The Oscars - 2010 Film Year

[RobertR]

They're coming up Sunday, and I'm sure we'll all have our complaints about the show (runs too long, speeches were boring, comedy wasn't funny, overproduced musical numbers, and "how did that win?") but it's still generally an interesting discussion. And we can play Nostradamus.

 

Frankly, I thought it was a pretty crummy year until September rolled around. At least from mainstream Hollywood, there were plenty of good independents and foreign films, but I have a lot good to say about September onwards. Audiences responded too. Would anybody have predicted that True Grit, The King's Speech, and Black Swan would all make over $100 million domestic? And The Social Network and The Fighter are right in the $85 to $100 million range. Combined with Toy Story 3 and Inception and it's a very populist field of nominees. The Kids Are All Right was a reasonable art house hit as well, although I think it works better as a social statement than as a film, although I do think it's well acted and entertaining. I've seen 8 of the 10 nominees, I haven't seen The Fighter or 127 Hours, and I certainly think it's a pretty solid group of nominees.

 

There's plenty to quibble about, yeah the lack of Inception in editing and directing is glaring, the usual arcane rule decisions i.e. Clint Mansell not being eligible for Black Swan, the usual headscratching in the foreign films and documentary categories, and politicing (in what world is Hailee Steinfeld a Supporting Actress?), but the actual nominees are for the most part very good. There's no Crash among the nominees and some actual races this year.

 

Just to throw it out there, most overlooked movie of the year, S. Korea's Madeo (Mother) and Hye-ja Kim's performance. I'm sure Katulu will chime in on the Documentaries as well.

 

I'll get to some predictions before the end of the week, but anybody else have any thoughts?

 

Robert

[Mass Haas]

Robert, I've always appreciated your film critique write-ups and Oscar Year retrospectives.

 

I would like to know, I always find myself debating just how deep I want to dig into film reviews before actually committing to one of the rare theater visits I make each year. Then I find myself on Rotten Tomatoes or the like to too great an extent and I often then wish I had less of a pre-conceived notion. What is your own routine in that regard?

 

If you get a chance, sneak to see The Fighter before Sunday. Of the three nominated acting nominees, I found Melissa Leo's performance to be strongest, although I loved Amy Adams here. Christian Bale was Dicky Eklund, who is cartoonish in nature to begin with, so the over-the-top nature of Bale's take on the character almost can't be helped. I could certainly relate to the early '90's "big-hair" recreation of a forlorn Massachusetts manufacturing city, since I grew up in one as well...

[RobertR]

^I like to read reviews, but I generally read many of them after the fact. Or for movies I don't have any interest in seeing, initially, to see if I may be missing something. And, usually only from a select few critics. Of course, I'm also part of a club where we see previews of upcoming films without knowing what the films are until we arrive at the theater.

 

In general, I try to avoid reviews that basically are "plot synopsis" and a conclusion "It ruled/sux!1!!!". Those are worthless. A good critic should be able to get across the premise and dig into analysis without having to dip heavily into spoilers. Granted, there are some films it's hard to do that with, I just saw the Italian film The Double Hour which relies heavily on a narrative conceit which makes it difficult to discuss the film without spoilers, but for the most part you're probably already going to have a good idea going in. (I have to admit though that I loved it when Tarantino played with my knowledge of history for a spectacular surprise in Inglorious Basterds.)

 

For the most part, I'm looking for a reviewer that can do three things 1) write well (a rarer ability than you'd think), 2) present a consistent p.o.v./taste, and 3) display an ability to analyze. And, of course, I want honesty from a critic. Critic's aren't paid to watch movies, they're paid to write well about movies and offer solid analysis. Ebert's pretty much been my go to guy because of those factors, although he's not as sharp as he used to be. Whether I agree or disagree is something I usually don't worry about too much, a good writer can write a pan that will make me interested and a positive review that communicates enough that I know I won't like it. I was listening to a recent podcast which panned DePalma's Sisters, but still made the film sound interesting and engaging, albeit completely over-the-top, for example.

 

I think it's also good to acknowledge the source. Most critics are generalists, they write for a broad swath of readers and cover everything from the latest gory horror film to the newest cutesy romantic comedy. But it's worth noting where you're interest lies. If you're a Bostonian interested in the upcoming movie about Boston, like The Town, then absolutely a Boston critic probably has more to say. I'm sure people on this board will get more out of what to expect about the Moneyball movie from people on this board than

the average critic who may not even be interested in baseball or sabrmetrics. A website like Batman on Film probably has more to say about the upcoming Batman film than the local critic. A horror fan probably is better off reading the reviews from Fangoria or Horror Movie a Day than the local critic. In a certain sense, it's up to you to know your own tastes and interests to find the critic that best fulfills your needs.

 

I do think sites like Rotten Tomatoes are useful, although I think it's a bit too simplistic to break things down into a simple number. A "Fresh" movie might be one that 80% of the critics think is basically a C + film. A "Rotten" movie could be something like "Blue Velvet" that half think is brilliant, A+ material, and half loathe. And, certain movies really are critic proof. You either laugh at a comedy or you don't. A horror film either frightens you or it doesn't. A melodrama works your emotions or it doesn't. All the analysis in the world, no matter how well written or reasoned, can simply be rendered moot by a visceral reaction or lack of one.

 

Which is the long way to telling you, there's no real foolproof way to select a critic. It's about as scientific as scouting a prospect.

 

I do hope to see The Fighter before Sunday. Certainly it's a movie I'm interested in and it does represent a sizable number of nominations. And, it's probably an easier sell to my wife than 127 Hours, which is the perfect example of how spoilers matter and don't matter.

 

Robert

[TheEndless7]

I've seen all of the best picture nominees except for 127 hours and Winter's Bone. Of all of them I have to say I thought The King's Speech was considerably better than the rest. My biggest criticism this year was that I thought a lot of stuff was 'good' and not 'great'.

 

I also found The Social Network to be tedious and rather annoying, and I'm 22, so it is mostly my generation. I'll probably be rooting against this one, mostly.

 

I'm also slightly annoyed that the Ayrton Senna documentary didn't warrant a 2010 American film release. Of course, right now I'd settle for a release at a theater I live near...

[TooLiveBrew]

I've seen all of the best picture nominees except for 127 hours and Winter's Bone. Of all of them I have to say I thought The King's Speech was considerably better than the rest. My biggest criticism this year was that I thought a lot of stuff was 'good' and not 'great'.

 

I've only seen Toy Story 3, Black Swan, True Grit, and Inception. Roger Ebert (who it sounds like I trust roughly as much as Robert R) steered me away from The Fighter with his lukewarm review, which doesn't mean I won't see it -- just that I didn't want to go see it in the theater. I definitely want to see The King's Speech, 127 Hours, & the rest of the nominees... though I'll admit I'm not dying to see The Kids are Alright or The Social Network.

 

Anyway, my main point is that Black Swan absolutely blew me away, & I completely think it's in "great" territory, as opposed to merely "good". I'm surprised to hear that you thought The King's Speech was that much better... I definitely need to see that asap in that case.

[TheEndless7]

Anyway, my main point is that Black Swan absolutely blew me away, & I completely think it's in "great" territory, as opposed to merely "good". I'm surprised to hear that you thought The King's Speech was that much better... I definitely need to see that asap in that case.

I think in the end, I really just expected more from Black Swan. I found myself thinking it was a tad too much like The Wrestler on the first watch. I'd been looking forward to it for ages, so it may have just been something that never lived up to my expectations. I'm also usually lukewarm on Natalie Portman. I did wind up seeing it twice with two different groups of friends, and the second time was considerably more enjoyable. It probably would have been my pick before I saw The King's Speech.

 

I was skeptical on The Fighter and ended up going to it exactly a week after seeing The King's Speech. I thought the middle got a tad long, but I'm not sure much of it could have been cut. The mother was excellent, although I may have wanted to strangle her on occasion. I found I rather enjoyed it. But, I went in not particularly having high hopes for it, and came out rather enjoying it, so it may be the exact opposite of my Black Swan experience.

[TooLiveBrew]

But, I went in not particularly having high hopes for it, and came out rather enjoying it, so it may be the exact opposite of my Black Swan experience.

 

That's funny -- I went into Black Swan thinking I'd like it, but not love it. Needless to say it completely blew me away & imo it's one of the best movies I've ever seen. It'd been a really long time since a movie affected me that way in the theater. It was thrilling, and beautiful, and dark, and awesome.

[Schlitz001]

The Fighter has a great performance from Christian Bale which should lock up an Oscar for him. 127 Hours was a fun movie for me to watch if only because I have been hiking solo through Canyonlands, Zion, Escalante several times. It hit close to home.

 

I made a point to watch all of the nominees this year and I can't say I was overly impressed with any of them. I'll rank them quickly below from my favorite to least:

 

Social Network - First by default. I wonder how engaging this movie will be 20 years from now. Also, I thought the ending was disappointing.

Black Swan - Natalie Portman is great. Enjoyed the metamorphosis.

127 Hours - This movie is very accurate in how the event happened. You know how it ends but constantly wonder how you would have handled things.

True Grit - The Coens make it work even in a remake, but I didn't care for the casting of Damon.

Toy Story 3 - I'm still a much bigger fan of the first Toy Story, but this completes a really impressive trilogy

The Fighter - Again, Christian Bale was great. I felt like it could have been edited down a bit, but it's a good story.

Inception - Maybe it was hyped up too much, but besides the effects and the concept, I didn't fall in love with this film.

The King's Speech - Geoffrey Rush is great, along with the direction and cinematography. I couldn't get emotionally invested in the story though.

Winter's Bone - I saw this one a while ago, but the scene with the army recruiter still sticks in my head. Great setting and characters. Mediocre story.

The Kids Are Alright - This movie could have gone in a lot of interesting directions, but the story took the easy way out and left everyone smiling in the end.

[homer]

Re: Documentaries

 

I saw Restrepo and Exit Through the Gift Shop.

 

Both are very good but I'd take Restrepo over Gift Shop if I had to pick. Gift Shop is fun and makes a statement but doesn't have the impact that Restrepo does.

 

EDIT: I don't claim to know the eligibility rules for this category but is there a reason Waiting for Superman wasn't on the list? It's excellent.

[TooLiveBrew]

I can't wait to see Restrepo

[bjkrautk]

In the past few years, I've made a point of going to see movies that have Oscar buzz (not saying I see all of the nominees...or even a majority of them, but I tend to go slightly further outside my usual watching habbits that get nominated. "Juno" being a good example; a comedy with people I generally like with some degree of snark, but on a subject more akin to a Lifetime Original Movie....and with a pre-Scott Pilgrim Michael Cera).

 

 

This year, the only film I saw with that in mind was not even nominated for Best Picture ("The Town," mostly because of how much "Gone Baby Gone" hit emotionally. I generally enjoyed the movie, and without spoilers, was surprised by the choice of location for the last action sequence). The only one of the BP nominees that I saw was "Inception," which I thought was a flashy mess filled with logical inconsistencies (pretty much my standard take on the Christopher Nolan movies I've seen).

 

Came closest to seeing "The Social Network" (usually like Sorkin's writing, but really don't care about Facebook) and "True Grit" (nagging feeling I'm supposed to have seen the original - which I haven't - to 'get' the direction and performances).

 

Anyone else just not excited about these nominees? (...and yet, I will still watch the Academy Awards from start to finish.)

[Raw Biz]

The only BP ones I haven't seen are 127 Hours, Black Swan, and The King's Speech. When I think about what should win BP, I think about not only the impact it has in its particular year but also how well it will hold up over time. I also don't like most typical "Oscar-bait" movies. They may be good movies but most of the time are completely overrated. I'm still upset that Crash won in 05, even though the class wasn't particularly strong that year.

The King's Speech (from what I've heard/read) and Social Network both seem like these types of movies. The King's Speech will probably hold up better over time but a movie about a stuttering British king just doesn't seem enjoyable to me (I know there's more to it than that but still). I enjoyed the Social Network and thought the writing was great but I don't think it's BP worthy. There were just too many factual inaccuracies for me. Same thing with The Fighter. I know both are fictional movies but when films make a point of saying they are based on true stories (more specifically, recent true stories), I think there should be more fact than fiction.

True Grit was good and visually looked great but I don't think it really did anything that the original didn't. Winter's Bone and The Kids Are All Right feature great acting but for me, that's about it. I found both rather slow-moving and kind of dull. I liked Toy Story 3 more than I thought i would but it's still completely overrated and I just don't think animation belongs in the BP category because it's a different vehicle than live-action.

For me, BP comes down to Inception and Black Swan (just from what I've heard/read). I thought Inception was amazing, from the story to the visuals to everything in between. I usually don't like big blockbuster movies winning awards, but in this, I think it's justified. I think Inception will definitely hold up over time. From what I've heard, the same would be true for Black Swan. I just think people will be talking about these two movies more than King's Speech and Social Network 20 years down the road.

[RobertR]

I'd agree that 2010 doesn't stack up as an all time great year. Not the worst of recent vintage, but I'd certainly put the films of 2007 a notch above this group, at least. Among others. I don't think there are any A + movies nominated for Best Picture, although I think most fall in the A - to B + range. Perhaps it says something that I don't have a dog in this fight.

 

I'm pretty sure that if the question is "What movie will people be watching in 20 years?" then the answer is Toy Story 3. I'm sure that Inception, True Grit, The Social Network, Black Swan, and The King's Speech will enjoy long shelf lives as well, but there's no question to me of what will be the most watched over the years, although it's partly because the first two films in the series are already classics.

 

Anyways, my ranking of the movies nominated, excluding 127 Hours and The Fighter.

 

True Grit - In refusing to be revisionist and playing against their own tendencies for irony, the Coens' have crafted a Western that I think can stand besides the classics of the genre. By reframing the story around it's rightful protagonist, they've created an identity of its own. This is Hailee Steinfeld's movie, while the original is John Wayne's movie. When people talk about direction, their often talking about flashy camera moves and editing, but the most important director's choice, and least obvious, was choosing Hailee Steinfeld out of scores of other teenagers auditioning.

 

The Social Network - To me, it's obvious that Fincher and Sorkin were channeling Citizen Kane as much as trying to make a modern film. Guy gets to the top of the heap, ruins friendships and relationships along the way, and at the end still pines for the thing he can't have back. It's also surprisingly brisk for a film where much of it consists of people talking to each other face to face (ironic, by the way).

 

Inception - An exhilirating action film with ideas. Admittedly I think the subtext, which uses dreams as a metaphor for filmmaking, is ultimately more interesting than the text. And I don't think it manages to say anything meaningful about dreams which makes it a flawed metaphor. But, I was captivated by the world that was created and filmmaking. It's high concept that works.

 

The King's Speech - Firth, Rush, and Bonham-Carter are all terrific. The film has true wit. The screenplay is a marvel of dialogue and structure. It looks good too. There's not much to knock about it, except that the ending is never in doubt.

 

Black Swan - Natalie Portman delivers the performance of the year. It looks great. It sounds great. It's about as subtle as a load of bricks and has lots of unrestrained flash, but it still works.

 

Winter's Bone - Bleak is the first word that comes to mind. It really captures its setting and characters. I think it's also nicely balanced between its bleakness of subject matter, but with a sense of perserverance and loyalty being rewarded.

 

Toy Story 3 - The least of the Toy Story films, which isn't really an insult. But I don't think it really has much new to say between the setup and third act (although Michael Keaton goes a long ways making the middle still worthwhile). The bookends of the film are great and the act of the toys about to face their mortality is a great payoff to all three films as we see the depth of their bonds in action, not in speech. Still, of the movies mentioned so far, I draw the line just above this as where I start making the cutoff between "not my choice, but worthy" and "mistake".

 

The Kids Are All Right - Benning, Moore, and Ruffalo are terrific. It is genuinely funny and complicated. It makes a worthy social statement. But it avoids all of the messy problems it creates for itself by putting a big bow on the ending. The rest of the movies stick the landing, this one misses.

 

Robert

[RobertR]

My predictions (not necessarily what I think should win).

 

Best Picture -- The King's Speech

Best Director -- David Fincher, The Social Network

Best Actress, Leading Role -- Natalie Portman, Black Swan

Best Actor, Leading Role -- Colin Firth, The King's Speech

Best Supporting Actress -- Melissa Leo, The Fighter

Best Supporting Actor -- Christian Bale, The Fighter

Best Animated Feature -- Toy Story 3

Best Art Direction -- The King's Speech

Best Cinematography -- True Grit

Best Costume Design -- Alice in Wonderland

Best Documentary Feature -- Inside Job

Best Documentary Short -- Killing in the Name

Best Film Editing -- The King's Speech

Best Foreign Language Film -- In a Better World

Best Makeup -- The Wolfman

Best Original Score -- Alexander Desplat, The King's Speech

Best Song -- "If I Rise", 127 Hours

Best Animated Short -- The Gruffalo

Best Live Action Short -- The Confession

Best Sound Editing -- Inception

Best Sound Mixing -- Inception

Best Visual Effects -- Inception

Best Adapted Screenplay -- The Social Network

Best Original Screenplay -- The King's Speech

 

 

Robert

[TooLiveBrew]

Robert, I'm sure I'm not the only one who'd be interested in seeing who would win the Oscars if it were your choices alone.

[RobertR]

My ballot would look pretty similar. Something like:

 

Best Picture -- True Grit

Best Director -- The Coens

Best Actress, Leading Role -- Natalie Portman, Black Swan

Best Actor, Leading Role -- Colin Firth, The King's Speech

Best Supporting Actress -- Hailee Steinfeld (albeit she's in the wrong category)

Best Supporting Actor -- Christian Bale, The Fighter

Best Animated Feature -- Toy Story 3

Best Art Direction -- Inception

Best Cinematography -- Black Swan

Best Costume Design -- The King's Speech

Best Film Editing -- The Social Network (only because Inception didn't get nominated)

Best Foreign Language Film -- In a Better World

Best Makeup -- The Way Back

Best Original Score -- Hans Zimmer / Inception (only because Clint Mansell was ruled ineligible for Black Swan)

Best Sound Editing -- Inception

Best Sound Mixing -- Inception

Best Visual Effects -- Inception

Best Adapted Screenplay -- The Social Network

Best Original Screenplay -- The King's Speech

 

Robert

[pitchleague]

well, I went 9-15. My wife went 10-14. So I owe her dinner. Drat. First time I've lost in several years.

[DKM4Boston]

Wow. 22 out of 24 correct this year. Just got Costume Design (I picked The King's Speech) and Cinematography (I picked True Grit) wrong. I even guessed the Documentaries right, which never happens.

Happy moments:
* Trent Reznor winning for Original Score. It was weird seeing him so dapper.
* God of Love winning Live Action. Really, really loved this film. I was rooting for this one more than any of the other awards. Go download it on iTunes if you haven't seen it yet...$2.00.

[RobertR]

FWIW, I pretty much agree with every word of this article on James Franco's hosting. http://www.salon.com/entertainment/tv/feature/2011/02/28/oscars_2001_telecast/index.html

 

Robert

[bjkrautk]

FWIW, I pretty much agree with every word of this article on James Franco's hosting. http://www.salon.com/entertainment/tv/feature/2011/02/28/oscars_2001_telecast/index.html

 

Robert

Franco wasn't the problem with the Oscars, he's just the easiest target. Was there any piece of that material that would have been redeemed by a more enthusiastic performance?

(Anne Hathaway wasn't funny either, but most reviewers give her a pass for trying too hard.) The acceptance speeches were funnier than the scripted humor (the writer for King's Speech, to single one out).

 

I'm not sure that Franco would have been a great host with better material, but I don't think anyone could have been a good host delivering a cutting edge "six degrees of Kevin Bacon" joke. I daresay, with knowledge of what was to come, plenty of co-hosts would have checked out.

 

[RobertR]

I'd agree that Franco wasn't the sole problem or the underlying problem. The writing was awful and even the pre-shot material didn't have much punch. Anne Hathaway wasn't particularly better, albeit at least she was trying. They were the "young, hip" presenters given nothing that was "young and hip" to work with. Particularly since the theme of the evening was looking back at earlier eras. I don't think anyone could have made that material work in that context.

 

But, it was obvious that they're not live performers with an ability to ad lib and had no feel for the house. It probably didn't help that they're so young that they really can't interact with their peers in the crowd on an equal footing.

 

No doubt that the two of them were set up to fail. Mostly because the producers were trying to turn the Oscars into something they're not, hip and trendy instead of relatively square and classy. The King's Speech being the big winner says quite a bit about what the Oscars are all about, and Hathaway and Franco were about as far away from that as possible.

 

Robert

[Team Canada]

I just can't take anyone seriously (or comedically) who looks/acts like he's perpetually high.

[RobertR]

After seeing the NSFW opening monologue for the Independent Spirit Awards, Joel McHale might be a decent choice. Tina Fey and Steve Carrell seem eminently logical as well. If they want the telecast to skew younger, I think it's a multi-year process to get the audience used to it. You have to play to the house as well as to the tv audience.

 

Robert