American Beauty (1999)

Image: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b6/American_Beauty_poster.jpg

Movie #11: American Beauty (1999)
Oscar wins: 5- Best Picture, Best Directory (Mendes), Best Actor in a Leading Role (Spacey), Best Original Screenplay (Ball), Best Cinematography
Nominations: Best Actress in a Leading Role (Bening), Best Editing, Best Original Score (Thomas Newman)
Directed by: Sam Mendes
Written by: Alan Ball
Starring: Kevin Spacey, Annette Bening, Thora Birch, Wes Bentley, Mena Suvari, Chris Cooper, Allison Janney
Length: 122 minutes
Budget: $15 million

 
Switching from Gladiator to American Beauty could not have been a bigger shift: Gladiator is a big-budget Hollywood film, while American Beauty is a small, low-budget film; Gladiator is a story of war, honor and courage, while American Beauty is about the simplicity of life, the problems of small, suburb America, and the hidden beauty of it all.
 
American Beauty is the story of Lester Burnham (Spacey), who narrates the story and tells the viewer early on that he will be dead in less than a year. We step with Lester into his sad, suburban life, with a wife he no longer loves (Bening) and a daughter who hates him and whom he doesn't understand (Birch). Lester has a mid-life chrisis, so to speak, but in it he realizes that he hates his life, and does everything in his power to do what he wants, when he wants, and make sure no one is going to stand in his way.
 
If you can struggle through the first 30 or so (strange) minutes of this film, you will be greatly rewarded. The first time I saw this film (and this was about my fifth viewing) I almost shut it off because it seemed too off-the-wall, and just too weird; but, I stuck with it, and it is now one of my favorite films.
 
This is a story rich with symbolism and messages, and one could see it dozens of times and still find something new with each viewing. It asks the quesions: what is beauty? does life have beauty and, if so, what is it? And, the big question: what is the meaning of this life? Lester, his family, and his neighbors go on a cooky, (perhaps) over-the-top ride in the quest for these answers, and all of the viewers find something along the way as well.
 
Going into the 72nd Academy Awards, there really wasn't a clear-cut leader in the Best Picture race, and it really took a full out, last minute push from Dreamworks advertising to really promote this film and get it the award. I have seen the other front-runner, Cider House Rules, and I can truthfully say I think American Beauty was the better film. Normally, I am against the really political, advertising side of the Oscars, but I think it this case it really opened a lot of people up to American Beauty and got the small picture on a lot of people's radars. The acting in the film is superb, from every person, and Mendes does an amazing job shooting the film and really making sure everything is put together right. As for Alan Ball's script, as I said before, this film is full of questions and messages, and his script is really an incredible example of just how much a script can do for a film-- beyond just the dialogue.
 
Rankings:
1. American Beauty (1999)
2. Million Dollar Baby (2004)
3. Chicago (2002)
4. The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)
5. The Departed (2006)
6. No Country for Old Men (2007)
7. The Hurt Locker (2009)
8. A Beautiful Mind (2001)
9. The Gladiator (2000)
10. Crash (2005)
11. Slumdog Millionaire (2008)

"What we do in life echoes in eternity"

Image: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8d/Gladiator_ver1.jpg

Movie #10: Gladiator (2000)
Oscar wins: 5- Best Picture, Best Actor in a Leading Role (Crowe), Best Costume Design, Best Sound, Best Visual Effects
Nominations: Best Directory (Scott), Best Actor in a Supporting Role (Phoenix), Best Original Screenplay (Franzoni, Logan & Nicholson), Best Editing, Best Cinematography, Best Art Direction (Set Decoration), Best Original Score (Hans Zimmer)
Directed by: Ridley Scott
Written by: David Franzoni, John Logan, William Nicholson
Starring: Russell Crowe, Joaquin Phoenix, Connie Nielsen, Oliver Reed
Length: 154 minutes
Budget: $103 million

My 10th film is the winner of the Best Picture award at the 73rd Academy Awards, The Gladiator. I have seen most of this film several times, however I think this may be the first time that I sat and watched it beginning to end.

The Gladiator tells the story of the Roman empire in 180 AD. Maximus Decimus Meridius (Crowe) is a Roman soldier, who leads his army to victory over a battling tribe (and to the promise of peace). He is then asked by Caesar Marcus Aurelius (Harris) to take over as the emperor of Rome, in the hopes that he'll keep the people together until the Senate can once again take control and return it to its original roots as a Republic. However, Commodus (Phoenix), Aurelius's son, is angered by this, hoping to be emperor himself, and he kills his father out of rage, thus not permitting him to name Maximus as his successor. As a result, Maximus is forced to flee, and eventually finds his way back to Rome as a gladiator.

This is a story about power, honor, corruption, and ultimately: revenge. At heart, it is truly an action film, but it is elevated to the next level by the amazing talents of Ridley Scott, the superb acting found throughout, and its visual effects and asthetic qualities. I am still a little surprised that this very main-stream film (which only received about 75% positive reviews from critics according to Rotten Tomatoes) was able to win Best Picture. Sure, it is a very entertaining film, with many strengths to put it above the ordinary; however, it is still, at heart, an action film, and one that can come off as rather cliche and corny at its roots.

I said it about A Beautiful Mind in my last post, and I think it applies to this film as well: it greatly benefited from a very weak year in film. Just look at the other best picture nominees: a foreign film (Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon), a Julia Roberts film (Erin Brockovich), and a Johnny Depp "romantic comedy," if it can even be called that (Chocolat). Therefore, it really came down to the two best-of-the-worst films that year in Gladiator and Traffic. Personally, I would have chosen Steven Soderbergh's Traffic, an incredibly deep, moving drama about the drug war that is amazingly well written and directed, but that's just me!

Actually, now that I am looking at the 73rd Oscars, I'm reminded of just how weak the year truly was. I mean, Julia Roberts won an Oscar for Best Lead Actress!!! But, seriously, all of the awards were basically pre-determined, which, looking back, seems kind of surprising, considering that there wasn't any real stand-out work or performances. My favorite performance of the year came from Marcia Gay Harden in Pollock-- and her Best Supporting Actress win could be considered an upset, based on pre-cursor awards!

Anyway, my dip into the films of 2000 is done. Onto American Beauty and the 1990s!

Rankings:
1. Million Dollar Baby (2004)
2. Chicago (2002)
3. The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)
4. The Departed (2006)
5. No Country for Old Men (2007)
6. The Hurt Locker (2009)
7. A Beautiful Mind (2001)
8. The Gladiator (2000)
9. Crash (2005)
10. Slumdog Millionaire (2008)

Film #9: A Beautiful Mind (2001)

Image: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/98/Abeautifulmindposter.jpg

Movie #9: A Beautiful Mind (2001)
Oscar wins: 4- Best Picture, Best Director (Howard), Best Actress in a Supporting Role (Connelly), Best Adapted Screenplay (Goldsman)
Nominations: Best Actor in a Leading Role (Crowe), Best Editing, Best Make-Up, Best Original Score (James Horner)
Directed by: Ron Howard
Written by: Akiva Goldsman based on the novel by Sylvia Nasar
Starring: Russell Crowe, Jennifer Connelly, Ed Harris, Paul Bettany
Length: 135 minutes
Budget: $60 million

The winner of the Academy Award for Best Picture at the 74th Academy Awards was the film A Beautiful Mind, a true story drama about the life of the brilliant John Forbes Nash, Jr.
 
John Nash (Crowe) is a graduate student at Princeton University. Everyone knows he is a brilliant man, but he doesn't seem to be able to produce the work to back it up. Eventually, his studies lead him to MIT, where he becomes a professor, and meets his future wife, Alicia (Connelly). It is then that things go terribly wrong, and the viewer witnesses problems and eventual collapse of one of the most brilliant minds in history.
 
This film, a Hollywood drama to the core, is filled with great acting performances, from Russell Crowe who recreates John Nash so perfectly, to Connelly as his love interest, Bettany as his friend, and Harris as the tough, hard, crazy stimulus behind Nash's behavior. Also, Ron Howard puts the film together beautifully, with simple yet extravagent shots, and a compelling and insightful script written by Goldsman.
 
Whenever a biography is made, especially about a living person, the people involved go out on a great risk: they face the task of recreating the life of a person, and staying true to who they were and how they lived, while still making it interesting enough for viewers to actually want to see it. This film is the perfect example of a successful biography, one that can tell the story of a man's life, show who he was, while avoiding the dull, history channel-esque plot.
 
In my opinion, the films of the 74th Oscars were (all around) nothing spectacular. A Beautiful Mind was excellent, as was the first installment of the Lord of the Rings trilogy; but all around, the films seemed to lack anything special. Moulin Rouge! was nominated, and it was a decent musical, but it was certainly nothing special; In the Bedroom was an amazingly compelling drama, that certainly was worthy of a Best Picture nomination, but it was one of those films that no one ever expected to win, because it was good but not "Best Picture" good; and Gosford Park was an interesting but very slow, very bland murder mystery, filled with little-known stars. So, although A Beautiful Mind deserved its victory, 2001 certainly won't be remembered as a year of amazing cinematic work.
 
Nine down, seventy-two to go!
 
 
Rankings:
1. Million Dollar Baby (2004)
2. Chicago (2002)
3. The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)
4. The Departed (2006)
5. No Country for Old Men (2007)
6. The Hurt Locker (2009)
7. A Beautiful Mind (2001)
8. Crash (2005)
9. Slumdog Millionaire (2008)

Chicago (2002)

Image: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e0/Chicagopostercast.jpg

Movie #8: Chicago (2002)

Oscar wins: 6- Best Picture, Best Actress in a Supporting Role (Zeta-Jones), Best Art Direction (Set Decoration), Best Costume Design, Best Sound, Best Editing
Nominations: Best Director (Marshall), Best Actress in a Leading Role (Zellweger), Best Actor in a Supporting Role (Reilly), Best Actress in a Supporting Role (Latifah), Best Adapted Screenplay (Condon), Best Cinematography, Best Original Song ("I Move On")
Directed by: Rob Marshall
Written by: Bill Condon based on the musical by Fred Ebb & Bob Fosse, and the play by Maurine Dallas Watkins
Starring: Renée Zellweger, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Richard Gere, Queen Latifah, John C. Reilly
Length: 113 minutes
Budget: $45 million

Chicago is a musical (the most recent to win Best Picture!), and based on a Broadway musical from the 1970's, which was based on a play from the 1920's.

It tells the story of Roxie Hart (Zellweger) who, after murdering her (ex) lover, ends up in jail, where she meets her idol Velma Kelly (Zeta-Jones), and the two of them compete for the stage, fame, and success of the fast-paced, up-beat 1920's Chicago life.

I can honestly say that this is the first musical that I liked, and I absolutely loved it. It really inspired me to watch films like Cabaret, and Sweeny Todd, and even Across the Universe (terribly dissapointing film...). The film puts a 21st century twist on musicals, putting to use the technological advances in lighting, sound, filming, and editing, to put together not only an amazing visual experience, but to really tell an incredible story of life in the roaring '20s. Also, I felt like it really used its songs; rather than having the characters break out into the song for the sake of music, it really had the songs fit into the plot, and move the plot along to not only deliver entertainment value but really deepen the story.

To be honest, I never saw the other big film of 2002, The Pianist (but I do own it!), so I cannot confidently say that this film deserved best picture. However, The Pianist would have to be one hell of a film for me to say that it should've beaten Chicago. As I have always said: Chicago is a film with the brains of a drama, in the body of a Broadway show. As for its other nominations, I really think Zellweger could have made a case for Best Lead Actress over Nicole Kidman (which is surprising coming from me, because The Hours is one of my favorite films). All of the actors and actresses in this film just delivered so well in every single scene and with every single line, and I think they held the film to the perfect point without allowing it to flop (if you want to see what a Marshall film can do in the wrong hands, just check out last year's Nine...).

Well, I'm making good progress. I've seen eight films in thirteen days, and I'm right on pace. Next up is A Beautiful Mind, which I saw for the first time this summer and am excited to see again. As for my rankings, this is another tough decision. I was just so surprised by how in love with Chicago I was, and every time I watch it I continue to uncover new things and continue to be entertained. Thus, it edged out Lord of the Rings for number two, but fell JUST short of #1.

Rankings:
1. Million Dollar Baby (2004)
2. Chicago (2002)
3. The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)
4. The Departed (2006)
5. No Country for Old Men (2007)
6. The Hurt Locker (2009)
7. Crash (2005)
8. Slumdog Millionaire (2008)

Film #7: LOTR: The Return of the King

Image: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0d/EsdlaIII.jpg

Movie #7: The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)

Oscar wins: 11- Best Picture, Best Director (Jackson), Best Adapted Screenplay (Walsh, Boyens & Jackson), Best Original Score (Howard Shore), Best Original Song, Best Visual Effects, Best Art Direction, Best Costume Design, Best Make-Up, Best Sound Mixing, Best Film Editing

Nominations: None
Directed by: Peter Jackson
Written by: Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens & Peter Jackson based on the novel by J.R.R. Tolkien
Starring: Elijah Wood, Sean Astin, Ian McKellen, Viggo Mortensen, John Rhys-Davies, Orlando Bloom
Length: 200 minutes
Budget: $94 million


The greatest fantasy film of all time (and the only one to win Best Picture), and the conclusion to one of the best film triliogies of all time, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King dominated the 76th Academy Awards, winning all eleven of the films for which it was nomianted.

The Return of the King is the conclusion of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, and it tells the tale of the hobbit Frodo Baggins (Wood) and his quest to destroy the One Ring in Mount Doom. He is followed by Gollum, and hunted by dark forces, while the rest of his now-broken-up fellowship battles the soldiers and creatures of the enemy.

This film, at a whopping three hours and twenty minutes, is the longest winner so far, by about 50 minutes. Also, with a budget of $94,000,000, it passes The Departed by four million dollars to be the most expensive. From the technological marvels, to the awe-inspiring visuals, to the incredible adaption of Tolkien's novel, Peter Jackson put together one of the biggest films in Hollywood history.

Many people have said that the awards The Return of the King won at the Oscars were really for the entire trilogy, but I'm entirely fine with this. The people involved with this trilogy took on a humongous project, and could not have done it any more successfully. Perhaps its only "weak" point was the acting, and this was reflected in its lack of any acting nomination throughout the three years it received nominations. Don't be fooled, though, the acting in this film is still very strong, all of the actors hold their own and are above average, but the acting is really split among several different characters, and all of their performances lack extreme difficulty. That being said, all of the actors should still be praised for bringing to life so successfully Tolkien's characters-- for fantasy fans everywhere.

If you've never seen the Lord of the Rings films, you are really missing out. Even if you aren't a fantasy fan, or don't enjoy the usual adventure film, these movies surpass every expectation to reach out to every viewer, and you might be surprised when you become fascinated with them.

As for my rankings, I've run into my first incredibly tough choice. As a whole, I think the trilogy would rank among my favorite films of all time. However, when rating this one installment against the other films I have seen, it's very tough to put it as #1, simply because I fell so in love with Million Dollar Baby the first time I saw it. I think LOTR definitely ranks above The Hurt Locker and the two below it, but it's a really tough choice among The Departed and No Country for Old Men. In the end, though, I think its entertainment value and the incredible work that Jackson did in this film has to put it up at #2.

Rankings:
1. Million Dollar Baby (2004)
2. The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)
3. The Departed (2006)
4. No Country for Old Men (2007)
5. The Hurt Locker (2009)
6. Crash (2005)
7. Slumdog Millionaire (2008)

Million Dollar Baby (2004)

Image: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d3/Million_Dollar_Baby_poster.jpg

Movie #6: Million Dollar Baby (2004)
Oscar wins: 4- Best Picture, Best Director (Eastwood), Best Actress in a Leading Role (Swank), Best Actor in a Supporting Role (Freeman)
Nominations: Best Actor in a Leading Role (Eastwood), Best Adapted Screenplay (Haggis), Best Editing
Directed by: Clint Eastwood
Written by: Paul Haggis based short stories by F.X. Toole
Starring: Clint Eastwood, Hilary Swank, Morgan Freeman
Length: 132 minutes
Budget: $30 million

My sixth film-- and my favorite so far-- is Million Dollar Baby, a film directed by my favorite director (Clint Eastwood), and starring my favorite actress (Hilary Swank). Both do amazing work in this touching tale about a female boxer. Also, it was Paul Haggis's first Academy Award nomination of three (he would go on to do Crash, last post's winner!, and also another one of my favorites by Eastwood, Letters from Iwo Jima).

Maggie Fitzgerald (Swank) is an aspiring female boxer, who goes to the local gym of Frankie Dunn (Eastwood) and convinces him to train her. Dunn, meanwhile, struggles with his own problems, and an incredible bond develops between these two, despite his original feelings. Throw in ex-fighter and gym worker "Scrap" (Freeman), and you get an excellent mix of sports, drama, and even the occasional humor.

Whenever I try to get anyone to watch this film, their response is always the same: why would I want to watch a movie about boxing? What they don't realize, though, is that boxing is only the backdrop for this film, and the real story lies within the characters and their relationships. Eastwood does an incredible job shooting this film and sets an amazing scene, and then all of the actors hold their own and pull it together. It is, for sure, one of my favorite movies of all time.

At the 77th Academy Awards, the film with the most nominations was The Aviator (with 11), and Million Dollar Baby came in with (only?) 7. The Aviator also won the most awards, with 5. It is an excellent film, about the life of Howard Hughes, and it is amazing on a technical level-- editing, cinematography, and the acting of Cate Blanchett and Leonardo DiCaprio is REMARKABLE.

These Oscars featured three (Swank, Blanchett, and DiCaprio) of my favorite performances of all time, and even though Jamie Foxx (in Ray) wasn't my favorite, it was still a terrific piece of acting. This was also the first year I really got into watching the Oscars, and I have been a huge fan ever since.

So, another film is down. Next is The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, and their amazing double digit sweep at the 76th Awards.

Rankings:
1. Million Dollar Baby (2004)
2. The Departed (2006)
3. No Country for Old Men (2007)
4. The Hurt Locker (2009)
5. Crash (2005)
6. Slumdog Millionaire (2008)

Crash (2005)

Image: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/d0/Crash_ver2.jpg/200px-Crash_ver2.jpg

Movie #5: Crash (2005)
Oscar wins: 3- Best Picture, Best Original Screenplay (Haggis & Moresco), Best Film Editing
Nominations: Best Director (Haggis), Best Supporting Actor (Dillon), Best Original Song ("In the Deep")
Directed by: Paul Haggis
Written by: Paul Haggis & Robert Moresco
Starring: Brendan Fraser, Sandra Bullock, Chris "Ludacris" Bridges, Larenz Tate, Don Cheadle, Jennifer Esposito, Ryan Philippe, Matt Dillon
Length: 112 minutes
Budget: $6.5 million

From low budget to big cinema and back again, Crash has the smallest budget of the five films I've watched, at (a measly?) six and a half million dollars. And, I must say, it is the first winner that I strongly disagree with.

Crash is a gritty, raw tale of hardship and racism in Los Angeles, that follows the lives of many people: policemen, store owners, Chinese immigrants, African Americans in the business world and those on the streets, Iranians, and everything in between. The film reveals the realities behind ignorance, racism, and the problems they cause, and how lives can intersect and affect one another in remarkable ways.

This is a very good film. Like The Departed, it features a load of stars that just pop-up out of nowhere, and give very strong performances. Oscar winner Sandra Bullock (ha ha) plays an ignorant, lonely woman, Matt Dillon plays a dirty (pun intended) cop, Ryan Philippe plays his kind partner who struggles to get out from under his control, Ludacris and Larenz Tate play car jackers, Bahar Soomekh plays a young Iranian American whose father (Shaun Toub) struggles to cope in America, and the cast list goes on and on. Also, Haggis and Moresco wrote an incredible screenplay to bring all of these characters in and deliver such an emotional and powerful message. So, my problem? Brokeback Mountain was an incredible piece of filmmaking, and was better than Crash on every aspect.

I won't go into the Brokeback Mountain vs. Crash debate, because it's all been said before. No matter how many times I see either film (which is around five for both, right now), I will never change my mind on the fact that Brokeback Mountain was the best film of 2005. Thankfully, Ang Lee at least won Best Director, which he completely deserved for his masterpiece.

The 78th Academy Awards spread its prizes among a lot of films, with the most only winning three. Brokeback Mountain won director, score, and adapted screenplay, while Memoirs of a Geisha walked away with three art awards and King Kong walked away with the sound and special effects awards. Then, of course, Crash won its three awards.

Perhaps surprisingly, Crash does not go at the bottom of my list. I would not have given the Best Picture award to this film or Slumdog Millionaire, but for two different reasons: Slumdog Millionaire I didn't think was a good enough film to earn that crown, while Crash was good enough, but given its year and the fact that it went against Brokeback Mountain, it didn't deserve it.


Rankings:
1. The Departed (2006)
2. No Country for Old Men (2007)
3. The Hurt Locker (2009)
4. Crash (2005)
5. Slumdog Millionaire (2008)

Film #4: The Departed (2006)

Image: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/50/Departed234.jpg/200px-Departed234.jpg

Movie #4: The Departed (2006)
Oscar wins: 4- Best Picture, Best Director (Scorsese), Best Adapted Screenplay (Monahan), Best Film Editing
Nominations: Best Supporting Actor (Wahlberg)
Directed by: Martin Scorsese
Written by: William Monahan from the film Infernal Affairs by Felix Chong and Alan Mak
Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio, Matt Damon, Jack Nicholson, Mark Wahlberg
Length: 151 minutes
Budget: $90 million

The Departed, based on the 2002 film from Hong Kong, Infernal Affairs, is a crime drama about two moles, one in the state police and one in the mob, and their struggle to stay hidden, find each other, and above all: stay alive.

Billy Costigan (DiCaprio) enters the Academy and wants to work for the police, but is instead forced to go undercover as a police mole in the mob. Meanwhile, mob boss Frank Costello (Nicholson) has trained Colin Sullivan (Damon) to infiltrate the same police force as a mole. The Departed shows the gritty, face-paced life of South Boston crime-- both from the police stand point, and that of organized crime.

Scorsese goes out on a limb with this film by remaking a movie only four years old, and taking the setting from Hong Kong right into the streets of Boston. What he created, though, was a huge success. The Departed is a film that makes the viewer think, and takes them on a ride where they begin to question-- who is the hero? who are the villains? and what other stars are going to pop up in this film?? From the leads of DiCaprio and Nicholson, to the new age femme fatale Vera Farmiga, to even Alec Baldwin. It's a very Hollywood, big-budget film, on the complete opposite end of the spectrum from small, Bollywood Slumdog Millionaire.

Another interesting aspect of The Departed is how it brings crime into the 21st century, taking the old noir and crime films and putting a new age twist on them. It talks about fate, chance, and how lives can become so intertwined in a world of death and virtual war. This movie also shows the new age American dream, with DiCaprio struggling to ovecome his name and family history to get somewhere in life, and Damon using his past to get ahead in the world (in anyway he possibly can) and make money. It calls loyalty into question, and shows lies and deception and their use in the world. And, throughout it all, Scorsese keeps the film in check, keeping it on track and preventing it from going over-the-top.

For as incredible of a film as The Departed was, it may be somewhat surprising that it only came away with four Oscars (and only five noiminations!). However, when considered, it doesn't seem like such a surprise. It won the other three awards that Best Picture winners typically receive: director, screenplay, and editing. Other than those awards, though, there was not much else The Departed had: very little in the way of a musical score (like most Scorsese films), great actors but all with small parts, only one real female (which, again, was a small part from Farmiga), and nothing toward cinematography, effects, or sound (all of which it did not need). As a result, The Departed won everything it deserved, and was even given a supporting acting nomination for Wahlberg (which I would argue should have gone to Nicholson, DiCaprio, or Damon, but I'm not sure who was considered as "lead." Also, DiCaprio got a best actor nomination for his other film, Blood Diamond).

Also, at the 64th Golden Globe Awards, the film actually lost Best Drama Film to Alejandro González Iñárritu's Babel (which, incredibly enough, only won that one award, losing three supporting acting awards, director, score, and screenplay). The Departed got one award, Scorsese for best director, but it's acting awards were a little more how I would have liked: DiCaprio getting a lead nomination (for Blood Diamond as well!), and Nicholson and Wahlberg getting nominations in the supporting category.

So, my fourth film is done, and it was an amazing film at that. The Departed is really a Hollywood film, that appeals to the main stream public and is an incredible piece of filmmaking. It's a tough call between it and No Country, but I think The Departed just edges it out in my book (maybe it's just because I'm a Scorsese fanatic...)

Rankings:
1. The Departed (2006)
2. No Country for Old Men (2007)
3. The Hurt Locker (2009)
4. Slumdog Millionaire (2008)

Best Picture #3

Image: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8b/No_Country_for_Old_Men_poster.jpg

Movie #3: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Oscar wins: 4- Best Picture, Best Director (Coens), Best Supporting Actor (Bardem), Best Adapted Screenplay (Coens)
Nominations: Best Sound Editing, Best Sound Mixing, Best Cinematography, Best Film Editing
Directed by: Joel & Ethan Coen
Written by: Joel & Ethan Coen from the book No Country for Old Men by Cormac McCarthy
Starring: Josh Brolin, Javier Bardem, Tommy Lee Jones
Length: 122 minutes
Budget: $25 million

No Country for Old Men, the most expensive film so far (by $10 million) is a remarkable adaptation of the Cormac McCarthy novel. As a huge fan of McCarthy and reader of all of his books, it comes with great praise that I say: this is one of the few incidences where the film was better than the book. Joel and Ethan Coen created an amazing screenplay, and pulled out all their tricks to not only follow closely with the book, but expand on it.

This is a film about Llewelyn Moss (Brolin), who finds money out in the desert at the scene of a drug deal gone wrong. Moss decides to take the money, and what ensues is a ruthless hunt. Anton Chigurh (Bardem) is a brutal, heartless hitman who tracks Moss, and Ed Tom Bell (Jones) is a sheriff also on their tail, not to take Moss in, but rather to protect him from the brutality that he knows exists in Chigurh (pronounced shi-gehr, not "sugar").

This is definitely my favorite film of the three I have watched so far. Javier Bardem gives one of the best acting performances I have ever seen, creating a chilling character who fits perfectly with the depiction in the novel, while the Coen brothers give this their typical unexpected comedic-twist. There are also strong performaces all around, from Brolin and Jones and even Woody Harrelson, who makes his appearance as yet another person hunting Moss and the money.

Ironically enough, at the 80th Academy Awards, three of the films four losses came at the hands of an action film, The Bourne Ultimatum. The fourth came (rightfully) to There Will Be Blood in Best Cinematography. That ceremony was one with very spread-out awards and recognition, with the leaders (No Country and Blood) at eight nominations, two more films at seven, and then 17 films with between 2-5 nominations. No Country led the winners with a very low four wins. This was a very strong year in film, with great acting performances like Daniel Day-Lewis (Blood) and (probably) my favorite performance of all time, Marion Cotillard in La Vie en Rose coming through in a (somewhat) surprise. Also, shockingly enough, a comedy film was nominated for Best Picture that year, with Juno getting four nominations, winning Best Original Screenplay for Diablo Cody.

Next, I move on to The Departed, which won the award for Best Picture in 2006.

Rankings:
1. No Country for Old Men (2007)
2. The Hurt Locker (2009)
3. Slumdog Millionaire (2008)

Jai Ho!

Image: http://www.slashfilm.com/wp/wp-content/images/slumdogmillionairetrailertop.jpg


Movie #2: Slumdog Millionaire (2008)
Oscar wins: 8- Best Picture, Best Director (Boyle), Best Adapted Screenplay (Beaufoy), Best Original Score (A.R. Rahman), Best Original Song ("Jai Ho"), Best Sound Mixing,  Best Cinematography, Best Film Editing
Nominations: Best Song ("O Saya"), Best Sound Editing
Directed by: Danny Boyle
Written by: Simon Beaufoy from the book Q & A by Vikas Swarup
Starring: Dev Patel, Freida Pinto, Madhur Mittal
Length: 121 minutes
Budget: $15.1 million

I still cannot believe that this film won the hearts of so many viewers and the Academy. I use to complain about this fact, but when I watched the film this time around I truly enjoyed it. My main complaint remains, though: it's so hokey! It's a very cheery, upbeat, colorful film with touching sentimentality and many "awww how cute!" moments. Not that there is anything wrong with that, it's just not the typical Best Picture film of recent years.
 
Slumdog Millionaire tells the story of Jamal (Patel), a chai wallah ("tea server," which I had to look up!) from the slums of Mumbai, India who goes on the Indian version of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire and, after making it to the final question, is accused of cheating and arrest. What follows is an interrogation where Jamal, essentially, tells the story of his life, and that of his brother Salim (Mittal) and the love of his life, Latika (Pinto), in an attempt to explain how he knew all of the answers.
 
Just like The Hurt Locker, Slumdog Millionaire is a technical masterpiece. The camera work and techniques that Boyle puts to work here are amazing, and he creates a beautiful film. The writing, although, as I said, hokey at times, is very well done and a terrific script is constructed for the film. As for the acting, Patel, Mittal, and Pinto give solid performances as the present-day "three musketeers," but the best performances come from the children. Ayush Mahesh Khedekar (as Jamal) and Azharuddin Mohammed Ismail (as Salim) give REMARKABLE performances through the first half of the film, and they are surrounded by great work from other youngsters as well. This film also won the Screen Actors Guild Award for Best Ensemble, simply because of these children.
 
Slumdog Millionaire really only lost one Oscar, and that was to The Dark Knight for Best Sound Editing (its only other lose came to itself in Best Original Song). I think the film benefited from a very weak year in cinema, and presented a technically sound and entertaining film (as "hokey" as it may be) alternative to the typical Hollywood films that were being shown in 2008. I'm not saying that Slumdog wasn't a good film, it was very good; but I am saying that it isn't the typical Academy-loving (or even critic-loving) film, and it still shocks me that they rewarded at so kindly during awards season.
 
All-in-all, my third viewing of Slumdog Millionaire was very beneficial. By now, I'm over the fact that Revolutionary Road (my favorite film of 2008!) was snubbed, and also that The Curious Case of Benjamin Button was so poorly received. I was able to take a fresh look at the film, and really see the good qualities of it. Of course, I would recommend this film, but I still prefered The Hurt Locker...
 
Rankings:
1. The Hurt Locker (2009)
2. Slumdog Millionaire (2008)

Day #1, Movie #1: The Hurt Locker (2009)

Image: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6c/HLposterUSA2.jpg

Movie #1: The Hurt Locker (2009)
Oscar wins: 6- Best Picture, Best Director (Bigelow), Best Original Screenplay (Boal), Best Sound Editing, Best Sound Mixing, Best Film Editing
Nominations: Best Actor (Renner), Best Original Score, Best Cinematography
Directed by: Kathryn Bigelow
Written by: Mark Boal
Starring: Jeremy Renner, Anthony Mackie, Brian Geraghty
Length: 131 minutes
Budget: $11 million

This film, by the very talented Kathryn Bigelow, was crowned Best Picture at the 82nd Academy Awards just this past Sunday. It tells the (fictional) story of Sergeant First Class William James, and his experience leading a US Army EOD team (Explosive Ordnance Disposal). Basically, he is an expert at difussing bombs, and the film follows his experience leading his team in the US Army.

Right from the opening line by Chris Hedges ("The rush of battle is often a potent and lethal addiction, for war is a drug") and the opening scene (where we see James's future team trying to defuse a bomb), the film's point is clear: war is explosive (pardon the pun), war is tense, and for Sgt James, war is addicting.

In a controversial time in America, where people argue over who should be in Iraq, why we're there, how many people should be sent, how many should be taken out... Mark Boal presents a completely different point of view: some soldiers want to be over there, and the only time they feel right is when their adrenaline is pumping in the middle of the fight. Is he saying that troops should be kept there and allowed to go fight because they want to? Or, perhaps that war isn't all terror, destruction and devastation, but also has a "good" side (in providing a life and a purpose to many people)?

This was my third time watching the film, and the more I watch it the more impressed I am with Bigelow's work; from the camera angles, to the effects, and above all else, the tense and intense atmosphere she creates and holds throughout the film. I have heard some people (non-critics, mostly) say that the film gets rather boring. The more I watch the film, the more I can understand this. The film moves at a slow pace, from bomb to bomb, and can get slow in between, but each bomb is filled with an intense, dramatic atmosphere that leaves you waiting for something to explode.

I was amazed the first time I read that this film premiered at the Venice Film Festival, and that companies were unwilling to pay to distribute it in US theaters (presumably because of the failure of past Iraq War films), until Summit Entertainment purchased the rights. Even more impressive: the film received (reportedly) a ten minute standing ovation after it finished in Venice! To go from little film festival to little film festival, and eventually find your way to the title of Best Motion Picture of the Year is truly remarkable.

Overall, I would say that this film is unmatched (this year, at least) in it's technical features. A very good screenplay that creates the right tension at the right times; superb acting from a lesser-known cast; incredible cuts and editing, fused with the incredible sounds; and above all else, amazing directorial work from Bigelow, with a low budget and (almost) on-site filming in the Middle East. As for it's entertainment value, I admit that if you aren't impressed by the technical features, you might find it a little slow, and you problably won't want to watch it three times like me (in one month, I might add), but it's certainly entertaining and worth the just over two hours.

Lastly, I wanted to comment on the Avatar vs. The Hurt Locker race at the Oscars. Although I believe Avatar (which I have seen) is a technological (CGI, green screens, etc) marvel, I do not feel that it was the best film of the year. Yes, I certainly think it has an argument: it was extremely entertaining, was ground-breaking in its technological features, and was revolutionary in its success. However, it also had some problems: a weak screenplay, weak supporting performances, and the fact that a lot of it wasn't "real" acting or "real" events, but computer generated. Avatar deserves some sort of recognition for it's revolutionary and amazing effects, but it just wasn't all-around good enough to be "Best Picture of the Year." Unlike past "effects" winners (The Lord of the Rings and Star Wars, for example) of the Best Picture award, this one just lost too much ground to The Hurt Locker in all of the other elements of film.

One movie down, 82 more to go, 165 days.

Rankings:
1. The Hurt Locker (2009)

What I've Got

I spent a very long time trying to figure out how to attach a document to a blog post... Turns out, I couldn't find it! So, I'll just type it in here.

I own 34 of the best picture winners, out of 83. Of those 34, I have watched 20.
 
Out of the other 49, I have seen 4. Meaning that out of all of the best picture winners, I have seen 24. But, like I said, I will watch them all, and re-watch the ones I have already seen.
 
The most recent one I own is The Hurt Locker from last year, and the oldest is Gone with the Wind from 1939.
 
There are 2 best picture films that have no official Region 1 (US & Canada) release: Wings (1928) and Cavalcade (1933). I will need to purchase those in a Korean release NTSC version.
 
The first film I will need to watch that I don't own is Driving Miss Daisy (1989).
 
Here is a list of the Best Picture winners, with the ones I own in bold.
 

Year # Title

2009 82 The Hurt Locker
2008 81 Slumdog Millionaire
2007 80 No Country for Old Men
2006 79 The Departed
2005 78 Crash
2004 77 Million Dollar Baby
2003 76 The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
2002 75 Chicago
2001 74 A Beautiful Mind
2000 73 Gladiator
1999 72 American Beauty
1998 71 Shakespeare in Love
1997 70 Titanic
1996 69 The English Patient
1995 68 Braveheart
1994 67 Forrest Gump
1993 66 Schindler's List
1992 65 Unforgiven
1991 64 The Silence of the Lambs
1990 63 Dances with Wolves
1989 62 Driving Miss Daisy
1988 61 Rain Man
1987 60 The Last Emperor
1986 59 Platoon
1985 58 Out of Africa
1984 57 Amadeus
1983 56 Terms of Endearment
1982 55 Gandhi
1981 54 Chariots of Fire
1980 53 Ordinary People
1979 52 Kramer vs. Kramer
1978 51 The Deer Hunter
1977 50 Annie Hall
1976 49 Rocky
1975 48 One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
1974 47 The Godfather Part II
1973 46 The Sting
1972 45 The Godfather
1971 44 The French Connection
1970 43 Patton
1969 42 Midnight Cowboy
1968 41 Oliver!
1967 40 In the Heat of the Night
1966 39 A Man for All Seasons
1965 38 The Sound of Music
1964 37 My Fair Lady
1963 36 Tom Jones
1962 35 Lawrence of Arabia
1961 34 West Side Story
1960 33 The Apartment
1959 32 Ben-Hur
1958 31 Gigi
1957 30 The Bridge on the River Kwai
1956 29 Around the World in 80 Days
1955 28 Marty
1954 27 On the Waterfront
1953 26 From Here to Eternity
1952 25 The Greatest Show on Earth
1951 24 An American in Paris
1950 23 All About Eve
1949 22 All the King's Men
1948 21 Hamlet
1947 20 Gentleman's Agreement
1946 19 The Best Years of Our Lives
1945 18 The Lost Weekend
1944 17 Going My Way
1943 16 Casablanca
1942 15 Mrs. Miniver
1941 14 How Green Was My Valley
1940 13 Rebecca
1939 12 Gone with the Wind
1938 11 You Can't Take it with You
1937 10 The Life of Emile Zola
1936 9 The Great Ziegfeld
1935 8 Mutiny on the Bounty
1934 7 It Happened One Night
1933 6 Cavalcade
1932 5 Grand Hotel
1931 4 Cimarron
1930 3 All Quiet on the Western Front
1929 2 The Broadway Melody
1928 1 Wings
1928 1 Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans

The Plan

The Academy Awards on Sunday were my final push towards completing a project I have wanted to undertake for a very long time. The goal: watch every film ever to have won the Academy Award for Best Picture. I have set a time limit, 166 days from now (two times the number of film, 83), and will blog about each film.

I should start off by saying that I am a 19 year-old college student, living at home and attending the local community college. With free tuition, I've been able to spend my money on much more important things, mainly movies and books (from Amazon and Ebay). Currently, excluding this year's awards, I own every film nominated for Best Picture since 1998. Also, I own every film that has won Best Picture since 1990. I'd like to stress the fact that I own these films, but have not seen them; I have only seen 10 of the 19 winners. So, my new plan is to watch them all. Not just the ones I own, but ALL of them.

I will start with this year's winner, The Hurt Locker. Even though I have already seen this one and many of the others, I will re-watch them. I will then work backwards to the first winner, way back in 1928, Wings. Also, I feel it's important to mention that in 1928, there were two awards given for "best picture:" Wings, given the title "Best Production," and Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans, given the title "Most Unique and Artistic Production." I will watch them both, giving me a total of 83 movies. For the most part, I will watch them in order. However, should a problem arise (such as I don't get an ordered movie delivered on time, or a movie doesn't work, etc), I will skip that movie and move to the next one, and go back as soon as possible. Also, another issue I can think of right now, I will watch The Godfather before The Godfather Part II, for obvious reasons. I will watch the ones I own, borrow the ones I can, rent the ones available at my local video store, and for all others either rent online (from Amazon) or purchase. I will watch all movies over the next five and a half months, 166 days, and blog about each one (hopefully as soon as a finish watching it). I will give my general opinion on the movie, try to be as brutally honest (and un-bias) as possible, and I will also rank them according to how much I enjoyed them and how good of a movie I thought it was.

Thanks to anyone out there taking the time to read this, I hope you enjoy this project as much as (I hope) I will.

--DEADLINE: AUGUST 24, 2010--