BestP2

Best Pictures Continued 2003-

2003: The Lord of the Ring: The Return of the King Times Seen: 1 Rating: ***1/2

I could not get as excited about the Lord of the Rings movie trilogy as others have, who seem astounded that an exciting, classic book could be transformed into a good movie. Overall, the film trilogy was good (certainly miles ahead of the awful Ralph Bashki cartoon version made in the 1970’s), but certainly there is plenty of room for a future filmmaker to come in and do it better. My main objections, however, are not with this Best-Picture-winning third installment, but primarily with the over-praised first part. My objections include the ridiculous narrow escapes (those Dark Riders sure are inept, and it was nice of them to stop their chase of Frodo at the river so that Liv Tyler, of all people, can mutter an incantation that will sweep them away in a flood once they get the energy to restart), the battles featuring three or four heroes against 10,000 computer-generated (and also apparently inept) bad guys, a Gandalf who, rather than being cool and in control, is emotional and hysterical, the ponderous and incongruous emphasis on the aforementioned Miss Tyler, the early overemphasis on Orcs and their physiogamy before we’ve even left the Shire, the incongruous mountains that form the backdrop of the Shire, etc. etc.. In this third part, I also disapprove of the elimination of the “Scouring of the Shire” sequence, which forms the surprise ending of the book. My rating for each part is Fellowship of the Ring, ** ½ (B-); The Two Towers, *** (B); The Return of the King ***1/2 (B+). The battle scenes in the third part are impressive, and overall this part (of the three) seems the closest in spirit to the book.

2004: Million Dollar Baby Times Seen: 1 Rating: ***

This is a decent movie, but certainly not great, and definitely does not have the impact of The Passion of the Christ, which should have been Best Picture (but was not even nominated for “Culture War” reasons). The performances in this film are very good, although the scenes of Clint Eastwood and the Priest feel disconnected, and the euthanasia element feels pathetic rather than tragic. Morgan Freeman is always good, but his continual use in the part of the “Wise Old Black Man” is starting to get monotonous, although in this movie the role is not nearly as out of place as his “Wise Old Black Muslim” turn in the abysmal Robin Hood, Prince of Thieves.

2005: Crash Times Seen : 1 Rating: ***

Interesting multi-plot story that takes place in Los Angeles. It's good but not great, with good performances all around (Matt Dillon in particular). I doubt this will pass the test of time as a classic film, but I'm certainly glad the gay cowboy movie (of all things) that was its chief rival didn't win instead.

2006: The Departed Times Seen: 1 Rating: ***

Many were excited when Martin Scorcese finally won the Best Director Oscar (for this film), but this film is a good example of why he never won before-his films are good but not great. There's really not one of his I've seen (Raging Bull included) that is without some clear flaws.

This film is about a Boston crime syndicate (headed by Jack Nicholson) that has a police spy in their ranks (Leonardo Di Caprio), while the police that are trying to break up his gang have a gang spy as one of their own (Matt Damon). Good elements include terrific acting by Di Caprio, and a relentless pace that sustains interest (though the picture could have shed 10-15 minutes fairly easily). Jack Nicholson is also undeniably compelling.

Negative elements include some questionable casting (Alec Baldwin seems more appropriate for a comedy role and looks out of place, while Martin Sheen seems strangely befuddled), and some poorly written characters (Mark Wahlberg's character can be best be described as a cocky guy with no social skills who gets very angry and swears a lot). Psychiatrists are also so incredibly stupid in movies that it makes you feel sorry for them in real life. In this case, the lady police psychiatrist quickly gets into a serious affair with Matt Damon, a weirdly superficial person whose whole life is a lie-it seems like anyone with a half a brain would pick him out pretty quickly as the rat, with his phony smile and shallow banter (it's hard to say whether Damon is doing a good job of depicting an unsympathetic character, or a bad job of depicting an unsympathetic character who is trying to appear sympathetic). The psychiatrist is also so dumb that after moving in with Damon (and getting pregnant by him, which she seems happy about, despite his oddities) she has a passionate affair with DiCaprio, who she thinks is a heavily medicated low-life police academy dropout, but is actually an undercover officer, making her 2 for 2 on having absolutely no idea who she's been sleeping with, which would be a poor record for an airhead, let alone a brilliant police psychologist. At least DiCaprio, unlike Damon, seems to be a real human being.

Skipping over a few other minor logic flaws, there is a shocking plot twist at the end of the movie...however, on further review, the character who initiates the plot twist (a second mole in the police department) has absolutely no motivation for acting. Since the crime boss who put him there is now dead, and Matt Damon has been fingered as the rat, he's in the safest position now that he has ever been as long as he just does nothing. So, not to be a spoiler, but a lot of people are shot in the end because of this character's inexplicable lack of common sense.

One thing this movie fails in also is common to several other recent movies with their "stunning plot twists"--when the audience invests in a protagonist, they want him to achieve his goal (even if he dies doing it), so that we feel cheated if we root for someone for so long and then in the end he dies just randomly, Other recent movies like this with "stunning plot twists" that actually damage the movie include Memento (where the protagonist's goal throughout the movie is not actually real), and The Others (where the kids who have been fearful of ghosts throughout the movie turn out to be ghosts themselves). It should be noted that Alfred Hitchcock always regretted his decision in Sabotage (1936) to blow up the bus with the protagonist boy on it (check out the movie!), because he felt it was cheating the audience to put a sympathetic character into a suspenseful situation and not ultimately relieve that suspense.

For all this negative talk about the movie, it's still pretty good, but not recommended if you don't like swearing (mostly unnecessary, as usual), and violence (overdone, but not outrageous).

2007: No Country For Old Men Times Seen: 1 Rating: **1/2

Although slickly directed, this film is something of a shaggy dog story with the message that "life is meaningless" writ large. Our protagonist, a man who has discovered a large cache of drug money, is pursued by an implacable, remorseless killer. After taking extraordinary efforts to avoid the killer and protect his innocent wife, in the end our hero is (offscreen, no less) killed by the killer, who then proceeds to kill the hero's wife. Driving away from that crime, the killer is hit by a car and is injured, so maybe something bad will happen to the killer in the end (but perhaps not). It's definitely a cheat to make us worry for the protagonist, only to see him randomly killed--the film is more about the almost supernatural killer than the ostensible hero. To add insult to injury, the hero would not have been in this predicament if he had not gone back to the scene of the drug deal gone bad to give an injured man a drink. The nihilism of this film is as contrived as any film with a happy ending, and perhaps more so. The film has some interesting parallels with the 1972 Steve McQueen film The Getaway, though it's not an exact copy of that film. I much prefer The Getaway.

2008: Slumdog Millionaire Times Seen: 2 Rating: ***1/2

This is a unique and memorable film, with many moments that linger in the mind long afterward. The pluses include the memorable plot: a poor young man from the slums of Mumbai (Bombay) appears on the Indian version of the game show, "Who Wants to be a Millionaire," and does so well that he is accused of cheating. The flashback sequences, which comprise the bulk of the film, reveal how he knew the answers to the seemingly disconnected questions. It is all tied into a touching tale of lost love. What sets this film apart from many of the preceding Best Pictures is that despite many squalid moments the film takes an optimistic view of life, and has (shockingly enough in these times) a happy ending. Danny Boyle's directing is truly first-rate, though he doesn't completely succeed in providing the level of emotional impact he seems to be striving for--the film succeeds intellectually better than it does emotionally. I do have a couple of quibbling objections. The final question ("Two of the Three Musketeers are Athos and Porthos. Who is the Third Musketeer?") seems too easy for the million-rupee question, and the hero as an adult does not really seem to be a grown-up version of the child in the flashbacks. He comes across more like an earnest college student on holiday in India, and his excellent English and polished manners (and the same is true for his long-lost love, Latifa) are not very convincingly explained.

2009: The Hurt Locker Times Seen: 1 Rating ***

The Hurt Locker is a suspenseful, well-directed movie about a team of roadside bomb removal specialists in wartime Iraq. It is also one of the best films ever directed by a woman—in fact, Kathryn Bigelow was the first woman director to receive the Academy Award for Best Director. The story follows a close-knit bomb removal unit after they are assigned a new leader who is far more cocky and reckless in his approach than his predecessor. The story is not particularly deep—to some degree the disparate soldiers are prototypes seen in many war movies of the past, but this particular situation is somewhat unique: any character could die at any time even in settings that at first glance seem peaceful and innocuous. Although life-and-death situations are inherently dramatic, our feelings toward these scenes depend mostly on how much we care about the characters, and in that respect the film is only partially successful. Nevertheless, Jeremy Renner is a standout as the reckless sergeant who is addicted to the excitement of war. I rate this film about the same as its chief rival for Best Picture, Avatar, though the films are widely different in terms of scope, style, and budget.

2010: The King's Speech Times Seen: 2 Rating ***1/2

The King’s Speech tells the story of King George VI, focusing on his problem with stuttering and how he overcame it with the help of an eccentric Australian speech therapist, The cast of Colin Firth (as the King), Helena Bonham Carter (as his rather down-to-earth Queen), Guy Pearce (as the shallow Edward VII), and especially Geoffrey Rush (as the quirky but effective speech therapist) are all excellent. My least favorite scene is the one where the speech therapist encourages the King to swear…ironically, a still-living courtier stated there was no chance the King would have ever done that. But, the desire to make historical figures “relevant” to 21st century audiences seems to require rewriting history, especially when it comes to issues of morality. Still, a pretty good film as far as recent Best Pictures go.

2011: The Artist Times Seen: 1 Rating *** 1/2

I can understand why some people might not appreciate The Artist, though I think it’s a worthy winner. It is a beautiful recreation of a late 1920’s silent film, and for silent film fans like me it’s very entertaining. The story is reminiscent of King Vidor’s Show People, and the later A Star is Born, but is particularly relevant to the films and career of Douglas Fairbanks, the King of Hollywood in the 1920’s. Fairbanks famously dismissed the new “fad” of sound films in 1929 and insisted on making one more lavish silent film (The Man in the Iron Mask), which is actually a worthy farewell to the silent screen. The lead actor in this film, Jean Dujardin, gives a compelling Douglas Fairbanks-like performance that earned him the Best Actor award. The film also features a heroic dog and an amusing “twist” ending. The only reason I don’t give 4 stars is I know that this movie might have limited appeal to those who aren’t familiar with silent films. Some powerful silent dramas that will impress you and that I recommend are The Crowd, Sunrise, The Last Command, and The Docks of New York. And of course, you might want to catch Douglas Fairbanks in The Thief of Bagdad. Check them out!

2012: Argo Times Seen: 1 Rating ***

Argo is one of those films, like The Hurt Locker, that you can say is a good film but not particularly exceptional, which is the trend in the 21st century. There were no great movies this year. Perhaps Life of Pi is better (which indeed won Best Director), and possibly Les Miserables (a very different sort of film), but among the nominees Argo is not necessarily unworthy. The film is about the plot to rescue 6 Americans in Tehran who are hiding out in the Canadian embassy during the 1979 Iran Hostage Crisis. The rescue concept is that some pretend Canadian filmmakers will go to Iran, ostensibly to scout out a science fiction movie, and in the process rescue the hostages. This is in essence a standard caper film, like Riffifi, Topkapi, and Ocean’s Eleven, and though it’s good and exciting it doesn’t stick in the mind long after being seen (in my case, at least).

2013: 12 Years a Slave Times Seen: 1 Rating ***

12 Years a Slave is the story of Solomon Northrup, a free black man from New York and an expert violinist, who is hired for a job in Washington DC by two white men. After arriving in town, he is drugged, secretly imprisoned, and then put on a ship to be sold as a slave. First, he is sold to a relatively good master (Mr. Ford) and then is sold to an evil psychopathic master (Mr. Epps). Eventually through the help of a Canadian carpenter and white friends from his hometown, he is freed.

The movie is pretty good and engrossing on its face, but having read the book written by Solomon Northrup himself (with a ghostwriter), which is excellent, I do have a few objections to the movie. The movie takes a standard politically correct and predictable view of slavery, with plenty of psychopathic white people who don’t care about the economic value of slaves but just enjoy abusing them, but if you read the book after seeing the movie I think you’ll be struck by how many white people are willing to help Solomon, and how real life is much more ambiguous and ironic than anything we see in this movie. In the book, Solomon’s kidnappers are certainly evil, as well as his second master, but his first master is very kindly and understanding, which is underplayed in the movie. When at one point in the book Solomon defends himself against an evil overseer and beats him up, which should be penalized with death, the other white men, who know the overseer is a petty jerk, stop it from happening because they say Solomon can’t be killed because he has a mortgage on him, and they let Solomon free, and are possibly even pleased that Solomon beat the other white man up. And, of course, Solomon is ultimately saved by the white people of his own hometown, two of whom get the legal documents and one of whom makes the arduous journey from New York to Louisiana to get him released by the local sheriff, who is fully cooperative. I would suggest that descendants of those men should never have to any “reparations,” but now I’m beginning to tread on controversial ground. I could say a lot more about the comparison between the movie and the book, but I don’t have room here. Suffice it to say that I think the book is superior, as it is more authentic. Nonetheless, 12 Years a Slave might be a worthy Best Picture winner, although I think Gravity also was a strong contender. 2013 was not a great year for movies.

2014: Birdman Times Seen: 1 Rating ** 1/2

I admit I’m writing this review long after I saw the movie, which consists of a schlock actor (Michael Keaton), famous for playing a character called “Birdman,” trying to establish himself as a serious actor by appearing in a Broadway play. The gimmick of the film is that it all appears to be taken in one single take, a la Hitchcock’s 1948 movie Rope, and the later, superior movie, 1917. I thought this movie was at least interesting when I saw it, but it's not memorable at all to me except for the scene when Michael Keaton inadvertently gets locked outside the theater in his underwear. The one-take gimmick is difficult to pull off, and Hitchcock acknowledged the problem with Rope, that you simply don’t get the reaction shots and inserts that you would like, and the gimmick is more noticeable than effective. (Another long take I can think of is the start of the movie The Player, but once again it’s more of an impressive technical achievement than scintillating cinema.) I’ve seen Rope a few times, and though it’s not Hitchcock’s best, it’s certainly superior to this. I think 1917 is actually the best “one-take” film that I’ve ever seen. I only saw two other nominees for this year, The Grand Budapest Hotel and Whiplash, both of which might have been better than this, as I remember them more. I still never have seen American Sniper. Perhaps, however, I’m being a little unfair to this movie and need to see this one again.

2015: Spotlight Times Seen: 1 Rating ** 1/2

Spotlight is about how the Boston Globe newspaper uncovered the Catholic Church scandal in Boston, where pedophile priests were simply moved from parish to parish, and hundreds of children were therefore molested without the public being aware of the problem. So, the subject is powerful, but I found the movie to be rather predictable, with no real surprises. The acting is very good, but the tone is sort of self-congratulatory. The journalists, who almost all grew up in the church but have rejected it now that they have become older and wiser (read: Liberal Heroes), are up against the dying, hidebound, traditionalist, yet still creepily-powerful Roman Catholic Church (read: Evil Conservatives), and heroically expose these evil hypocrites who have no problem tormenting children while catering to superstitious old people. Perhaps there is some level of truth in the characterization, but the film has no interest in showing what positive things 95% of the priests and the Catholic Church might be doing. I am not Roman Catholic myself, so I have no vested interest, but I can say that the film doesn’t attempt to be even-handed. In addition, when our intrepid journalists, seekers after truth, are told that all the molestations have nothing to do with homosexuality, but that in fact pedophiles are of a separate class who equally molest boys and girls as crimes of opportunity, they accept this bit of liberal dogma without question. And yet…how many times have you read about a pedophile who has molested both boys and girls? Is this truly the majority of cases? Is it even five percent of the cases? In fact, have you ever heard of that happening even in a single case? And why is it that all the Catholic priest pedophiles I have heard about are accused and/or convicted of molesting boys? If these are crimes of opportunity that have nothing to do with homosexuality, don’t Catholic priests have approximately as much access to girls as boys, and yet…how many times do you hear of a Catholic Priest molesting a girl? I’m sure in the vast range of human experience such cases might well be found, but it seems likely they are comparatively rare. These are all questions that would be worth exploring by a brave journalist, if he or she were truly an intrepid seeker of truth…