larry Crowne (Hanks). He is an optimistic man who loves his job as a manager for a Wal-Mart type store. However, because he never went to college (he spent about two decades in the Navy as a chef instead) he gets laid off. In an attempt to turn his life around he enrolls in community college. The film follows Crowne into his first year in school- two main classes in particular- Mrs. Tainot's (Julia Roberts) Speech 101 class and Dr. Matsutani's (George Takei) Economics 101 class.
These two classes along with a young female student named Talia (Gugu Mbatha-Raw) help Larry Crowne put his life into perspective and eventually allows a blossoming relation between him and Mrs. Tainot.
What I like about this movie is that it doesn't pretend to be anything it's not. It's a fun little movie and that's about it. I have seen the film twice now and have enjoyed every minute of it each time. I think this movie was universally panned because people had unfair expectations for it. I went to see it, even after all the negative reviews and criticisms of it, and maybe that's why I enjoyed it more than most. Either way, I think this is just a pleasant and lovely movie to see.
5) 50/50 dir. Jonathan Levine
The movie follows around Adam (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) who has just gotten a rare type of back cancer. The story is based on the true life of the film's screen writer Will Reiser and about his struggles with getting cancer.
No movie this year has filed me with every single emotion like 50/50 did and the movie is led by the strong performance of Gordon-Levitt. You feel the lows that Adam goes through and well of some of the highs (literally and figuratively).
Adam is helped out by his best friend Kyle (Seth Rogen) and his therapist- a medical student in training- Katherine (Anna Kendricks). I've always been a big fan of Seth Rogen ever since The 40 Year Old Virgin and Knocked Up but he shows in 50/50 that he actually does have legitimate acting chops.
The entire movie is about a person who struggles to deal with cancer as well as chemotherapy. While I can not personally relate, from what I've heard, Adam's up and downs are fairly realistic and if you or someone you know has/d cancer I think this movie will be wonderfully touching for you.
4) X-Men: First Class dir. Matthew Vaughn
Matthew Vaughn (Kick Ass) comes back with another superhero movie and with the best rendition of an X-Men film yet.
The film follows around Charlies Xavier (James McAvoy) and Erik Lehnsherr/Magneto (James Fassbender) as they first get control over their powers. X-Men: First Class is an origin story about how the first generation of mutants that we've seen in the first three X-Men films came to be.
The main reason this film is great is because of the performance of Michael Fassbender. He steals every scene he is in and it's this performance that will propel him into stardom. I could have watched an entire movie of just Magneto. I wanted the first third of film that involved Lehnsherr (both as a young boy and the character Fassbender played) to last for two plus hours. It was great.
What X-Men: First Class did better than any of its predecessors was to delve deeper into the emotions of feeling like an outsider and it cast actors with actual acting talent as opposed to just actors who happen to look like the comic book drawing. Not only is Fassbender and McAvoy really good in the film but so is the female version of Fassbender (and super hot) Jennifer Lawrence and Kevin Bacon who plays a really good and charismatic villain. True, the movie does have January Jones (Betty Draper from Mad Men) who might be the worst actor in terms of talent in Hollywood right now, but considering she literally plays an ice queen in the film and also the ice queen Betty Draper (and also because she is super duper hot) I can let it slide.
The movie is not as good as The Dark Knight or Spiderman II but it falls in the category right below it (joining Edward Norton's The Incredible Hulk) and it's light years better than the dribble that the other superhero movies we saw this year like Captain America, The Green Lantern, and Thor.
I really enjoyed X-Men: First Class and I should probably go out and see Shame and/or A Dangerous Method because a) I'm officially a Michael Fassbender fan and b) They will probably easily earn a spot on my revised list.
3) Paranormal Activity 3 dir. Ariel Schulman and Henry Joost
I know I am going to get a lot of shit for this selection and I don't care. You go on being a hater. Paranormal Activity 3 accomplished what very few films before it accomplished- It was able to scare the ever-loving shit out of movie without using any type of gore whatsoever.
I enjoyed the first Paranormal Activity. It was absolutely not as scary as the commercials painted it out to be (e.g. many of its commercials had shots of just the audience in the theater as they screamed and threw their popcorn in the air) but I enjoyed it nonetheless. The same holds true for the sequel. But the third installment of the franchise? Holy crap. I literally screamed in the theater like a little girl.
Even since Saw came out (yes, movies have been doing it way before Saw but that film helped usher in the torture porn of cinema today), horror movies have been using the cheap trick of gross out gore in order to get scares. This is a cop out. The truly best way (and it is very hard to accomplish) to scare the audience is to build up tension and uneasiness and Paranormal Activity 3 was the best film since The Sixth Sense to accomplish this.
The great thing about this Paranormal Activity is that is uses a different kind of camera technique. The first two movies was filmed using a single camera set on a tripod. What Paranormal Activity 3 did was use a camera that rotated in between two rooms- like an oscillating fan. There was one scene in particular that stuck with me. The parents go out for a lovely evening and leave the babysitter home to watch their two young girls (these girls grow up and become the stars of Paranormal Activity and Paranormal Activity 2). The babysitter spends some time downstairs between the living room and the kitchen. The oscillating camera pans back and forth between these two rooms. I knew something was going to pop out and scare the babysitter; however, the problem was that I did not know when. I thought the pop out would occur early on but eventually it seemed to never come. The camera just kept oscillating back and forth. Eventually the movie lulled me into a false sense of security. I almost got so bored because the film spent so much time switching back and forth between two rooms with absolutely no action whatsoever. However, what the film was actually doing was slowly building up tension which was much scarier than the actual pop out itself. Paranormal Activity 3 used this slow build up throughout the entire movie and it's what distinguished itself from the first two.
Now, as a movie in and of itself Paranormal Activity 3 was not very good. The movie is riddled with plot holes and when you think about what happens in Paranormal Activity 3 it does not quite follow along the same guidelines as what we learned about and what we were told in "1" and "2". But I don't care. Ultimately, Paranormal Activity 3 is a horror movie and when I go see a horror movie, I want to be so scared that I piss my pants. That this film (almost) accomplished that goal.
2) Rise Of The Planet of The Apes dir. Rupert Wyatt
I never really wanted to originally see Rise but I'm certainly glad I did. What was so great about the original Planet Of The Apes (the Charlton Heston version not the Marky Mark one) was that it not only was an entertaining story but it was a great science fiction questioning the role of science versus religion. However, the movie studio has bastardized the original thinking people just wanted to see monkeys and that was it. Thinking that Rise Of The Planet of The Apes would fall along this same vein, I was hesitant to see this new one. I was wrong.
While Rise does not even come close to the science fiction classic of the original, it also doesn't try to be. The only hint that this movie is a prequel to the 1968 classic was the title of the movie and the ending credits. Other than that, Rise is its own movie entirely. Sure, the film does touch on the concept of, "What should we really being doing in the name of science?" but it presents the situation that the problem lies within the greed of the owners of the pharmaceutical companies and not of a problem of the scientists who are just trying to help.
The story follows along Caesar (Andy Serkis) a chimp who was saved at birth from Will Rodman (James Franco) a scientist working on a cure for Alzheimer's. Caesar's mother held the cure to the disease and passed along the genetic material to Caesar. Caesar's mother dies right after giving birth to her son because she went crazy, destroyed a building during the same time in which an investor's meeting was going on, and the security in the drug company had her killed to prevent further mayhem. Will is forced to keep Ceasar in hiding because of his mother's actions. Although Will soon realizes that Caesar's genetic material holds the cure to Alzheimer's and he creates a formula which helps to slow down and looks like it will eventually stop the disease. Will tests his miracle drug on his father Charles (John Lithgow) and the drug works in leaps and bounds.
However, the main purpose of the film is not about pharmacy or drugs but mainly about the life of Caesar. Because of the scientific testing done on his mother, Caesar is the next stage in evolution of primates. He can communicate well to humans through sign language and has the intelligence of a human child equivalent. However, because Will is not supposed to have Caesar, the monkey is forced to seclusion within Will's home.
Unfortunately, one afternoon when the drug starts to fade and the symptoms of Alzheimer's starts to kick in, Charles runs amok and gets berated by his and Will's neighbor. Ceasar goes to help Charles and long story short, he ends up in the equivalent of monkey jail where he's beaten and abused by the caretakers John Landon (Brian Cox) and his son Dodge (Tom Felton).
The movie presents the life of Caesar from special monkey to eventual dictator and overlord of all primates. (I know this sounds silly when I'm writing it, but trust me, the movie does a great job with it and makes it serious) Analogous to how we see Natalie Portman's decent into madness in Black Swan we see Caesar getting slowly and surely beaten down where eventually the world around him forced Caesar to take drastic actions. While I do not like (whether inherent or not) the similarities between Adolf Hitler and Caesar, the movie still causes you to sympathize with Caesar and you want him to create a rebellion and rise up against the world.
The whole reason the movie works is because of the great acting by Andy Serkis. I don't care that he says two words or the fact that Caesar is largely computer-based, the reason Rise works so well is because of Serkis. The computer did not create the facial expressions of Caesar or the movements and the computer did not cause you to relate to Caesar on an emotional basis. Andy Serkis did. I think it's extremely close minded to not even nominate Serkis for major awards. He did the same exact thing as what every other actor in Hollywood does- except he did it in a different room than where everybody else was filming. Serkis brought emotion and depth to a character which helped define the movie. Jean Dujardin is going to win an Oscar for his performance in The Artist without saying a word so why should we hold Serkis to a different standard? I guess many people are worried that if we nominate Serkis then that will lead us down a slippery slope of nominating actors when they solely use their voice in animated works. But what Serkis does that voice actors do not is that he uses facial expressions and body movement to portray his character and to me, that's much more important than vocal inflections. I know Serkis will get screwed but I thought he did a fantastic job.
1) Young Adult dir. Jason Reitman
No movie has stuck with me in 2011 like Young Adult did. In my mind, this was the only film this year that could actually stand on its own with other great movies of past years.
The movie follows Mavis Gary (Charlize Theron) a former head plastic of her high school who comes back to her town because her former boyfriend- the typical high school jock- recently just had a kid with his wife. Upset at how her life has turned out and after another night of meaningless sex, Mavis comes back to her town to relive her glory days and attempts to reunite with Buddy Slade (Patrick Wilson)- her ex-boyfriend.
Mavis Gary is one of the most complex and compelling females characters in movie cinema. There have been some great female actions roles (Ellen Ripley, The Bride, etc.) and some great female characters (Clarice Starling, Annie Wilkes, etc.) but never has there been a character with so many different layers all at once than Gary.
The thing about Mavis Gary is that she actually is smart. She was not your average bimbo cheerleader but moved to the big city (Minneapolis) and actually made something of herself. She is the "ghost" writer of a once popular, but now dead young adult book series. This is part of how the movie gets its title. Throughout the movie, Mavis is writing the last installment of the series and throughout the movie she writes different parts of the book which happen to correspond with her life. I know it's not the most creative movie device but I loved it.
Mavis is also extremely sociable. She has not outgrown her high school days but she still can enter into any conversation. But with that being said, you are supposed to dislike Gary.
What's great about Young Adult and the wonderfully written script by Diablo Cody (Juno) is that you are supposed to despise Mavis Gary but at the same time you feel for her and grow to love her as a character. This is where the movie really gets its title from. Mavis Gary has not grown up from her high school days. Although it's been over a decade, she still goes to her old school to get drunk and reminisce about the good old days and still acts like she did in high school.
Plus, think about the plot. Mavis Gary is purposefully trying to be a homewrecker. Her ex-flame is in a loving and caring relationship, has shown no indications that he wants to get out of it, and just had a beautiful child. The movie is all about the narcissistic, corrupt, and destructive nature of this woman who never really learned to grow up. Young Adult is the opposite of a feel-good movie, yet it has all the qualities of one. I don't want to spoil the ending for you but it falls right in line with that same theme.
While in town, Gary meets Matt Freehauf (Patton Oswalt). Matt was a fellow classmate of Mavis and Buddy and while in high school he was the victim of a savage beating by his fellow classmates who permanently disfigured him because they thought he was a homosexual. Matt plays the voice of reason to Mavis Gary and Patton Oswalt gives one of the best acting performances of not only his career but of the year. Mavis ends up spending a lot of time with Matt during her stint in town and he helps to guide her along her path.
For those of you who want to relate to a character and who wants them to succeed then this movie is absolutely not for you. However, if you can appreciate the complexities of a character and the subtleties of a performance then I highly recommend Young Adult.
MOVIES THAT JUST MISSED THE CUT (in no particular order)
- Bridesmaids: I love that style of comedy and I can see why everyone was infatuated with it, but personally, I just didn't find it funny like how everyone else did. Although Melissa McCarthy was amazing and I hope she gets a Best Supporting Actress Oscar nomination.
-Win/Win: Great acting by everybody involved but it took way too long to get to its point, it didn't do the greatest job connecting the audience to the characters, very predictable, and at the end of the day I never want to see this film again. This film is almost the quintessential split between "good" and "entertaining".
- Hugo: Everything about this movie was great. The film making was great, the special effects were great, and the acting was very good. However, I was bored as all hell while watching it. Any movie that makes you think "Holy hell this is boring as shit. When is it going to end!" can't earn a spot on my list. This is the quintessential difference between "good" and "entertaining".
- Crazy, Stupid, Love: A surprisingly good movie that completely fell off in the second half. I could have (and wish I did) watched an entire movie of just Ryan Gosling and Steve Carrel.
- Midnight In Paris: Really good movie, WAY too pretentious for me.
- The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo: A movie that didn't need to get remade. Fincher didn't add anything new to the story and the entire time I just kept thinking, "the original is better". Also, why have a movie set in Sweden yet have everyone speak English with Swedish accents? Clearly the movie can be done and done well when everybody is speaking a foreign language.
- Arthur: Came into the movie with very low expectations but Russell Brand (while he plays the same character all the time) was very funny throughout the entire film.
IF I WAS THE ACADEMY AWARD CZAR
Best Movie: Young Adult
RUNNER UP: Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes
Best Director: Bennett Miller (Moneyball)
RUNNER UP: Martin Scorsese (Hugo)
Best Actor: Geroge Clooney (The Descendants)
RUNNER UP: Brad Pitt (Moneyball)
Best Actress: Charlize Theron (Young Adult)
RUNNER UP: Rooney Mara (The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo)
Best Supporting Actor: Andy Serkis (Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes)
RUNNER UP: Patton Oswalt (Young Adult)
Best Supporting Actress: Shailene Woodley (The Descendants)
RUNNER UP: Melissa McCarthy (Bridesmaids)
Best Original Screenplay: Diablo Cody (Young Adult)
RUNNER UP: Tom Hanks and Nia Vardalos (Larry Crowne)
Best Adapted Screenplay: Alexander Payne, Jim Rash, and Nat Faxon (The Descendants)
RUNNER UP: Steve Zaillian and Aaron Sorkin (Moneyball)
_________________________
NOTE: You are going to disagree with this list. We here at Game Of Inches have no inherent qualms against disagreement but all comments WILL be done in a civil fashion. Any name calling or disrespectfulness of any sort will not be tolerated.
___________________________
2011 was a horrible year for movies. I've (maybe) said that a handful of times in recent years but no year in recent memory has ever been as bad as 2011. I thought overall 2007 was a pretty terrible year but at least that year had There Will Be Blood and Superbad. The same can not be said of 2011. You know it's a bad year when a trailer is one of the best things released. You know the year is a bad year for movies when you can't use the cliche "top 11 of oh-eleven". I could barely come up with up with ten!
I will say though that I (obviously) have not seen every movie released in 2011 nor have I seen every movie that has the potential to earn a spot on this list. I have not seen Drive or The Help, I have not seen award darlings The Artist or War Horse (nor do I really care to though- they look boring as shit), nor have I seen (essentially) any movie in which any of its leading ladies have a shot to win an Oscar (I rarely do and so do almost everyone else in America). When I see any of these movies I will update my list accordingly, but considering I have seen a shit ton of films this year, I think it's appropriate to create a list.
Michael Lewis' Moneyball is the greatest sports book ever written and probably GOI's favorite book ever. So we all had extremely high hopes when we saw the movie adaptation. The film fell extremely short of our expectations- which I knew would happen. If you love one medium you're going to hate the other. I went and a saw the film for a second time coming in with much lower expectations and tried to divorce myself from the book. Bennett Miller's Moneyball is not the same as Michael Lewis' version and I tried to watch the movie through that prism.
That still failed.
As I watched the movie I couldn't help thinking "No, no, no! Just do what the book does. Why aren't you explaining that better!?" But objectively speaking, this is one of the greatest sports movie ever made. Those who loved the movie are ones that did not read the book because they are not constrained in the prison of the novel which allowed them to appreciate the movie more.
No sports movie has ever took such a realistic look at a front office like what Moneyball did. Some of the best sports movies are about the team or specific players on the team. No one has ever been bold enough to follow around a GM like what this movie did.
Steven Zaillian (Gangs Of New York, American Gangster, The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo) and Aaron Sorkin (A Few Good Men, The Social Network, Charlie Wilson's War) are a writing Tour de Force and did a great job not only portraying the excellence and insecurities of Oakland A's General Manager Billy Beane (as well as the phenomenal acting job by Brad Pitt) but also portraying this world of the new world thinking versus the old world thinking. It's Billy Beane and Peter Brand (based after the Beane's actual assistant GM- Paul DePodesta) using these new statistics to help out their small market team to fight in an unfair game.
As a huge fan of the book, the problem occurs is that the fight that Bennett Miller chooses to portray is a different fight that what Michael Lewis does portray. But the essence of the fight is still the same. The film presents a battle between how Beane and Brand choose the see baseball (FYI: the correct way) and how everyone else chooses to see baseball. The main way the film portrays this fight is through Beane versus Art Howe (Phillip Seymour Hoffman) the Oakland A's manager. Although it was a story line invented for the movie, it works well for the movie so the audience gets a glimpse of the huge battle Billy Beane fights in.
In the book, Billy Beane was taught sabermetric methods from his GM predecessor Sandy Alderson and Beane used those methods to create a winning team the many years before the 2002 season (the movie and book follows the 2002 Oakland A's). Emotionally, I hate the movie for it. Objectively, I think what the movie did was great to help explain to the casual viewer about the overall struggle Beane was faced with.
I thought Bennett Miller (Capote) did a fantastic job with this movie. The purpose of the film is to humanize Billy Beane and a front office that's fighting an uphill fight and that's something that has never been done in movies before. Miller uses a lot of close up and medium shots to help achieve this affect that even though Miller ended up and the low man on the totem pole for this project, I'm glad Miller's vision was the one that ultimately succeeded. I think his use of camera work and framing helped give the movie the feel that it did.
The best way to describe this movie is that it is a combination of Stand By Me, E.T., and Jaws. It is no surprise that two of those films are Steven Spielberg films and that Spielberg was an executive producer of Super 8.
The movie follows a group of young kids who set out to make a monster picture. While doing so they witness a horrific train crash which in turn causes a mysterious creature to be let loose on their kids' small town.
The film mainly focuses around the young kids specifically Joe (Joel Courtney) and Alice (Elle Fanning) and the film is presented through their point of view. The story is about how these kids grow up and have to while searching for the mysterious creature.
However, the film falls apart in the third act. The movie does a great job throughout the first two thirds of the film in the sense that you never see the creature. The movie is about the children and the creature is just a McGuffin. Like Jaws, the movie worked better when you don't see the creature. In the first two acts, it's all about the kids. You care about these kids and this creature is just a movie device to help see how these young people will react to them. Really, the "monster" could have been anything because I loved these youngsters.
But in the third act you do see the creature and that (not coincidentally) is when the film starts to unravel. The film shifts away from a coming of age story to a straight up monster movie which detracts from the overarching themes and plot.
Overall, the film was enjoyable and I recommend everyone to rent it but because of the third act I couldn't put Super 8 any higher than nine.
Sometimes you need fun, popcorn, action flicks and Tom Cruise is great at making those. You don't really remember what happened throughout the first three Mission: Impossible movies but I bet you do remember that you enjoyed them. The same holds true for the franchise's fourth installment: Ghost Protocol. In a few years this movie will probably fade into the dust, but as for this year (and especially for this weak year) Mission: Impossible Ghost Protocal rightfully earns a spot on my list.
We exist in a new age of action movies. Superhero movies like Spiderman II, The Dark Knight, and to a lesser extent Iron Man made it so that you need character depth in order to create a transcendent action movie. You almost need to take out the action to be a successful action movie nowadays. That, and a great and charismatic evil villain also helps.
Mission: Impossible Ghost Protocol does not have any of that.
But what it does have a fun action scenes. And Jeremy Renner who is just awesome in whatever he's doing. The movie has the suspense mixed in with the comic relief and sometimes you need that and that is what I enjoyed about the movie. But because in reality it was just another dime-a-dozen popcorn flick, I can only rank it #8 on my list.
The movie follows along Matt King (Clooney) a Hawaiian real estate attorney, one of the descendants of the former king of Hawaii, and the trustee of a great deal of land that him and all of the descendants of the former king own.
Recently, Matt's wife was involving in boating accident in which her life hangs in the balance. Matt must balance preparing his two young daughters for the eventual death of his wife, the fact that he found out his wife was cheating on him, and the fact that him and all of his cousins have to sell the land they inherited "due to something like the Rule Against Perpetuities" (as someone in law school I'm impressed with myself that I actually know what this means) and is going through the process of entertaining bids for the land.
The movie follows Matt King as he struggles to deal with all of the problems that have suddenly come up in his life. He enlists the help of his oldest daughter Alexandra (Shailene Woodley) to not only be a "(wo)man" but to help him and her younger sister Scottie get through these troubling times. The movie rides on the strong acting performances by both Clooney and Woodley and both deserve, at minimum, Oscar nominations for their performances.
The major flaw of the film is that it is way too long. At least 15 minutes could be cut from it. Alexander Payne is a smart man and he knows what he's doing when it comes to making movies but I thought he could have achieved the same effect with a better editing job.
A lot of people did not like this movie. At all. It received a "rotten" rating on Rotten Tomatoes with only 34% of critics liking the movie and only 44% of fans. That's saying something. At least more than half the people liked Grown Ups. I honestly can not understand why people did not like Larry Crowne.
I get that Larry Crowne is not a very deep movie. I get that more thematic elements could have been brought out, but overall, the movie is a light-hearted romp with Tom Hanks as the focal point.
The movie follows around Larry Crowne (Hanks). He is an optimistic man who loves his job as a manager for a Wal-Mart type store. However, because he never went to college (he spent about two decades in the Navy as a chef instead) he gets laid off. In an attempt to turn his life around he enrolls in community college. The film follows Crowne into his first year in school- two main classes in particular- Mrs. Tainot's (Julia Roberts) Speech 101 class and Dr. Matsutani's (George Takei) Economics 101 class.
These two classes along with a young female student named Talia (Gugu Mbatha-Raw) help Larry Crowne put his life into perspective and eventually allows a blossoming relation between him and Mrs. Tainot.
What I like about this movie is that it doesn't pretend to be anything it's not. It's a fun little movie and that's about it. I have seen the film twice now and have enjoyed every minute of it each time. I think this movie was universally panned because people had unfair expectations for it. I went to see it, even after all the negative reviews and criticisms of it, and maybe that's why I enjoyed it more than most. Either way, I think this is just a pleasant and lovely movie to see.
The movie follows around Adam (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) who has just gotten a rare type of back cancer. The story is based on the true life of the film's screen writer Will Reiser and about his struggles with getting cancer.
No movie this year has filed me with every single emotion like 50/50 did and the movie is led by the strong performance of Gordon-Levitt. You feel the lows that Adam goes through and well of some of the highs (literally and figuratively).
Adam is helped out by his best friend Kyle (Seth Rogen) and his therapist- a medical student in training- Katherine (Anna Kendricks). I've always been a big fan of Seth Rogen ever since The 40 Year Old Virgin and Knocked Up but he shows in 50/50 that he actually does have legitimate acting chops.
The entire movie is about a person who struggles to deal with cancer as well as chemotherapy. While I can not personally relate, from what I've heard, Adam's up and downs are fairly realistic and if you or someone you know has/d cancer I think this movie will be wonderfully touching for you.
Matthew Vaughn (Kick Ass) comes back with another superhero movie and with the best rendition of an X-Men film yet.
The film follows around Charlies Xavier (James McAvoy) and Erik Lehnsherr/Magneto (James Fassbender) as they first get control over their powers. X-Men: First Class is an origin story about how the first generation of mutants that we've seen in the first three X-Men films came to be.
The main reason this film is great is because of the performance of Michael Fassbender. He steals every scene he is in and it's this performance that will propel him into stardom. I could have watched an entire movie of just Magneto. I wanted the first third of film that involved Lehnsherr (both as a young boy and the character Fassbender played) to last for two plus hours. It was great.
What X-Men: First Class did better than any of its predecessors was to delve deeper into the emotions of feeling like an outsider and it cast actors with actual acting talent as opposed to just actors who happen to look like the comic book drawing. Not only is Fassbender and McAvoy really good in the film but so is the female version of Fassbender (and super hot) Jennifer Lawrence and Kevin Bacon who plays a really good and charismatic villain. True, the movie does have January Jones (Betty Draper from Mad Men) who might be the worst actor in terms of talent in Hollywood right now, but considering she literally plays an ice queen in the film and also the ice queen Betty Draper (and also because she is super duper hot) I can let it slide.
The movie is not as good as The Dark Knight or Spiderman II but it falls in the category right below it (joining Edward Norton's The Incredible Hulk) and it's light years better than the dribble that the other superhero movies we saw this year like Captain America, The Green Lantern, and Thor.
I really enjoyed X-Men: First Class and I should probably go out and see Shame and/or A Dangerous Method because a) I'm officially a Michael Fassbender fan and b) They will probably easily earn a spot on my revised list.
I know I am going to get a lot of shit for this selection and I don't care. You go on being a hater. Paranormal Activity 3 accomplished what very few films before it accomplished- It was able to scare the ever-loving shit out of movie without using any type of gore whatsoever.
I enjoyed the first Paranormal Activity. It was absolutely not as scary as the commercials painted it out to be (e.g. many of its commercials had shots of just the audience in the theater as they screamed and threw their popcorn in the air) but I enjoyed it nonetheless. The same holds true for the sequel. But the third installment of the franchise? Holy crap. I literally screamed in the theater like a little girl.
Even since Saw came out (yes, movies have been doing it way before Saw but that film helped usher in the torture porn of cinema today), horror movies have been using the cheap trick of gross out gore in order to get scares. This is a cop out. The truly best way (and it is very hard to accomplish) to scare the audience is to build up tension and uneasiness and Paranormal Activity 3 was the best film since The Sixth Sense to accomplish this.
The great thing about this Paranormal Activity is that is uses a different kind of camera technique. The first two movies was filmed using a single camera set on a tripod. What Paranormal Activity 3 did was use a camera that rotated in between two rooms- like an oscillating fan. There was one scene in particular that stuck with me. The parents go out for a lovely evening and leave the babysitter home to watch their two young girls (these girls grow up and become the stars of Paranormal Activity and Paranormal Activity 2). The babysitter spends some time downstairs between the living room and the kitchen. The oscillating camera pans back and forth between these two rooms. I knew something was going to pop out and scare the babysitter; however, the problem was that I did not know when. I thought the pop out would occur early on but eventually it seemed to never come. The camera just kept oscillating back and forth. Eventually the movie lulled me into a false sense of security. I almost got so bored because the film spent so much time switching back and forth between two rooms with absolutely no action whatsoever. However, what the film was actually doing was slowly building up tension which was much scarier than the actual pop out itself. Paranormal Activity 3 used this slow build up throughout the entire movie and it's what distinguished itself from the first two.
Now, as a movie in and of itself Paranormal Activity 3 was not very good. The movie is riddled with plot holes and when you think about what happens in Paranormal Activity 3 it does not quite follow along the same guidelines as what we learned about and what we were told in "1" and "2". But I don't care. Ultimately, Paranormal Activity 3 is a horror movie and when I go see a horror movie, I want to be so scared that I piss my pants. That this film (almost) accomplished that goal.
I never really wanted to originally see Rise but I'm certainly glad I did. What was so great about the original Planet Of The Apes (the Charlton Heston version not the Marky Mark one) was that it not only was an entertaining story but it was a great science fiction questioning the role of science versus religion. However, the movie studio has bastardized the original thinking people just wanted to see monkeys and that was it. Thinking that Rise Of The Planet of The Apes would fall along this same vein, I was hesitant to see this new one. I was wrong.
While Rise does not even come close to the science fiction classic of the original, it also doesn't try to be. The only hint that this movie is a prequel to the 1968 classic was the title of the movie and the ending credits. Other than that, Rise is its own movie entirely. Sure, the film does touch on the concept of, "What should we really being doing in the name of science?" but it presents the situation that the problem lies within the greed of the owners of the pharmaceutical companies and not of a problem of the scientists who are just trying to help.
The story follows along Caesar (Andy Serkis) a chimp who was saved at birth from Will Rodman (James Franco) a scientist working on a cure for Alzheimer's. Caesar's mother held the cure to the disease and passed along the genetic material to Caesar. Caesar's mother dies right after giving birth to her son because she went crazy, destroyed a building during the same time in which an investor's meeting was going on, and the security in the drug company had her killed to prevent further mayhem. Will is forced to keep Ceasar in hiding because of his mother's actions. Although Will soon realizes that Caesar's genetic material holds the cure to Alzheimer's and he creates a formula which helps to slow down and looks like it will eventually stop the disease. Will tests his miracle drug on his father Charles (John Lithgow) and the drug works in leaps and bounds.
However, the main purpose of the film is not about pharmacy or drugs but mainly about the life of Caesar. Because of the scientific testing done on his mother, Caesar is the next stage in evolution of primates. He can communicate well to humans through sign language and has the intelligence of a human child equivalent. However, because Will is not supposed to have Caesar, the monkey is forced to seclusion within Will's home.
Unfortunately, one afternoon when the drug starts to fade and the symptoms of Alzheimer's starts to kick in, Charles runs amok and gets berated by his and Will's neighbor. Ceasar goes to help Charles and long story short, he ends up in the equivalent of monkey jail where he's beaten and abused by the caretakers John Landon (Brian Cox) and his son Dodge (Tom Felton).
The movie presents the life of Caesar from special monkey to eventual dictator and overlord of all primates. (I know this sounds silly when I'm writing it, but trust me, the movie does a great job with it and makes it serious) Analogous to how we see Natalie Portman's decent into madness in Black Swan we see Caesar getting slowly and surely beaten down where eventually the world around him forced Caesar to take drastic actions. While I do not like (whether inherent or not) the similarities between Adolf Hitler and Caesar, the movie still causes you to sympathize with Caesar and you want him to create a rebellion and rise up against the world.
The whole reason the movie works is because of the great acting by Andy Serkis. I don't care that he says two words or the fact that Caesar is largely computer-based, the reason Rise works so well is because of Serkis. The computer did not create the facial expressions of Caesar or the movements and the computer did not cause you to relate to Caesar on an emotional basis. Andy Serkis did. I think it's extremely close minded to not even nominate Serkis for major awards. He did the same exact thing as what every other actor in Hollywood does- except he did it in a different room than where everybody else was filming. Serkis brought emotion and depth to a character which helped define the movie. Jean Dujardin is going to win an Oscar for his performance in The Artist without saying a word so why should we hold Serkis to a different standard? I guess many people are worried that if we nominate Serkis then that will lead us down a slippery slope of nominating actors when they solely use their voice in animated works. But what Serkis does that voice actors do not is that he uses facial expressions and body movement to portray his character and to me, that's much more important than vocal inflections. I know Serkis will get screwed but I thought he did a fantastic job.
No movie has stuck with me in 2011 like Young Adult did. In my mind, this was the only film this year that could actually stand on its own with other great movies of past years.
The movie follows Mavis Gary (Charlize Theron) a former head plastic of her high school who comes back to her town because her former boyfriend- the typical high school jock- recently just had a kid with his wife. Upset at how her life has turned out and after another night of meaningless sex, Mavis comes back to her town to relive her glory days and attempts to reunite with Buddy Slade (Patrick Wilson)- her ex-boyfriend.
Mavis Gary is one of the most complex and compelling females characters in movie cinema. There have been some great female actions roles (Ellen Ripley, The Bride, etc.) and some great female characters (Clarice Starling, Annie Wilkes, etc.) but never has there been a character with so many different layers all at once than Gary.
The thing about Mavis Gary is that she actually is smart. She was not your average bimbo cheerleader but moved to the big city (Minneapolis) and actually made something of herself. She is the "ghost" writer of a once popular, but now dead young adult book series. This is part of how the movie gets its title. Throughout the movie, Mavis is writing the last installment of the series and throughout the movie she writes different parts of the book which happen to correspond with her life. I know it's not the most creative movie device but I loved it.
Mavis is also extremely sociable. She has not outgrown her high school days but she still can enter into any conversation. But with that being said, you are supposed to dislike Gary.
What's great about Young Adult and the wonderfully written script by Diablo Cody (Juno) is that you are supposed to despise Mavis Gary but at the same time you feel for her and grow to love her as a character. This is where the movie really gets its title from. Mavis Gary has not grown up from her high school days. Although it's been over a decade, she still goes to her old school to get drunk and reminisce about the good old days and still acts like she did in high school.
Plus, think about the plot. Mavis Gary is purposefully trying to be a homewrecker. Her ex-flame is in a loving and caring relationship, has shown no indications that he wants to get out of it, and just had a beautiful child. The movie is all about the narcissistic, corrupt, and destructive nature of this woman who never really learned to grow up. Young Adult is the opposite of a feel-good movie, yet it has all the qualities of one. I don't want to spoil the ending for you but it falls right in line with that same theme.
While in town, Gary meets Matt Freehauf (Patton Oswalt). Matt was a fellow classmate of Mavis and Buddy and while in high school he was the victim of a savage beating by his fellow classmates who permanently disfigured him because they thought he was a homosexual. Matt plays the voice of reason to Mavis Gary and Patton Oswalt gives one of the best acting performances of not only his career but of the year. Mavis ends up spending a lot of time with Matt during her stint in town and he helps to guide her along her path.
For those of you who want to relate to a character and who wants them to succeed then this movie is absolutely not for you. However, if you can appreciate the complexities of a character and the subtleties of a performance then I highly recommend Young Adult.
MOVIES THAT JUST MISSED THE CUT (in no particular order)
- Bridesmaids: I love that style of comedy and I can see why everyone was infatuated with it, but personally, I just didn't find it funny like how everyone else did. Although Melissa McCarthy was amazing and I hope she gets a Best Supporting Actress Oscar nomination.
-Win/Win: Great acting by everybody involved but it took way too long to get to its point, it didn't do the greatest job connecting the audience to the characters, very predictable, and at the end of the day I never want to see this film again. This film is almost the quintessential split between "good" and "entertaining".
- Hugo: Everything about this movie was great. The film making was great, the special effects were great, and the acting was very good. However, I was bored as all hell while watching it. Any movie that makes you think "Holy hell this is boring as shit. When is it going to end!" can't earn a spot on my list. This is the quintessential difference between "good" and "entertaining".
- Crazy, Stupid, Love: A surprisingly good movie that completely fell off in the second half. I could have (and wish I did) watched an entire movie of just Ryan Gosling and Steve Carrel.
- Midnight In Paris: Really good movie, WAY too pretentious for me.
- The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo: A movie that didn't need to get remade. Fincher didn't add anything new to the story and the entire time I just kept thinking, "the original is better". Also, why have a movie set in Sweden yet have everyone speak English with Swedish accents? Clearly the movie can be done and done well when everybody is speaking a foreign language.
- Arthur: Came into the movie with very low expectations but Russell Brand (while he plays the same character all the time) was very funny throughout the entire film.
IF I WAS THE ACADEMY AWARD CZAR
Best Movie: Young Adult
RUNNER UP: Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes
Best Director: Bennett Miller (Moneyball)
RUNNER UP: Martin Scorsese (Hugo)
Best Actor: Geroge Clooney (The Descendants)
RUNNER UP: Brad Pitt (Moneyball)
Best Actress: Charlize Theron (Young Adult)
RUNNER UP: Rooney Mara (The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo)
Best Supporting Actor: Andy Serkis (Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes)
RUNNER UP: Patton Oswalt (Young Adult)
Best Supporting Actress: Shailene Woodley (The Descendants)
RUNNER UP: Melissa McCarthy (Bridesmaids)
Best Original Screenplay: Diablo Cody (Young Adult)
RUNNER UP: Tom Hanks and Nia Vardalos (Larry Crowne)
Best Adapted Screenplay: Alexander Payne, Jim Rash, and Nat Faxon (The Descendants)
RUNNER UP: Steve Zaillian and Aaron Sorkin (Moneyball)
If I Could Turn Back Time: Oscars Editions
I was listening to a recent Bill Simmons podcast where he joked that like all Hall Of Fame voting, there needs to be a waiting period between when the movie comes out and when people actually get to vote on the Oscar nominations. Obviously this will never happen, but there's plenty of truth to this sentiment. After watching last Sunday's Oscars and seeing The Social Network getting fucked in the ass like a Hugh Grant hooker by The King's Speech, I'm really sick of the politicking that goes on in Hollywood for what wins and what does not.
Now I fully realize that my cries will fall on deaf ears. Not only is one blogger (who writes for a blog that no one reads) going to change anything, but like everything in life, the Oscars are driven by money. They need an award show to appeal to the masses. They nominate movies in order to help those movies make money. What can I say though, I have a great medium to bitch, so bitch I shall.
Part of the reason the Oscars are this way is because that's how it's always been. The format for nominating movies, the way the award ceremonies go, and even what type of hosts and speeches should be performed. It's all essentially more of the same.
Well that's not an acceptable excuse here at Game Of Inches (and really shouldn't be an acceptable excuse anywhere). Whether it's the way we look at baseball and football statistics or the way we look at the Oscars and its ceremony. If the old way of doing things is not the best result, then the old way of doing things should not be done.
Did Hugh Grant ever have anal sex with a prostitute? I don't know. Anyways, here's a list of the films and nominees that got screwed out of awards at the time and with the ability of foresight, we can now saw the Academy got it wrong.
BEST MOVIE
1941
What Should Have Won: Citizen Kane
What Did Win: How Green Was My Valley
1964
What Should Have Won: Dr. Strangelove
What Did Win: My Fair Lady
1971
What Should Have Won: A Clockwork Orange
What Did Win: The French Connection
1977
What Should Have Won: Star Wars
What Did Win: Annie Hall
1979
What Should Have Won It: Apocalypse Now
What Did Win: Kramer vs. Kramer
1980
What Should Have Won: Raging Bull
What Did Win: Ordinary People
1990
What Should Have Won: Goodfellas
What Did Win: Dances With Wolves
1994
What Should Have Won: (1a) The Shawshank Redemption, (1b) Pulp Fiction
What Did Win: Forrest Gump
1996
What Should Have Won: Fargo
What Did Win: The English Patient
1997
What Should Have Won: Good Will Hunting
What Did Win: Titanic
1998
What Should Have Won: Saving Private Ryan
What Did Win: Shakespeare In Love
2008
What Should Have Won: The Dark Knight*
What Did Win: Slumdog Millionaire
2009
What Should Have Won: Inglorious Basterds
What Did Win: The Hurt Locker
I will say that between The Hurt Locker and Avatar, I'm super glad The Hurt Locker took it, but I can't believe how screwed Tarintino was in 2009
2010
What Should Have Won: (1a) The Social Network (1b) Inception
What Did Win: The King's Speech
There are definitely more films that got screwed (especially movies from 2001-2010) but up above were a few I found the most egregious.
Some other notables that got "screwed'. These are films that got left off of the All-Star team and I wish they made it on but I'm content with them being left off: There Will Be Blood (2007), Mystic River (2003), The Sixth Sense (1999), E.T. (1982), Jaws (1975), Dog Day Afternoon (1975), Chinatown (1974), The Exorcist (1973), The Graduate (1967), To Kill A Mockingbird (1962), 12 Angry Men (1957), Sunset Blvd (1950), and The Maltese Falcon (1941) (has the unfortunate luck (for the sake of this post) to go up against the greatest movie ever made in Citizen Kane. Also goes to show you what a crock it was for How Green Was My Valley to win anything).
BEST DIRECTOR
1941
Who Should Have Won: Orson Wells (Citizen Kane)
Who Did Win: John Ford (How Green Was My Valley)
SIDENOTE: I get upset nowadays with Oscar voters but one thing that's just unacceptable was how screwed Citizen Kane was during the 1941 Oscars. You may not have liked the movie, the movie may not even hold up anymore, but the reason films and movies and directors do what they do today was because of Orson Wells and Citizen Kane. Wells revolutionized film making and I have to imagine people who saw the movie at the time realized the great piece of cinema that is Citizen Kane- and yet snubbed it.
1960
Who Should Have Won: Alfred Hitchcock (Psycho)
Who Did Win: Billy Wilder (The Apartment)
1963
Who Should Have Won: Federico Fellini (8 1/2)
Who Did Win: Tony Richardson (Tom Jones)
1968
Who Should Have Won: Stanley Kubrick (2001: A Space Odyssey)
Who Did Win: Carol Reed (Oliver!)
1971
Who Should Have Won: Stanley Kurbick (A Clockwork Orange)
Who Did Win: William Friedkin (The French Connection)
1972
Who Should Have Won: Francis Ford Coppola (The Godfather)
Who Did Win: Bob Fosse (Cabaret)
1980
Who Should Have Won: Martin Scorsese (Raging Bull)
Who Did Win: Robert Redford (Ordinary People)
1994
Who Should Have Won: Quentin Tarantino (Pulp Fiction)
Who Did Win: Robert Zemeckis (Forrest Gump)
While I absolutely still think Taratino should have won this award no matter what, it's a damn travesty that Frank Darabont didn't even get a directing nod for The Shawshank Redemption.
1996
Who Should Have Won: Joel Coen (Fargo)
Who Did Win: Anthony Minghella (The English Patient)
1997
Who Should Have Won It: Gus Van Sant (Good Will Hunting)
Who Did Win It: James Cameron (Titanic)
2009
Who Should Have Won: Quentin Tarantino (Inglorious Basterds)
Who Did Win: Katheryn Bigelow (The Hurt Locker)
2010
Who Should Have Won: David Fincher (The Social Network)
Who Did Win: Tom Hooper (The King's Speech)
There are some other notables that I think deserved to win but them losing the Oscar really wasn't THAT big of a deal. I personally think Jonathan Dayton and Valarie Faris (Little Miss Sunshine) had the best directed movie in 2006 but at that point in time, because the Oscar's were so dumb and Scorsese hadn't yet won an Oscar, it had to go to him. Plus, Dayton and Feris weren't nominated.
Other notables who got "screwed": Ridley Scott (Black Hawk Down, Gladiator), David Lynch (Blue Velvet, Mulholland Drive, The Elephant Man), M. Night Shyamlan (The Sixth Sense), Martin Scorsese (Raging Bull, Casino, Goodfellas, Gangs Of New York), Francis Ford Coppola (Apocalypse Now), Sidney Lument (Dog Day Afternoon, Network, The Verdict), P.T. Anderson (There Will Be Blood, Boogie Nights*), Robert Altman (Short Cuts, Nashville), Darren Aronofsky (Requim For A Dream*, The Wrestler*) and Christopher Nolan (The Dark Knight*, Inception*, Memento*, Batman Begins*, The Prestige*) who has never even gotten a best director nomination.
*Not nominated
Now I fully realize that my cries will fall on deaf ears. Not only is one blogger (who writes for a blog that no one reads) going to change anything, but like everything in life, the Oscars are driven by money. They need an award show to appeal to the masses. They nominate movies in order to help those movies make money. What can I say though, I have a great medium to bitch, so bitch I shall.
Part of the reason the Oscars are this way is because that's how it's always been. The format for nominating movies, the way the award ceremonies go, and even what type of hosts and speeches should be performed. It's all essentially more of the same.
Well that's not an acceptable excuse here at Game Of Inches (and really shouldn't be an acceptable excuse anywhere). Whether it's the way we look at baseball and football statistics or the way we look at the Oscars and its ceremony. If the old way of doing things is not the best result, then the old way of doing things should not be done.
Did Hugh Grant ever have anal sex with a prostitute? I don't know. Anyways, here's a list of the films and nominees that got screwed out of awards at the time and with the ability of foresight, we can now saw the Academy got it wrong.
BEST MOVIE
1941
What Should Have Won: Citizen Kane
What Did Win: How Green Was My Valley
1964
What Should Have Won: Dr. Strangelove
What Did Win: My Fair Lady
1971
What Should Have Won: A Clockwork Orange
What Did Win: The French Connection
1977
What Should Have Won: Star Wars
What Did Win: Annie Hall
1979
What Should Have Won It: Apocalypse Now
What Did Win: Kramer vs. Kramer
1980
What Should Have Won: Raging Bull
What Did Win: Ordinary People
1990
What Should Have Won: Goodfellas
What Did Win: Dances With Wolves
1994
What Should Have Won: (1a) The Shawshank Redemption, (1b) Pulp Fiction
What Did Win: Forrest Gump
1996
What Should Have Won: Fargo
What Did Win: The English Patient
1997
What Should Have Won: Good Will Hunting
What Did Win: Titanic
1998
What Should Have Won: Saving Private Ryan
What Did Win: Shakespeare In Love
2008
What Should Have Won: The Dark Knight*
What Did Win: Slumdog Millionaire
2009
What Should Have Won: Inglorious Basterds
What Did Win: The Hurt Locker
I will say that between The Hurt Locker and Avatar, I'm super glad The Hurt Locker took it, but I can't believe how screwed Tarintino was in 2009
2010
What Should Have Won: (1a) The Social Network (1b) Inception
What Did Win: The King's Speech
There are definitely more films that got screwed (especially movies from 2001-2010) but up above were a few I found the most egregious.
Some other notables that got "screwed'. These are films that got left off of the All-Star team and I wish they made it on but I'm content with them being left off: There Will Be Blood (2007), Mystic River (2003), The Sixth Sense (1999), E.T. (1982), Jaws (1975), Dog Day Afternoon (1975), Chinatown (1974), The Exorcist (1973), The Graduate (1967), To Kill A Mockingbird (1962), 12 Angry Men (1957), Sunset Blvd (1950), and The Maltese Falcon (1941) (has the unfortunate luck (for the sake of this post) to go up against the greatest movie ever made in Citizen Kane. Also goes to show you what a crock it was for How Green Was My Valley to win anything).
BEST DIRECTOR
1941
Who Should Have Won: Orson Wells (Citizen Kane)
Who Did Win: John Ford (How Green Was My Valley)
SIDENOTE: I get upset nowadays with Oscar voters but one thing that's just unacceptable was how screwed Citizen Kane was during the 1941 Oscars. You may not have liked the movie, the movie may not even hold up anymore, but the reason films and movies and directors do what they do today was because of Orson Wells and Citizen Kane. Wells revolutionized film making and I have to imagine people who saw the movie at the time realized the great piece of cinema that is Citizen Kane- and yet snubbed it.
1960
Who Should Have Won: Alfred Hitchcock (Psycho)
Who Did Win: Billy Wilder (The Apartment)
1963
Who Should Have Won: Federico Fellini (8 1/2)
Who Did Win: Tony Richardson (Tom Jones)
1968
Who Should Have Won: Stanley Kubrick (2001: A Space Odyssey)
Who Did Win: Carol Reed (Oliver!)
1971
Who Should Have Won: Stanley Kurbick (A Clockwork Orange)
Who Did Win: William Friedkin (The French Connection)
1972
Who Should Have Won: Francis Ford Coppola (The Godfather)
Who Did Win: Bob Fosse (Cabaret)
1980
Who Should Have Won: Martin Scorsese (Raging Bull)
Who Did Win: Robert Redford (Ordinary People)
1994
Who Should Have Won: Quentin Tarantino (Pulp Fiction)
Who Did Win: Robert Zemeckis (Forrest Gump)
While I absolutely still think Taratino should have won this award no matter what, it's a damn travesty that Frank Darabont didn't even get a directing nod for The Shawshank Redemption.
1996
Who Should Have Won: Joel Coen (Fargo)
Who Did Win: Anthony Minghella (The English Patient)
1997
Who Should Have Won It: Gus Van Sant (Good Will Hunting)
Who Did Win It: James Cameron (Titanic)
2009
Who Should Have Won: Quentin Tarantino (Inglorious Basterds)
Who Did Win: Katheryn Bigelow (The Hurt Locker)
2010
Who Should Have Won: David Fincher (The Social Network)
Who Did Win: Tom Hooper (The King's Speech)
There are some other notables that I think deserved to win but them losing the Oscar really wasn't THAT big of a deal. I personally think Jonathan Dayton and Valarie Faris (Little Miss Sunshine) had the best directed movie in 2006 but at that point in time, because the Oscar's were so dumb and Scorsese hadn't yet won an Oscar, it had to go to him. Plus, Dayton and Feris weren't nominated.
Other notables who got "screwed": Ridley Scott (Black Hawk Down, Gladiator), David Lynch (Blue Velvet, Mulholland Drive, The Elephant Man), M. Night Shyamlan (The Sixth Sense), Martin Scorsese (Raging Bull, Casino, Goodfellas, Gangs Of New York), Francis Ford Coppola (Apocalypse Now), Sidney Lument (Dog Day Afternoon, Network, The Verdict), P.T. Anderson (There Will Be Blood, Boogie Nights*), Robert Altman (Short Cuts, Nashville), Darren Aronofsky (Requim For A Dream*, The Wrestler*) and Christopher Nolan (The Dark Knight*, Inception*, Memento*, Batman Begins*, The Prestige*) who has never even gotten a best director nomination.
*Not nominated
