OK, like most other years, I have watched and reviewed the nominated films for this years Oscar. Now I will give credit to them and place my choice for the Best Picture award at the bottom of the page, and give reason why. Before I start, I would like to add that I don't do all this critique flippantly. I love film, I did some historical film studies at school, and watched some of the classics like 'Metropolis', 'The Bicycle thieves', '8½', 'Lawrence of Arabia', 'Battleship Potemkin' and many more. What I think makes a good film overall, is when you get to the end and feel like a) no time has passed at all, b) you have felt enveloped in the story and characters and c) have a great feeling of aesthetic wonder at what you have just watched. So, without further ado, I will go through the films in the order I watched them and stay their strengths and weaknesses.
Before, during and after there was this lingering comment around about the creature in the film being related to Abe Sapien. Even more so that the film was the same director; Guillermo Del Toro. However, once revealed I saw it as a pastiche of the great 50's B movies like "The Swamp Creature", "Creature of the Black Lagoon", and so forth. The film was enveloping as it needed to be. Some nice characterisation in the two main human characters. Very well built around the communication issue that eventually drew the story around the connections (invisible it may be, or just suitable) that make two people connect. I think that the supporting roles were good in aiding the story along as well, and with the look and feel and quality deliverance of Del Toro, the film made the mark. I did spot two glaring continuity errors in the movie, which for a film fan irritated me slightly, but over all, was great to look at. The main character was well played, and it even gave me a sense of the type of cinema that came out of France, with such films as 'Delicatessen'. So, another good start to the Oscar rundown. Based on my criteria, it managed to filial the points. I was happy watching it, and egging on the creature to have his life back, and hoping ill of the evil protagonist. Good to watch.
I was watching 'Talking Movies' on the BBC, and Tom Brooks mentioned this movie. At the time his play was it was an interesting offering about a true story. Not sure if I am a sucker for true stories, but nonetheless I gave it a shot. Talk about being bowled over! This film does everything me list asks for and then some. I was so into the interplay of characters, the emotions, the crazy humour playing around this tragic event. Everything about it just worked. I loved the characters, I loved the way it was filmed, I loved the story of human friction in emotional states. As it was the second movie I saw in the quest to see all the Oscar films it was hard to compare that this point, but now in hindsight I think I knew it was a special film. I left you with a lot of emotional effect from the kind of situation that we could all possibly find ourselves in, and so we roller-coaster with the main character, who is played amazingly by Frances McDormand (also awesome in Fargo). The director, Martin McDonagh, also played out a really interesting film I liked called "Seven Psychopaths", which had the same great character development in it too. Even the supporting actors in this film had some great depth, so I found it a total pleasure to watch, with goosebumps on my neck just writing this. Watch it and tell me I'm wrong!
One of Steven's films is in my top ten films of all time; "Jaws". I put it their because as a director he has a great skill in bring characters to life. He missed it with 'The Post'. Although it was a nice film to watch, and had some nice intrigue and political suspense and play in the message, it totally lost the need to give the depth to the players. The little girl collecting money with lemonade was just as well defined as the other characters. I spent a lot of the movie trying to guess where I had seen the actors before, rather than feel for their characters. Again, it was OK to watch and a typical Spielberg affair, with all the cinematographic signature of the great guy, but it missed the mark on my criteria list on a very important aspect, which I have stated but will reiterate; the need to feel for the characters. Bob Odenkirk (Better Call Saul) was the most intriguing players in the movie, but had very little spotlight to even see the trouble and toil he must have gone through to get those papers. He did have the 'line' of the movie though, which was a lovely touch and high light of viewing this film. Again, don't get me wrong, if you like Spielberg/Hanks combo movies it's great to watch. I just wish I could feel a little towards the people.
I put a comment on FB after I saw this movie, and got a little rebuttal, so thought I needed to clear the air. My original comment still stands. This film is like 30 minutes too long. It could have been wrapped up in less time, and avoid all that quizzical interplay between the two main characters. OK, there is some provocative tension there, but did we have to make it over like 20 odd scenes of gazes, brushing past, comments, etc. The fact that it had a the beautiful Italian landscape as a back drop was almost lost as it wasn't really played as a cinematic aid. I get the point it was about a bored boy coming of age curious about emotions. I don't agree about the rebuttal that it was about him needing to be loved. Hell, he was loved by everyone in the film, on every scale. He was adored by a girl, his family loved him, and his father's friends adored him, so it wasn't his lack of emotional stability. It seemed more about a curiosity in a 'seemingly' forbidden area. The key was the star of David I feel. The depth of belief of the Jewish community and the sinful aspects that maybe homosexuality could draw to the player. That combined with the boredom he felt in this far flung oasis of summertime retreat made the character, who was on the tipping point of manhood, make that move of discovery. Now, I mentioned the length. I believe it was the longest film in this years Oscars, but the point is it seemed like a very long film. Not a good criteria, when you look at the watch or pick up your iPad to look at notifications. None of the other movies did this, even the bad ones. Take a film like 'Jean De Florette'. Set in beautiful Provence, slow and ambling in pace but a masterpiece of cinematography. You loved watching it, and the character developments. That is how to draw out a long film in a great location. Sorry, but this film was not tantalising enough to keep me engaged on the young boys desires.
I quickly read and saw the trailer before watching this film, and wondered how the story could be held or even unfold around the idea of a girl's desire to escape her family; but it simply does. Took me a while to see that Lady Bird's mother was Lara Metcalf from Rosanne fame, and after that query was out of the way, the entanglements and inter-family feuding was revealed in slow, but nicely played reflections on real-life and semi-reflective of many teenagers desire to fly the coup. For me, the low-budget aspect was more charming than a flaw in it's production values. It almost had a documentary feel to it that made it more believable in the development of the characters. I did find the conclusion a little weak, and that made it fall apart as a real contender to me. Persona dramas need to be strong if not given a helping hand with an aim-based narrative other than the main character's emotional drive. Although the character was played well, the anti-establishment driving force to get Lady Bird to an East Coast college was not played out into many good approaches that could have made it stronger. It does rank high in my ratings though, as I will give credit to film makers on a budget. It's worth watching, but was a case of leaving the cinema with a deflated balloon ending! Why did it end like that?
Now I read the hype. First black horror film. Was really ready for something interesting. Was really let down. This film was way out of not being worthy of the Oscar nomination. Hitchcock knew how to make a horror movie on a budget. This was pail in comparison. In fact I think there was only one point in the film the I jumped in a little fright. The rest was run of the mill average suspense drama. The idea was interesting to start with, and maybe it could have been saved, but it turned into this 'Reanimator' type parody that just didn't work for me. The actor who played the brother in the family was such a poor casting, I really got irritated with him every time he appeared on the screen. Overall, I couldn't see the point and was happy when the end credits appeared. Not a film for me, and not a film I would expect to win any awards let alone an Oscar. Any saving graces? Well, the main character, who I remember from an episode of "Black Mirror" had an OK performance, but that said, almost all was pretty average and not worth a note of credit in my mind.
Now I have seen a lot of warm up to this film, and the simple fact was the warm up got me interested, but the film was not so amazing. I liked watching it, even though the confusion I felt toward it was because I didn't realise it wasn't chronological until half way through. It was an honourable attempt at making the historical event look theatrical, but it missed that depth that I feel a really good film carries. The main focus was a wimpish sBritish soldier trying to find any means of getting off the beach regardless of the reoccurring bad karma that besets him. I am not sure how much of the stories were based on real accounts, but the simple fact was even though the over view was a great historic recovery, the film had not real power in knowing any soldiers story. The captain of the civilian vessel was the most strong figure in the story, but had little to play. He was the enabled heroic man going to aid the stranded soldiers who seemed to fear the reality of the negative side of war. It is cinematically nice to look at, and was watchable, but was far from any mark of winning an award I feel.
Sometimes a good film can be the sole work of a good piece of acting. In the case of 'Darkest Hour', it wasn't the soul reason for the great film, but Gary Oldman playing Churchill was a masterpiece of of cinematography. This film was a little like what I stated at the start of the piece. Being totally enveloped that the senses are enjoying everything you watch. I am not sure if it was because I was British and Churchill was a great leader in a great time of despair for the United Kingdom, but I liked the film a lot! Even the odd lighting effects in the House of Commons kind of sank in after a while and I took it as theatrical embellishment. The make up on Gary was fantastic as well. Not quite Churchill in look, but subtle elements of Gary Oldman's performance playing on Churchill left me chuckling at the character. Overall it was a good movie to watch and kept me attentive to an historical event I even already know the outcome for. It was also weird that I viewed Dunkirk some days before and the two intertwined in historical fact, and even weirder that this year saw two films about that same moment in time, but from two perspectives. It was well played and well photographed, but without that Gary performance, it would be hard to know if it would have been the same. At the end of the day, I don't think it will win the Oscar, but would be close.
Last one of the list, and by all critics claims, the best and runner for the Oscar. To be honest, I can see why they push it, but to me it wasn't the one. Daniel Day Lewis for sure was a great Woodcock in his his performance of the egocentric tailor, but (and I will repeat) based on my criteria, it became a little dull for me. There were some pools of life inside the story and the achingly long 2¼ hour film, and the photography is as you can expect a great joy to watch. But it held no magic for me. Maybe I am tired of self-righteous snobs playing with peoples emotions and really didn't get the deep motive behind the Alma's desire to find him fascinating or attractive. It was like a bit of good theatre. You can revel in the moments of greatness, bit also end up twitching your bum in the seats as the drawn out parts became tiresome. As I said at the start, I can see why, if it does win, it will win the Oscar, but I hope it doesn't. The other two indie-based films had a little more power for me, and I was feeling robbed of time when they ended as I thought there magic could be spun longer. Phantom Thread is enjoyable to watch, and good credit to the performers, but it doesn't get my vote.
Seemed weird that last years Oscar film shortlist was chocker full of incredible films. I mean it was hard to guess which was going to win. This year, to me, it seemed that some were thrown in for pseudo-political reasons to booster and create a vail over the overly dominant white male industry. It was a shame, and I don't want to sound harsh, but for me 'Get Out' and 'Call Me By My Name' shouldn't have been on the list. I think it may be obvious to say why they were on the list, but they didn't sit well for me. Not like last years 'Moonlight', which was fabulous and deserved it's place and eventual honouring. Also, I was let down by Steven for a change. I really love watching his work. He is a directorial mastermind, but it really did seem like 'The Post' was laking any character development. It was more wrapped in the event, than showing the people who made the event. I didn't feel for any of them. That is not good. So, the others that remained we basically have two typical high budget historic movies and two independent low-budget movies, and a film that everyone is stating to be the one!! For me, the low budgets won this year. They show how a really great movie can be carved out of the delivery of a great story/script. Punch in some great acting and you have an amazing film that triggers all the emotions needed to meet my criteria. I am even getting goosebumps on the back of my neck as I type this, as I am thinking of the film I liked most. So, anyway, without further ado I will place the list in reverse order.
Get Out
The Post
Dunkirk
Call Me by Your Name
Darkest Hour
Phantom Thread
Lady Bird
The Shape of Water
And the winner for me!! A truly captivating film with great cinematography, great directing and overall great acting. A must watch, even if it doesn't't win.
Three Billboards outside Ebbing, Missouri
As a post scriptum, it was weird to me that 'Lucky' was not somewhere on the list. I totally loved that film. IF you want to know why, watch it. It is a film that can capture you, without any story and make you want to watch it to the end. Great performances, photography and overall presence!! I hope Harry Dean Stanton gets a lifetime achievement award this year. He deserves it and will be sadly missed.
Facebook | Twitter | Google+ | Instagram | Pinterest | LinkedIn | BeHance & Dribbble
