Best Picture: "Moonlight," 2016

Movie Stats:
Released 2016 (USA)
American, in English
Director - Barry Jenkins
Stars - Alex R. Hibbert, Ashton Sanders, Trevante Rhodes, Mahershala Ali

Plot Summary:
This movie showcases the life of Chiron, a gay black boy with a crack-addicted mother (played by Naomie Harris) growing up in a rough neighborhood in Miami. Hibbert plays Chiron as a child; Sanders plays him as a teenager; and Rhodes as an adult. Ali co-stars as Juan, a drug dealer who takes Chiron under his wing.

Warnings:
Heavy blue language (including gay & racial slurs); sexy times; violence; minor gore; drug use (marijuana, crack).

Bad Stuff:
The pace could easily be described as ponderous.

I didn’t care for the experimental camera work. Also, I’ve seen people complain about “lens flare” in other movies (most notably 2009’s “Star Trek”) but it’s not something I ever noticed before this film, where it is both obvious & very distracting.

The ending is rather abrupt/unsatisfactory.

Good Stuff:
The performances from both Ali and Harris are phenomenal. I completely understand why both of them were nominated for Best Supporting awards (and why Ali won).

It’s a very understated, nuanced portrayal of the cycle of poverty, all the pitfalls & how difficult it can be to escape.

It does an excellent job of setting the tone. You can really feel Chiron’s isolation and loneliness.

The Verdict:
I liked it well enough. I don’t think I liked it as much as I expected to, mostly because of how slow it is. I must have checked the time on my phone at least ten times. Also, I found it difficult to connect with Chiron because his character rarely speaks, especially in his younger years. Finally, I was disappointed that Ali’s part is relatively small. I would have liked to see way more of him. Still, I appreciated how understated it is. It's fine piece of storytelling that doesn’t tell you what to think or feel. It gets its point across without beating you over the head with it. In the end, despite the bleak circumstances of most of the characters, I felt a sense of hope, like maybe things could turn it okay, even if I know that they probably won’t, because that’s what the cycle of poverty does to people. It’s a beautiful film, just not one of my favorites.

I give it 3.75 stars.

Note: The Best Picture Master List has been updated to include this movie. It comes in at #39.

Best Picture: "Spotlight," 2015

Movie Stats:
Released 2015 (Italy)
American & Canadian, in English
Director - Tom McCarthy
Stars - Michael Keaton, Mark Ruffalo, Rachel McAdams, Liev Schreiber

Plot Summary:
A dramatized look at the Boston Globe’s investigation into the Catholic Church’s pedophile priest scandal. Keaton stars as Walter “Robby” Robinson; Ruffalo as Mike Rezendes; and McAdams as Sacha Pfeiffer, all members of the “Spotlight” team, which broke the story, and Schreiber co-stars as Marty Baron, the Globe’s editor.

Warnings:
Lots of blue language; frank discussions of child molestation.

Bad Stuff:
Minor quibble: length (slightly too long).

Serious complaint: I didn’t like how it tried to drum up intrigue by playing the “which person ignored this story years ago” game & casting shade on one character in particular. It was unnecessary & felt cheap.

Good Stuff:
Man, every single actor, from the most minor to the top billed, knocked this right out of the park. Really phenomenal. My favorites were Keaton, Ruffalo, and Stanley Tucci (as Mitchell Garabedian, lawyer to several of the victims).

I liked how it explored the varying ways in which a scandal like this affects a community. While it's about how it affected the victims psychologically, emotionally, and physically, it’s also about how it affected their faith, and the faith of others connected to the scandal (such as the reporters). I’m not religious myself, but I understand how important faith is to many people. The scenes of people struggling with this issue touched me on a deep emotional level.

I’m clinging to the hope that it’s accurate about the reporters, because it’s restored some of my faith in investigative journalism.

The Verdict:
Wow, this was an excellent year for Best Picture nominees. I’ve seen 6 of the 8 and thought 5 of those were great (was not a big fan of “The Revenant”). I particularly would’ve been happy if “Brooklyn” or “The Big Short” had won, but I see why “Spotlight” did. It was really well done. It’s not an easy topic. I have to admit that I was dreading this viewing. If it hadn’t won Best Picture, I probably never would have seen it. But I’m glad that it did, because I would have missed out on an incredibly important story and a lot of really fine acting. If you’re hesitant, know that you should watch this film. In the end, I think the only thing you’ll be disappointed in is the Catholic Church.

I give it 4.5 stars.

Note: The Best Picture Master List has been updated to include this movie. It comes in at #9.

Best Picture: "Birdman," 2014

Movie Stats:

Released 2014 (Italy)

American, in English

Director - Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu

Stars - Michael Keaton, Edward Norton, Emma Stone

Plot Summary:

Has-been actor Riggan (Keaton), famous for playing a superhero, tries to resurrect his failing career by directing and starring in an edgy Broadway play. Norton co-stars as Mike, Riggan’s, um, co-star, and Stone as Riggan’s daughter, Sam.

Warnings:

Lots of blue language, violence, drug use (marijuana only), heavily implied sexy times, and brief partial male nudity (butt only).

Bad Stuff:

That persistent drumbeat made me want to blow my brains out, so I guess that means I kind of [SPOILER] got where Riggan was coming from. [SPOILER]

There’s a certain type of open ending that I like (“Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels,” the original “The Italian Job”). This isn’t one of them. In fact, it really disappointed me.

The stuff between Mike and Sam was SO predictable. For a hot minute, I thought the movie wasn’t going to go there. And then it did.

Good Stuff:

Edward Norton was amazing.

It took me days to decide how I felt about it. While that might not seem like a good thing on the surface, I can certainly appreciate a movie that sticks with me and makes me think. To me, that’s a fine piece of film making, no matter how I ultimately feel about the film.

I wasn’t as blown away by the fake one-shot thing as everyone else seems to be, but once again, I can appreciate how special it was.

The Verdict:

I really did think about this movie a lot. It took me weeks to decide whether or not I liked it, so I’m kind of glad that I didn’t know it was the winner until recently. It gave me time to gather my thoughts. Ultimately, I decided that this movie didn’t really do it for me. I recognize and applaud what’s clever about it. All of the acting was really good. I also give a lot of credit to the make up artists and costume designers, because they managed to take a woman I normally find very beautiful (Emma Stone) and make her look so depressed/strung out/dirty that I found her repulsive. However, the story didn’t really hold together for me, especially not in the end. I wish that they would have done something different with Riggan’s character. I can think of several other ways it could have gone that would have been more compelling (to me anyway). Also, I thought the character of Sam was almost painfully cliche.

I give it 3 stars.

Note: The Best Picture Master list has been updated to include this movie. It comes in at #55.

Best Picture: Master List of Reviews and Scores

Here it is, my full list of scores and reviews. The list goes from my favorite winner to my least favorite winner. In cases where films share the same score, I’ve listed them based on personal preference. For example, the first 4 star review you see listed will be my favorite of all the films I’ve given 4 stars to.* Or, to put it another way, they’re listed in order of “most likely to ever watch again” to “least likely to ever watch again.”

Future winners will be reviewed as I see them, and will be added to this master list, with a link to this list at the bottom of the review.

1. Casablanca - 5.0
2. On the Waterfront - 4.75
3. American Beauty - 4.75
4. In the Heat of the Night - 4.75
5. The Departed - 4.5
6. The Godfather - 4.5
7. Platoon - 4.5
8. Schindler’s List - 4.5
9. Spotlight - 4.5
10. Marty - 4.5
11. Ordinary People - 4.25
12. All the King’s Men - 4.25
13. Gone with the Wind - 4.25
14. Chicago - 4.25
15. Million Dollar Baby - 4.25
16. Lawrence of Arabia - 4.25
17. The Artist - 4.25
18. The Sound of Music - 4.25
19. The King’s Speech - 4.25
20. Gandhi - 4.25
21. Oliver! - 4.25
22. Terms of Endearment - 4.25
23. Dances with Wolves - 4.0
24. The Lost Weekend - 4.0
25. All About Eve - 4.0
26. The Best Years of Our Lives - 4.0
27. 12 Years a Slave - 4.0
28. Slumdog Millionaire - 4.0
29. Patton - 4.0
30. The Bridge on the River Kwai - 4.0
31. It Happened One Night - 4.0
32. Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King - 4.0
33. The Silence of the Lambs - 4.0
34. The Hurt Locker - 4.0
35. West Side Story - 4.0
36. Going My Way - 4.0
37. One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest - 4.0
38. Kramer vs. Kramer - 4.0
39. Driving Miss Daisy - 3.75
40. The Godfather Part II - 3.75
41. Gentleman’s Agreement - 3.75
42. Ben-Hur - 3.5
43. The Sting - 3.5
44. Rain Man - 3.5
45. The Life of Emile Zola - 3.5
46. No Country for Old Men - 3.5
47. The Apartment - 3.5
48. Grand Hotel - 3.5
49. Rocky - 3.25
50. Out of Africa - 3.25
51. The English Patient - 3.25
52. Rebecca - 3.25
53. Unforgiven - 3.25
54. Wings - 3.0
55. All Quiet on the Western Front - 3.0
56. Birdman - 3.0
57. Forrest Gump - 3.0
58. From Here to Eternity - 3.0
59. Braveheart - 3.0
60. Hamlet - 3.0
61. My Fair Lady - 3.0
62. Annie Hall - 3.0
63. Chariots of Fire - 3.0
64. You Can’t Take It with You - 3.0
65. Mrs. Miniver - 3.0
66. Titanic - 2.75
67. The French Connection - 2.75
68. Argo - 2.75
69. How Green Was My Valley - 2.75
70. A Beautiful Mind - 2.75
71. Midnight Cowboy - 2.75
72. Amadeus - 2.75
73. A Man for All Seasons - 2.5
74. The Broadway Melody - 2.5
75. Cavalcade - 2.5
76. Gladiator - 2.5
77. Around the World in Eighty Days - 2.5
78. Shakespeare in Love - 2.5
79. Gigi - 2.5
80. Cimarron - 2.5
81. An American in Paris - 2.0
82. The Deer Hunter - 2.0
83. Mutiny on the Bounty - 2.0
84. The Last Emperor - 2.0
85. The Great Ziegfeld - 1.5
86. Crash - 1.0
87. The Greatest Show on Earth - 1.0
88. Tom Jones - .25

*By far the hardest decisions were which “4.75” to list first and which “1” to list first

Best Picture: Rating Adjustments

Before I post my master list of reviews/scores, there are a few scores that I want to adjust.  I try to write each of my reviews immediately after seeing the movie, when my feelings/opinions are fresh on my mind. However, occasionally, a movie sticks with me. I’ll ruminate about it for days. In rare instances, I’ll decide that the score I originally gave didn’t, in the end, accurately reflect my feelings.

The first score I’m adjusting belongs to 1940’s All About Eve. In my original review, I talked about how annoyed I was at the self-congratulatory smugness of it. That annoyance strongly colored my feelings. As I thought more about it later, I realized that I had been too harsh. There are a lot of great things about this film, including the dialogue, the acting, and the character development. I’ve decided to bump its grade up a quarter of a star to 4 stars.

The second score I’m adjusting belongs to 1956’s Around the World in Eighty Days. I think that I was so surprised that this film didn’t suck more than it did that I was far too generous the first time around. When I think about which of these winners I’d watch again, my visceral reaction to this one is “yuck.” Therefore, I’m thinking it definitely didn’t deserve the original score I gave it. I’m downgrading it a full star to 2.5 stars.

The last score I’m adjusting belongs to 1996’s The English Patient. I still hate that this film expects me to see an adulterous affair as an epic, grand love story. However, after slogging through a couple of films afterward that completely lacked character development, I realized that that’s one thing that this film had going for it. I’m bumping it up half a star to 3.25 stars. 

I’ve added a footnote to each film’s review reflecting the score change. Each film will appear on my master list with the updated score.

Best Picture: "12 Years a Slave," 2013

Movie Stats:
Released 2013 (USA)
American & British, in English
Director - Steve McQueen
Stars - Chiwetel Ejiofor, Lupita Nyong’o, Michael Fassbender, and many others you’ll recognize

Plot Summary:
Based on a true story. In 1840s America, when freedman Solomon Northrup (Ejiofor) is kidnapped and sold into slavery, it takes him twelve years to find a way home. Nyong’o co-stars as Patsey, a fellow slave, and Fassbender as Edwin Epps, Solomon’s second slave owner.

Warnings:
Blue language, including liberal use of the n-word; both female and male nudity (full frontal for one female); non-graphic sexy times; rape; and extreme violence.

Bad Stuff:
With a few notable exceptions (Solomon; Patsey; Master Ford, played by Benedict Cumberbatch), I felt that many of the characters were a bit one-dimensional.

I thought the beginning was a little confusing (although I was perhaps not paying close attention at first).

Good Stuff:
Some really great performances. Both Ejiofor and Nyong’o were amazing. I was also really impressed with Fassbender, who played someone really different than other roles I’ve seen him in. He was thoroughly chilling as the unstable Epps.

It covers a topic that I think is really important for Americans to learn more about. Slavery may have been abolished some 150 years ago, but it’s still an integral, and dark, part of our history. It’s still relevant. Even I, someone who is very interested in history, don’t think I knew that they used to kidnap northern freedmen and drag them to the south to be slaves. Movies that show me something I didn’t already know are among my favorite.

The Verdict:
First, a hopefully amusing anecdote. A few weeks ago, I thought to myself, “I better put ‘12 Years a Slave’ on hold at the library because it’s probably popular and it’ll take me a while to get it.” So I went online to the library’s website, only to discover that there were already 108 holds on 26 copies of the movie. Therefore, in order to finish this project before next year, I rented it from iTunes. That’s a singular distinction. I saw the vast majority of these movies by borrowing them from the public library, a handful via Netflix, and a few from my personal collection.

This is one of those movies that you watch not because you particularly want to but because it’s important to. It’s not an easy watch. That’s not just because I don’t enjoy watching people being tortured. It’s because it’s very difficult to accept that people can be this awful to one another. It’s also very difficult to accept that our country was built on the kinds of things that happen in this film. It’s heartbreaking.

The movie was exactly as sickening as I expected it to be. I spent a lot time crying because of it. However, that doesn’t mean I think it was bad. Quite the opposite. The fact that it could make me feel so strongly means that it's a good film. I empathized with, and agonized for, the people who were mistreated here.

You should watch this film. Don’t expect to have a good time while doing so, but you should still do it. 

I give it 4 stars.

Best Picture: "Argo," 2012

Movie Stats:

Released 2012 (USA)

American, in English (some Farsi, both translated and not)

Director - Ben Affleck

Stars - Ben Affleck, Bryan Cranston, John Goodman, Alan Arkin, and many others you’ll recognize

Plot Summary:

Based on true events. During the Iran Hostage Crisis, CIA officer Tony Mendez (Affleck) comes up with a plot to rescue the six Americans who’ve been hiding out at the Canadian Embassy in Tehran by posing them as a Canadian film crew. Cranston co-stars as Mendez’s boss, Jack O’Donnell; Goodman as legendary Hollywood make-up artist John Chambers, who helps Mendez create the fake movie; and Arkin as Lester Siegel, the producer who also assists in creating the fake movie.

Warnings:

Lots of blue language; violence; brief, drawn female nudity (not full frontal).

Bad Stuff:

It’s so dull that it didn’t hold my attention at all.

On a related note, it’s poorly directed. This whole movie should have been an intense thrill-ride. It’s about a CIA agent using the flimsiest of pretexts to help people escape almost-certain death. I should have been on the edge of my seat, heart pounding. I wasn’t. Not a single second of it felt intense to me. No matter what happened, I never felt that their lives were in danger. If they had been, I wouldn’t have cared because I never got to know any of the characters well enough to care about them.

Sometimes I like Ben Affleck as an actor. This is not one of those times. He came across very flat and emotion-less. I felt no connection to his character.

Good Stuff:

As always, Goodman and Arkin were a delight (on a side note, Goodman was also in our last winner, The Artist).

I loved the costumes & styling.

I liked that it was about a historical event about which most Americans know very little.

The Verdict:

Let me take a moment to plug a fantastic book about the Iran Hostage Crisis, Guests of the Ayatollah by Mark Bowden (who is perhaps best known for Black Hawk Down). It’s long but it’s well worth the read. Since it focuses on the hostages that were held in the American Embassy, I don’t think it covers the events portrayed in this movie, or if it does, it does so only briefly (it’s been a few years since I read it). However, it’s still very high on my list of recommendations.

As for this film, I really wanted to like it. Unfortunately, I didn’t. It’s one of those films that the longer it went on, the less I enjoyed it. About an hour in, I found myself thinking, “There’s still another hour of this left? Am I supposed to be feeling as bored as those people who were stuck in the same house for over 2 months straight?” Watching my cat chase her own tail is more entertaining. 

I give the film 2.75 stars.

Best Picture: "The Artist," 2011

Movie Stats:

Released 2011 (France)

French, Belgian & American, in English (the film is actually almost completely silent but all of the scene cards are in English & if you feel like lip reading, it's pretty obvious that they're speaking in English)

Director - Michel Hazanavicius

Stars - Jean Dujardin, Berenice Bejo, Uggie

Plot Summary:

When silent movie star George Valentin (Dujardin) meets young ingenue Peppy Miller (Bejo), sparks fly. However, the arrival of talkies sends their careers, and lives, in opposite directions. Uggie co-stars as The Dog, George’s faithful companion.

Warnings:

One obscene gesture; if you’re especially good at lip reading, you might catch a few naughty words, as I did; some really minor, unrealistic violence.

Bad Stuff:

My only quibble is that this is one of those “light bit of confection” movies. While typically enjoyable to watch, I expect my Oscar winners to be at least a smidgeon deeper.

Good Stuff:

I really liked that the woman got to be the hero for once.

Pretty much everything is awesome: the costumes, the soundtrack, the sets, the dancing, and the sound editing. This is literally the first time in my life that I’ve ever said the words “the sound editing was awesome.”

The leads had great chemistry with each other. I also loved the relationship between George and his loyal butler Clifton (James Cromwell).

The Verdict:

First, I have to say that I had a good laugh toward the beginning of the film when George tried to get back in the good graces of his wife Doris (Penelope Ann Miller) by being cute with The Dog (who is a Jack Russell terrier). My husband does the same thing when I get annoyed with him, and our dog happens to be part Jack Russell. Unfortunately, they don’t do cute tricks together. My husband just holds up the dog in front of his face and says “Please don’t be mad!”

As to the film, it’s a lovely little homage to the early Golden Age of Hollywood. The only word that seems applicable to this kind of movie is “delightful.” There is some amount of deeper meaning here, allusions to the idea that time marches on, and that we must march along with it by learning how to accept what’s new and different. (However, I wouldn’t take the story too much to heart; probably best to accept the passage of time more gracefully than George does.) Mostly, though, it stays on the surface. That’s not a bad thing. I simply felt the film could have packed a stronger punch. 

That having been said, I can’t imagine why you wouldn’t like it. It’s adorable and sweet and fun. If you’re anything like me, you’ll spend most of it smiling and laughing. I give it 4.25 stars.

Best Picture: "The King's Speech," 2010

Movie Stats:

Released 2010 (USA)

American, British & Australian, in English (some brief non-translated German)

Director - Tom Hooper

Stars - Colin Firth, Geoffrey Rush, Helena Bonham Carter

Plot Summary:

Based on true events, when British Prince Albert, aka “Bertie” (Firth), later to become King George VI, is pressured to perform as a public speaker, he turns to  diction coach Lionel Logue (Rush) to help him overcome his prominent stutter. Carter co-stars as Bertie’s devoted wife, Elizabeth.

Warnings:

A significant amount of blue language.

Bad Stuff:

I don’t have any serious complaints about this film. At the beginning, Firth and Carter are both obviously older than the people they’re playing, which is something that my brain has a hard time letting go of. However, I understand that it would be more distracting if they used different actors for younger Bertie & Elizabeth.

Good Stuff:

The cinematography is absolutely gorgeous. There were several scenes that took my breath away.

Fantastic acting. The first time I saw this, I was most impressed by Rush. This time around, it struck me how amazing Firth is. Every scene that he’s in, you can sense what Bertie is feeling, even when he doesn’t speak: his frustration and shame and rage in regards to his stutter, his reluctance to become king, and his love for his wife and children. Carter is great too. I love her in understated roles.

Great soundtrack & the costumes are wonderful.

The Verdict:

I could see why this film wouldn’t be appealing to everyone, especially people who have no interest in the British monarchy, or in history in general (because it has just as much to do with WWII as it does the British monarchy). However, it’s so much more than it appears to be on the surface. This is a film about love and friendship, perseverance and courage, and about doing what we must, even when it’s not what we wish to do. I find it incredibly moving. When I saw it in the theater, I loved it, but I was half-convinced it would be boring a second time around. It wasn’t. It’s sweet and it’s touching. I could see myself watching it at least once a year, and I’d probably get verklempt each time.

I give the film 4.25 stars.

Best Picture Interlude: Another Three Decades' Worth of Ratings

I've finally finished another three decades, so here's your latest "round-up." As always, they're grouped by decade, from least favorite to favorite. To see the 1920s-1940s click HERE. To see the 1950s-1970s click HERE.

1980s
10. The Last Emperor - 2 stars
9. Amadeus - 2.75 stars
8. Chariots of Fire - 3 stars
7. Out of Africa - 3.25 stars
6. Rain Man - 3.5 stars
5. Driving Miss Daisy - 3.75 stars
4. Terms of Endearment - 4.25 stars
3. Gandhi - 4.25 stars
2. Ordinary People - 4.25 stars
1. Platoon - 4.5 stars

1990s
10. Shakespeare in Love - 2.5 stars
9. Titanic - 2.75 stars
8. The English Patient - 2.75 stars
7. Forest Gump - 3 stars
6. Braveheart - 3 stars
5. Unforgiven - 3.25 stars
4. The Silence of the Lambs - 4 stars
3. Dances with Wolves - 4 stars
2. Schindler's List - 4.5 stars
1. American Beauty - 4.75 stars

2000s
10. Crash - 1 star
9. Gladiator - 2.5 stars
8. A Beautiful Mind - 2.75 stars
7. No Country for Old Men - 3.5 stars
6. The Hurt Locker - 4 stars
5. Slumdog Millionaire - 4 stars
4. The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King - 4 stars
3. Million Dollar Baby - 4.25 stars
2. Chicago - 4.25 stars
1. The Departed - 4.5 stars

The 1980s and 90s fared better than I'd expected. While the 2000s has the lowest-rated movie since the 1960s, it wins so far with the highest number of movies that I've given 4 or more stars to (6). (The lowest number, 2, belongs to the 1930s. The 1920s had none but it also only had 2 movies so I don't think it's fair to count it.)

I'm looking forward to wrapping up this project - at least until this year's winner - and coming up with some conclusions. Look for that to happen in the next couple of weeks.

Best Picture: "The Hurt Locker," 2009

Movie Stats:

Released 2008 (Italy at the Venice Film Festival; released U.S. 2009)

American, in English (some mostly non-translated Arabic)

Director – Kathryn Bigelow

Stars – Jeremy Renner, Anthony Mackie, Brian Geraghty

Plot Summary:

When an American bomb unit only 40 days out from completing their rotation in Iraq loses their team leader (Staff Sgt. Matt Thompson, played by Guy Pearce) in an explosion, they quickly find that their new leader, Sgt. 1^st Class William James (Renner), is an unstable adrenaline junkie. Mackie and Geraghty co-star as the other team members, Sgt. J.T. Sanborn and Specialist Owen Eldridge, respectively.

Warnings:

Loads of blue language; lots of war-related violence.

Bad Stuff:

It’s kind of slow.

Some of the camera work is too shaky. I realize that it’s a stylistic choice. It happens to be a stylistic choice that doesn’t normally bother me, but it did here.

Good Stuff:

I’ve never served in the military or been in a war, so I’ll say that this movie feels like what I imagine being in a war would feel like – tedium interspersed with high intensity, chaos, anger, and fear. I like that it doesn’t glorify war, even as some of the characters within it glorify it.

It can be intense in the good way. Not easy to watch but still tremendously satisfying.

I feel like there’s a character in this that everyone could relate to. Some of us would be the naïve Colonel John Cambridge (Christian Camago). Some of us would lack self-confidence and bravado, like Eldridge. Some of us would be a little bit crazy like James. Personally, I related most strongly to Sanborn, who, while scared out of his mind and desperate to stay alive, still strove to do his duty and protect his teammates to the very end.

The Verdict:

When I saw this in the theater, I loved it. I felt like that was just yesterday, so it’s shocking to realize that it was some 5 years ago. This time around, I was a little bit bored. I don’t think the movie truly hits its stride – or perhaps makes it point – until the very end. I love the brief scenes of James trying and failing to re-acclimate to civilian life, especially the scene in the cereal aisle. Nearly twenty years ago, I lived in Germany for a year, where there were only two choices for cereal – cornflakes and Mueslix. When I got home to the U.S., I remember how overwhelming, and ridiculous, American grocery stores felt to me for a while. Therefore, that scene resonated very strongly with me. By the end of the film, I could understand why civilian life wasn’t enough for James any longer, why he was willing to risk death for a little excitement.

Anyway, while I wasn’t quite as enthralled this time around, I still enjoyed it. It’s a good film. And it’s really awesome to finally see a film directed by a woman win Best Picture. She’s also the first woman to win Best Director (while Loveleen Tandan shared a directing credit with Danny Boyle for Slumdog Millionaire – she directed the scenes shot in India – she did not share the Best Director award with him).

I give the film 4 stars.

Best Picture: "Slumdog Millionaire," 2008

Movie Stats:

Released 2008 (USA)

British, in English (lots of mostly translated Hindi)

Directors – Danny Boyle & Loveleen Tandan

Stars – Dev Patel, Freida Pinto

Plot Summary:

When Jamal Malik (Patel), a boy born in the slums of Mumbai, makes it to the final round of the Indian version of “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?” questions arise as to whether he’s been cheating. His life story is told through the lens of a police interrogation. Pinto co-stars as Jamal’s love interest Latika.

Warnings:

A surprising amount of violence, including torture (even of children); some really minor blue language; and brief child nudity (male butt only).

Bad Stuff:

I knew nothing about the film and somehow I’d gotten the impression that it was a happy fun-time musical. Luckily, a friend had recently let me know that my perception was faulty. So, I felt prepared going in. I wasn’t prepared. There are a lot of very disturbing things that happen in this film, especially the torture scenes (even though they aren’t especially graphic). Also, it isn’t a musical at all.

In the beginning, the jumps between Jamal’s distant past, his recent past, and the present were very jarring. It took me a while to get into the flow of it.

I feel like they gave the audience the ending they thought they wanted but I’m not convinced that it felt very true.

Good Stuff:

I liked the story and characters a lot. I particularly enjoyed the way it showed how Jamal knew each of the answers. I liked that each of the characters was very believable, as were their actions. I enjoyed the complex interplay between Jamal and his brother Salim (adult Salim played by Madhur Mittal), love combined with competition and a hint of hate. It felt like a true sibling relationship.

Fantastic soundtrack.

I wouldn’t say that anyone’s acting blew me away (although all the child actors were pretty great) but as an ensemble cast, I thought they played really well off one another.

The Verdict:

I really enjoyed it. The story is both interesting and engrossing. It does a good job of making you care about the characters. I never felt bored. In fact, the time flew by, which is rare amongst Oscar winners, let me tell you (although it’s only 2 hours long, on the short side for one of these). While I don’t consider this movie to be the final authority on Indian economic and caste issues, I still felt like I learned a bit more about a culture I know little about. If you don’t want to see guys get beat up and shot or little kids get tortured, perhaps you should skip this one. Otherwise, you might want to give it a shot. I know I was pleasantly surprised. It wasn’t anything like I thought it was going to be, and ultimately that was a good thing. 

I give the movie 4 stars.

Best Picture: "No Country for Old Men," 2007

Movie Stats:

Released 2007 (France)

American, in English (some mostly non-translated Spanish)

Directors – Joel & Ethan Coen

Stars – Josh Brolin, Javier Bardem, Tommy Lee Jones

Plot Summary:

When Llewelyn Moss (Brolin) stumbles across the aftermath of a major drug deal gone wrong and walks away with the $2 million he finds there, he sets in motion a violent chain of events. Bardem co-stars as Anton Chigurh, the psychopath hired to track Moss down, and Jones as Ed Tom Bell, the sheriff trying to figure out the whole situation.

Warnings:

Extremely graphic violence. If there was any blue language, it was so mild that I didn’t notice it.

Bad Stuff:

The ending is terrible. It didn’t fit with the rest of the film at all. The turn of phrase that comes to mind is “total weaksauce.”

It felt pointless. As you know, I don’t necessarily mind it if films don’t have a grand, important message. The last winner was that way & I loved it. However, the last winner felt like an intense, thrilling ride that kept me on the edge of my seat for nearly three hours. This movie ended and I thought to myself, “Why did I just spend two hours watching that?” It was intense but I wouldn't say that it was entertaining.

Good Stuff:

Where the Coen brothers have always excelled, in my opinion, is in bringing characters to life. Their characters are often interesting, multi-layered, and quirky in fun ways. This movie is no exception to that. Even the most minor of characters was fascinating. Also, I loved all the heavy Texan accents.

Fine performances from everyone, especially Bardem and Brolin. Sometimes, it’s difficult to believe that adult Josh Brolin is the same guy who was a heartthrob that starred in crappy TV shows back in the 1980s and early 90s.

The Verdict:

The Coens are a bit hit and miss for me. I absolutely love some of their movies (“Raising Arizona,” “O Brother, Where Art Thou?”) while feeling “meh” about many of their others (“Fargo,” “The Big Lebowski”). I’d say that this one falls more on the “meh” end of the spectrum. I loved the characters. I loved the actors who played them. However, I felt that the story was lacking. It was great for about the first hour and twenty minutes or so, but then it fell apart, like all the threads didn’t quite weave together right. In the end, I was dissatisfied. 

I give the film 3.5 stars.

Best Picture: "The Departed," 2006

Movie Stats:

Released 2006 (USA)

American & Hong Kongian (?), in English (some non-translated Cantonese)

Director – Martin Scorsese

Stars – Leonardo DiCaprio, Matt Damon, Jack Nicholson, Mark Wahlberg, and many others

Plot Summary:

While undercover cop Billy Costigan (DiCaprio) tries to get close enough to big-time crime boss Frank Costello (Nicholson) to make a bust, Frank’s man Colin Sullivan (Damon) infiltrates the police department. It’s a race to see who discovers who first. Wahlberg co-stars as Dignam, one of the heads of the undercover department.

Warnings:

Lots of graphic violence; copious blue language, including racial epithets; and heavily implied sexy times.

Bad Stuff:

Madolyn Madden (Vera Farmiga) is the worst psychotherapist ever. Plus, her character is pretty useless. Not even sure why she’s there.

All the rat imagery is a bit heavy-handed for me, especially the scene at the very end. When I saw it in the theater, I actually groaned in embarrassment at that scene.

It’s a little bit too long.

Good Stuff:

The performances are phenomenal. They’re what make this film. Everyone is so good that it’s a little difficult to single out the best, but I think my favorites are DiCaprio and Wahlberg. I’ve always thought that DiCaprio is a great actor, but he’s magnificent here, so expressive and wounded. Watching his character fall apart is as fascinating as it is sad. As for Wahlberg, his character cracks me up. He’s such an abrasive jerk and yet he’s still likable because he’s trying to do the right thing.

It’s intense in the best kind of way. Who’s going to get caught? Who’s going to get away with it? Is anyone going to get killed? You just know something bad is going to happen but you don’t know when and that leaves you squirming. Even though I’d seen it before, I was still on the edge of my seat the second time around.

Great soundtrack.

The Verdict:

I really like this movie. It’s not trying to teach you any lessons (except maybe that snitches get stitches). It doesn’t have anything momentous to say. It’s simply a very well done thriller, and sometimes that’s a good thing. Not all Oscar winners have to be cerebral. If you don’t like blood or physical violence or the death of a major character (or swearing), then this movie probably isn’t for you. I don’t typically mind that kind of stuff, but there’s one death in particular that was a bit gruesome even for me.

The reason to see this movie is the quality acting. Even Nicholson, who I generally find to be somewhat one-note, is great here (he doesn’t go all crazy-eyed wise-guy until the end). On a shallow note, this film reminded me of why I had such a huge crush on Leonardo DiCaprio for years. He’s insanely hot here, even as he scowls his way (understandably) through the whole thing. 

I give the film 4.5 stars.

Best Picture: "Crash," 2005

Movie Stats:

Released 2004 (Canada; 2005 in the USA)

American, in English (some Persian, both translated and not; minimal non-translated other languages)

Director – Paul Haggis

Stars – Don Cheadle, Matt Dillon, Thandie Newton, Sandra Bullock, and many others

Plot Summary:

It’s a bunch of intertwined stories about race relations in Los Angeles. Cheadle stars as Det. Graham Waters; Dillon as Officer John Ryan; Newton as Christine Thayer; and Bullock as Jean Cabot.

Warnings:

Tons of blue language (including practically every racial slur imaginable); violence; heavily implied sexy times; non-consensual sexual touch; and brief female nudity (breasts only).

Bad Stuff:

Watching this movie is like being bludgeoned for two hours. That is to say, it overstates its case. If you’re a regular reader, you’ll know that I dislike movies that lack subtlety. This movie has no subtlety whatsoever. Literally none. Zero. To me, racism is a very serious topic. It requires a serious discussion. I don’t believe that this movie is a part of that discussion. It’s like an afterschool special, trying to show you the evils of racism in the most overblown way possible. It’s ridiculous.

It thinks very highly of itself, like it’s so clever and edgy. “Oh, look at us, nice girl Sandy Bullock plays a mean racist! We say the n-word a lot! We totally deserve an Oscar!” Apparently the Academy agreed.

I don’t like movies that rely too heavily on coincidences. For example, [SPOILER] I simply don’t believe that the cop who molested a lady at a traffic stop would happen to be at the right place at the right time the following day to save her life. I also don’t believe that his partner would happen to be at the right place at the right time in a different situation to save her husband [SPOILER]. I’m not capable of suspending my disbelief that far.

Good Stuff:

I enjoyed the performances of Cheadle, Dillon and Michael Pena (as Daniel Ruiz).

The Verdict:

As most of you know, I loathe this movie. I saw it when it came out in the theater and thought it was dreadful. I was open to changing my mind. Perhaps, I thought, I was in a bad mood the day I saw it.

Nope. This movie is dreadful. It’s two hours of people hurling racial epithets at each other. Nearly everyone in the film is a raging a-hole. (The only likable character is Daniel Ruiz and the movie tries to tug at your heartstrings even more by giving him an adorable daughter, which was unnecessary because the character was plenty likable without her). It’s unpleasant. To me, it feels like a bunch of actors play-acting at being racist in a very obvious bid for an Oscar. Also, the dialogue is terrible (and not just because of all the racial slurs).

The whole thing is a hot mess. I don’t know why you would watch it. I don’t think that you should. Want to see a great Best Picture winner about racism? Try In the Heat of the Night.

I give the movie 1 star.

Best Picture: "Million Dollar Baby," 2004

Movie Stats:

Released 2004 (USA)

American, in English (very minimal non-translated German; minimal translated Gaelic)

Director – Clint Eastwood

Stars – Clint Eastwood, Hilary Swank, Morgan Freeman

Plot Summary:

Plucky, would-be fighter Maggie Fitzgerald (Swank) worms her way into the heart of grizzled old boxer-turned-gym-owner-and-trainer Frankie Dunn (Eastwood) and works her way up to the championship game. Freeman co-stars as Frankie’s long-time friend and gym manager, Eddie “Scrap-Iron” Dupree.

Warnings:

Minimal blue language; boxing-related violence.

Bad Stuff:

The foreshadowing was really heavy-handed. I actually chuckled when the “bad” fighter (Billie the Blue Bear, played by Lucia Rijker) turned up for the final fight in a robe that made her look like an evil sorceress. It was silly.

As much as I love Morgan Freeman’s voice (who doesn’t?), the narration bugged me the whole movie until they revealed at the end why he was doing it. Then it made sense but that was seriously about two minutes before the film ended.

It’s a touch over-sentimental.

Good Stuff:

I loved the relationships between the characters. The obvious focal point was the father-daughter-like relationship between Frankie and Maggie, which was both touching and realistic. I personally enjoyed the friendship between Frankie and Scrap. You could tell that these men had known and loved each other for decades. A “lesser” relationship I adored was the one between Scrap and “Danger,” played by Jay Baruchel. It was so subtle and sweet.

Fantastic performances by all the key players.

The dialogue is great.

The Verdict:

I didn’t want to like this film. I’ve never been particularly interested in the premise so it hasn’t been on my list of “oh, I always wanted to see that.” I thought it sounded kind of dumb. I was wrong.

This is a great film. I really enjoyed it. The relationships are the best part. It’s tremendously satisfying to be a fly on the wall, witnessing the long-term friendship between Frankie and Scrap, and watching the love build between Frankie and Maggie. It’s also very touching. I’ve heard a lot of people say that this movie is depressing. While it does have a sad ending, I didn’t find it depressing. I thought that it was beautiful. Of course, I’ve always been a sucker for stories that involve people doing whatever it takes for the people they love.

I give the movie 4.25 stars.