Notes on the Oscar Nominees

Some notes on the Oscar nominees as I get ready for my annual Oscar party where I am actually due to win the pool (I win about every 6 years).

Nominated for Best Picture . . .

The Queen
A much better movie than I was expecting. The movie covered the week from Princess Diana's death to her funeral, focusing on the outrage many Brits had with the monarchy's seemingly flippant attitude about Diana's death. Queen Elizabeth II had her reasons for the slow response, and even Tony Blair comes to her defense at one point. Tony Blair's popularity skyrocketed during this time, but things have indeed changed for him. An interesting portrayal of the Queen. I didn't think someone of her stature would drive an off-road vehicle by herself, but she does. Good as it was, this movie doesn't belong in the Best Picture category.

Letters from Iwo Jima
This was the second of two films by Clint Eastwood dealing with the WWII battle. "Flags of our Fathers" was the first and focused on the Americans that raised the flag and their lives afterwards as they were sent out on tours to promote war bonds. Jumps a little bit too much between time periods, but it's still a very well done movie. "Letters," which is subtitled, focuses strictly on the conflict itself and on a handful of Japanese characters. This is a much lower budgeted movie, but you get to know the characters much better, which for me made for a more involving movie than "Flags." It was very interesting seeing the Japanese point of view and how their soldiers and officers viewed the conflict. This is a very low key movie at first, not much happening. But once the Americans land, it kicks in. There are a few scenes that overlap with "Flags." For example, in that movie, you see the end result of Japanese soldiers committing suicide by hand grenade. In "Letters," you actually see it happening, and it ain't pretty. When you combine the two movies, it's really quite an achievement by Eastwood. For that reason, I would give this the Best Picture.

The Departed
It's directed by Martin Scorses, so two things come in to play: violence and profanity. According to screen-it.com there are 237 uses of the "F" word, so it's certainly overkill in that department. But wow, what a cast: Leonardo DiCaprio, Matt Damon, Jack Nicholson, Mark Wahlberg, Martin Sheen, and Alec Baldwin. The movie is 2 1/2 hours long but moves very quickly. Excellent story and great performances all around. But the expletives do fly.

Little Miss Sunshine
I really wanted to like this movie and found myself disappointed. For some reason it didn't connect. However, it's one I keep thinking about. I have a feeling if I were to watch it again I might have a different reaction. Maybe I just didn't think it was quite Best Picture material and thus went in with certain expectations, I don't know. What I do know is that "Olive" is a very memorable character, in fact, one of the most memorable in a while. The movie keeps growing on me in retrospect. It would probably be an upset if it won but I don't think people would be disappointed.

Babel
I wasn't too excited about seeing this movie because it's been called this year's "Crash." I thought that movie was a bunch of overhyped crapola and I'm still ticked off at it for telling my I'm racist whether I want to admit it or not.

But I was pleasantly surprised by "Babel". . .for the most part. The movie has 3 stories that interconnect in one way or another, even though the characters may be continents apart. The purchsae of a gun in Morocco affects what happens in Mexico. The movie is all subtitled, even when English is being spoken. The only major actors are Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett. All 3 stories kept my interest and it all added up to a fairly good movie.

HOWEVER, there was a 4th story thread that gets a lot of screen time and is a major detriment, particularly because of the content. It's basically about a sexually promiscous deaf-mute Japanese girl. Leave this story out, and it wouldn't have mattered at all, because the other stories were strong enough. Yes, there was a connection to the other story threads, but the connection could have easily been made in other ways and this girl's escapades did not need to be included. It was a serious detriment to what was actually a pretty good other 3/4 of a movie.

Some Other Categories . . .
Best Actor
The only nominee I saw was Ryan Gosling in "Half Nelson." A pretty good performance in a so-so movie, but he won't win. This is supposed to be Forest Whitaker's year, for his portrayal of Idi Amin in "The Last King of Scotland"(a movie I'd like to have seen but it never came here).

Best Actress
Helen Mirren all the way for her portrayal of Queen Elizabeth II, and she deserves it. Didn't see any of the other nominees.

Best Supporting Actor
Only saw Alan Arkin in "Sunshine" and Mark Wahlberg in "The Departed." Both were good, but this is supposedly the comeback year for Eddie Murphy, even though reportedly no one really likes him all that much in Hollywood and he puts out fluff like "Norbit." In my growing fondness of "Sunshine," Alan Arkin's character stands out, even though he didn't have a very big part. So, I'd give it to him, because it was a much less flashy role, which is the reason he won't win.

Best Supporting Actress
I didn't see "Dreamgirls," but evidently Jennifer Hudson was magnificent. But for my money, I'd give it to Abigail Breslin. Basically, when she was on the screen, I wasn't looking away. It didn't hurt that she reminded me of Anna. I guess 10 year old kids aren't truly supposed to beat out older actresses, but hey, Abigail has more acting experience than Jennifer Hudson. Here I go, first I say I didn't like "Sunshine" and now I'm wanting it to win all these awards.

Best Director
This is finally going to be Martin Scorsese's year, or so they say. I don't know, Clint Eastwood had quite an achievement with TWO movies, so he could snatch the oscar from him (or, they give the Directing award to Scorsese and Best Picture to Eastwood). However, I'd give the Oscar to a complete wildcard in this category for a movie not nominated for anything else. That would be Paul Greengrass for "United 93." That movie absolutely should have been nominated for Best Picture, although the term "movie" probably doesn't fit because it was in a category by itself. One of the more exhausting movies I've seen. Suspenseful in that you find yourself hoping the passengers can retake the airplane, even though, of course, you know that doesn't happen.

Best Foreign Film
"Pan's Labryninth" will easily win the Oscar, and for good reason. This also should have been in the the Best Picture category (both "The Queen" and "Babel" could have come out). A great movie. A combination of children's fantasy and 1940's Spain after the Franco revolution. Seemingly an odd mix but you may be hard pressed to find a more original movie this year. This will also likely win some technical awards like Art Direction and Makeup.

Best Documentary
I rarely see any the nominated documentaries, but I've actually seen what will be this year's winner, "An Inconvenient Truth." Can't imagine anything else winning and it'll be interesting to see if Al Gore is there to be part of the acceptance speeches.

Best Original Song
My prediction is that a song from "Dreamgirls" will win. Since 3 of the 5 songs nominated are from Dreamgirls, maybe that's not too bold of a prediction. Yes, there will be a performance by Randy Newman again this year for his song from "Cars," which will win the Best Animated feature category.

Best Documentary Short Subject
Yeah right, I have no idea. This is one of those categories that turns the tide at the Oscar party, seeing who picks the right one. The last time I won the pool, I was the only one to pick a documentary short called "Big Momma!"