Thoughts on the 2013 Best Picture Nominees

So although I haven't viewed all of the 2013 Best Picture nominees (for various reasons), I just want to discuss the five that I have seen: Django Unchained, Life Of Pi, Silver Linings Playbook, Beasts of the Southern Wild, and Argo. I still desperately want to see Amour but haven't got the chance to yet (when flying on Austrian Airlines this summer, they offered the film on their in-flight entertainment service, but it didn't have English subtitles). I have little interest in seeing Les Miserables, mainly because of a poor Metascore and the fact that I have heard much about its cheesiness and poor singing from some lead roles. I also am not particularly interested in seeing Lincoln, as I really am not much of a Spielberg fan. I find his films quite overrated (or at least the ones I've seen). Finally, I'd like to see Zero Dark Thirty at some point, but I am afraid if it is shot in a manner similar to Hurt Locker (director Kathryn Bigelow's last film) I wouldn't be able to stomach it - the extreme shaky camera of the latter film actually made me physically nauseous. Without further adieu, here's the lowdown on these five fine films:

Argo 
Director: Ben Affleck
Country: United States
IMDB: 7.9
Metacritic: 86
RT: 96%

CinemaChagrin's Rating: B+

Watch this movie if you enjoy:

• Excellent writing, acting, direction
• Phenomenal film editing
• Tense chases and lots of suspense
• 'Murica

Avoid this film if you dislike:

• Historical inaccuracies ("Hollywoodization")
• Ben Affleck 

Django Unchained 
Director: Quentin Tarantino
Country: United States
IMDB: 8.5
Metacritic: 81
RT: 88%

CinemaChagrin's Rating: B+

Watch this movie if you enjoy:

• Dynamite acting performances
• Incredibly witty, funny, and intelligent dialogue
• Tarantino's unique method of storytelling and visual style
• Over-the-top action and violence
• Westerns

Avoid this movie if you dislike:

• Brutal depictions of slavery
• Lots of profanity and extreme violence/gore/torture
• Quentin Tarantino films
• Westerns

Silver Linings Playbook 
Director: David O. Russell
Country: United States
IMDB: 7.9
Metacritic: 81
RT: 92%

CinemaChagrin's Rating: B+

Watch this movie if you enjoy: 

• Unconventional protagonists
• Witty, funny, yet serious screenplays
• Excellent acting
• Robert DeNiro and/or Jennifer Lawrence

Avoid this movie if you dislike:

• [Literally] insane protagonists
• Lots of profanity
• Unconventional characters/storytelling

Beasts of the Southern Wild
Director: Benh Zeitlin
Country: United States
IMDB: 7.3
Metacritic: 86
RT: 86%

CinemaChagrin's Rating: B+

Watch this movie if you enjoy:

• Incredibly natural acting
• Breathtaking scenery
• Mature fantasy films
• Gorgeous soundtracks

Avoid this movie if you dislike:

• Shaky-cam cinematography
• Abusive characters
• Extreme poverty and hardship
• Occasionally nonsensical plot points

Life of Pi

Director: Ang Lee

Country: United States, Taiwan, United Kingdom

IMDB: 8.1

Metacritic: 79

RT: 87%

CinemaChagrin's Rating: A-

Watch this movie if you enjoy:

• Breathtaking and groundbreaking visual effects
• Gorgeous and sweeping cinematography
• Insightful philosophical and religious questions
• Epic adventure films
• The actual novel

Avoid this movie if you dislike:

• Oftentimes minimal dialogue
• Occasionally excessive use of CGI
• Potentially inconclusive film endings
• Animals dying

So as you can see from my ratings, my favorite of the bunch is the breathtakingly beautiful epic film, Life of Pi. I heartily agreed with the Academy's decision to award Ang Lee an Oscar for Best Direction. The cinematography and visual effects were absolutely incredible. The film features an extraordinarily rich range of colors and textures as well. In fact,  Life of Pi oftentimes seems like a series of increasingly breathtaking visual spectacles interspersed with solemn pontificating on the meaning of life. The film also raises interesting religious and philosophical questions and features excellent acting from all of the leads, especially newcomer Suraj Sharma. After seeing the eventual Best Picture winner, Argo, I must say I think Life of Pi deserved it more.

One of many breathtaking stills from Life of Pi

That is taking away absolutely nothing from Argo. In fact, I think the Academy may have awarded the top prize to Affleck's exciting movie simply because of its pure technical proficiency. Argo has no weaknesses across the board - it features strong acting, writing, and editing especially. Yet despite Argo's technical strengths, I couldn't shake feeling that there really isn't much substance behind the film's glossy surface . Story-wise, it plays out like a run-of-the-mill Hollywood thriller, albeit with outstanding production values.

Quentin Tarantino's latest film, Django Unchained, represented a much stronger effort than 2009's Inglorious Basterds. The film's strong point is Tarantino's trademark (and Oscar-winning) dialogue, along with dynamite performances from the entire cast (especially Jackson, DiCaprio, and Waltz). Tarantino's excellent visual style and an awesome soundtrack also contribute to the overall quality of the film. However, Django Unchained does suffer some inconsistent pacing and sloppy editing at times.

I enjoyed Silver Linings Playbook - it's a wonderful little film but I don't think it's in the same category as any of the other Best Picture nominees I've seen. Well made, written, and acted, but nothing really standout (at least to me). Way above average mix of a quirky-family comedy and rom-com. 

Finally, that brings me to Beasts of the Southern Wild, an absolutely outstanding debut effort by rookie director Benh Zeitlin. A rich and engrossing fairy tale taking place in a quasi-post-apocalyptic floodplain in the Louisiana Bayou, the film features wonderfully natural acting, gorgeous scenery, and an earthy and heartwarming soundtrack. Quvenzhane Wallis and Dwight Henry as daughter and father are absolutely incredible given their non-acting backgrounds. The film takes a good hard look at how poverty affects the way people live and interact, and highlights the inherent strength of familial and community ties. The film's plot is a bit of a mess at times, but as a whole, Beasts of the Southern Wild is a phenomenal film. I will definitely be looking out for Mr. Zeitlin's films in the future.

Hushpuppy (Wallis) afloat on a makeshift raft in Beasts of the Southern Wild

So there are my (hopefully coherent) musings on the 2013 Best Picture nominees I've seen. My next post will probably be a more straight-up review, but this was a fun exercise in comparing films!

-CC

Overrated and Overstated - SCARFACE

SCARFACE

1983 - 170 Minutes - Crime/Drama

Director: Brian De Palma

Country: United States

IMDB: 8.3

Metacritic: 65

RT: 89%

EpicEnthusiast's Rating: 6/10

Watch this movie if you enjoy: 

• violence/gore

• crime/drugs/mob

• Michelle Pfeiffer

Avoid this movie if you dislike:

• violence/gore

• a weak screenplay

• poor characterization/acting

• montages

(minor spoilers and language below)

"Scarface is one of special movies, like "The Godfather," that is willing to take a flawed, evill man and allow him to be human," - Roger Ebert - Chicago Sun-Times

"A beautiful, at times poetic exercise in excess from Brian De Palma." - TV Guide

"Performances are excellent, and despite its moralistic conclusion, the film has since become de rideur for crack baron, who know a good shoot-em-ep when they see one." 

- Andy Gill - Empire

Well... not exactly. 

Brian De Palma's Scarface celebrated it's 30th anniversary this year, and is renowned as a crime saga classic. Al Pacino stars as Tony Montana, a Cuban immigrant who decides he wants to take Miami by storm, and become a drug lord. In the process, he fights back agaisnt extreme violence, kills off his bosses in the hope of taking their positions, and is seemingly unfazed by any and all obstacles. He woos a beautiful woman (Michelle Pfeiffer as Elvira Hancock), buys a massive mansion and takes control of the south Florida drug landscape. The story had promise, but Brian De Palma and company failed to execute. Scarface is a poorly done, extravagant film that is basely placed among the crime classics. 

Headlining the negative features is lean man Al Pacino. He was surely the ideal actor for the role in 1983, coming off huge performances in the 70's like "The Godfather," "The Godfather Part ll," "Serpico," and "Dog Day Afternoon." He was smack in the middle of his prime, and familiar with a crime-oriented role. Hell, he even sort of looked Cuban. He's a favorite actor of mine, but his acting in Scarface was all too fake. While he may resemble a Cuban, his attempt at a Cuban accent was bothersome. It felt forced and unnatural, and sparked flashbacks from his Italian role in "The Godfather" as Michael Corleone. Italy is where his actual decent lies, and he was much more believable as an Italian. Worse than the accent though, was his overall body language. Everything he did, from walking and talking to smoking and shooting was exaggerated and over the top. He spoke loudly, almost yelling in unneeded settings. His presence as a powerful and ambitious figure was clear, but almost too clear. Some claim that he acted this way because he was constantly abusing cocaine. (the prominent drug in the film) I don't buy it, but even if I did, I wouldn't dismiss the overblown mannerisms. Pacino had a role in "Heat" where his character (a homicide detective) was a little wacky sometimes, but it was given to us in small doses. This was non-stop, and it was just too much. His dialogue was also poor, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and point the finger at screenwriter Oliver Stone for that one. 

Al Pacino as Tony Montana

Speaking of Stone's script, it was cliched and immature. It featured a lot of dialogue that seemed abnormal and unfitting. At times, it was even comical:

"I'm Tony Montana! You fuck with me, you fuckin' with the best!" - Tony Montana

"You know what? Fuck you! How about that?" - Tony Montana 

"The only thing in this world that gives orders... is balls." - Tony Montana 

Again, I blame Stone more so than Pacino here, but it just couldn't be taken seriously. In his quote above, the late Roger Ebert claimed that Tony Montana was humanized, but I disagree. I don't think any of the characters in Scarface resembled real people, and it really weakened the plot. And let's not forget about the most famous of them all: "Say Hello to My Little Friend!' This phrase has literally become a brand name over the years, and it's quite puzzling. The line is random, out of place, and prefaced by a snort of cocaine. It's the most overrated line in film history. 

Seriously?

"Uh, hello little friend..."

Perhaps what I disliked most about Scarface (because I focus so much on them) was the relationship between Tony Montana and Elvira Hancock. The basis has been done a million times: "My boss has a hot wife, I think I'll find a way to capture her." But to make matters worse, it was done in a horrible manner. To be expected, Hancock despises Montana to begin with. He's a disgusting immigrant that calls her "baby." Okay, fine by me. Then as he climbs up the crime ladder, she allows him to sit poolside and ask her to have babies with him. Excuse me? And by the final third of the film, they're getting married in a laughable montage. There was no expression of real feelings, no substance, and no timeframe for any of it. Hancock came off as a pretty housewife that couldn't think for herself, and that wanted nothing more than money. It's possible that that is precisely what she was supposed to be, bit either way it didn't work. 

Al Pacino and Michelle Pfeiffer in Scarface

The last thing I'd like to add regarding Scarface is it's recognition. While many see it as one of the great films of all time, it was never nominated for an Oscar. In fact, Brian De Palma was even nominated for WORST director by Razzies, who gives out awards for worst film aspects in the Academy's categories. Not all great films get heavy attention at the Oscars, but many do. It was almost as if Al Pacino and the cast were attempting to make fun of these Oscar-winning mob movies. Jay Carr of the Boston Globe concurs: 

"It plays like a crude "Godfather" parody, the sort that might amuse a 10-minute sketch on "Saturday Night live," but curdles and collapses as a 143-minute film." [09 Dec 1983]

The film is actually well overlong at 170 minutes, but was edited for the theaters upon release in 1983. Clearly, Carr didn't think chopping 27 minutes helped any. 

Overall, Scarface fails in all the major categories of a successful crime drama: A strong script, believable and necessary violence, and convincing relationships. It's poorly acted (even from the great Al Pacino), and lacks a serious tone. Decent cinematography and some cool visual effects keep it from being a total bomb, but it remains one of the most overrated films ever made.

- EE


If you're a fan of well-done mob movies, I recommend the following titles:

• Goodfellas
• The Godfather 
• The Godfather Part ll
• Casino
• The Departed 
• Donnie Brasco
• American Gangster
• Eastern Promises

LET'S TALK ABOUT DRIVE

DRIVE

2011 - 100 minutes - Crime/Drama
Director: Nicolas Winding Refn 
Country: United States
IMDB: 7.9
Metacritic: 78
RT: 93%

CinemaChagrin's Rating: 7/10
EpicEnthusiast's Rating: 9/10

(a couple very minor spoilers below)

Hey everybody, CC here. Todaymy colleague EE and I are going to have a conversation about Drive. He's big fan, me not so much. We'll talk about what we like about the film, what we (I) don't like about it, and give you a good idea of what to expect from Drive.

CC: EE initially recommended this film to me. I take his recommendations very seriously, so I watched it the first chance I got, which happened to be in a retro movie theater in Brussels, Belgium. Watching a film on the big screen is always the best way to go. And although I did enjoy the movie overall, I also had some big qualms with it. What about you, EE?

EE: Personally, I would have loved to see Drive in theaters. Visually it's one of the most appealing films I've ever seen. We're immediately immersed in an absorbing, modern atmosphere, and the bright lights of Los Angeles are displayed throughout. The cinematography is masterful. It spotlights the action using unique camera angles, and emphasized views of the actors. (Ryan Gosling, Carey Mulligan, Bryan Cranston, etc.) It features an upbeat, techno-based soundtrack that molds perfectly with the story. However, what I love most about Drive is the subtle, yet extraordinary partnership between the two main characters. 

CC: I have to agree with EE on a lot of his points - Drive actually has a lot of elements that really appealed to me. For one, it looks gorgeous. Shot in neo-noir style featuring bright neon colors and long shots, the film is definitely a beauty. The accompanying 80's-esque soundtrack is also just plain awesome and perfectly embodies the general moodiness of the film. Los Angeles looks and feels cool in Drive, especially the nighttime scenes (which evoke a noir feel). The actual driving/chase scenes are extremely well done and incredibly tense. I just wish there was more of them! I felt the title of the film was a misnomer of sorts, as not a whole lot of actual driving takes place. 

EE: So if the title were different, the lack of car chases would be acceptable? 

CC: Haha, that's really only a minor quibble. But the whole title of the film is Drive, after all, so I was hoping for a little more in that department. I'm always a big fan of a good car chase. What really irked me about the film is that I felt that not a lot really went on aside from the visuals on screen. The main lead is essentially a static character and pretty unlikeable, and there is really no one to root for in this film. All in my humble opinion, of course! 

EE: Alright first of all, the car chases that did make it into the film should have satisfied you, because they were extremely well done. Second and more importantly, The Driver (Ryan Gosling) was in fact static... before he met Irene (Carey Mulligan) The entire story is based upon how he meets her and feels something he never has before. He suddenly feels like he needs to protect her and her son Benicio. He's a stone cold badass that is transformed and captivated by the untouched feeling of connection. 

Carey Mulligan and Ryan Gosling in Drive

CC: I don't really feel like Drive captured any sort of relationship between The Driver and Irene/Benicio, unspoken or otherwise. I guess you could say that Ryan Gosling's irritatingly imperceptible smirk could qualify as emotional involvement, but I disagree. If one says the film was attempting a "neo-noir" style, then I think it failed in this regard. The Driver in no way resembles a classic noir male lead (not necessarily an issue), but he doesn't convey much of anything when so much of the film supposedly relies on the relationship between him and Irene/Benicio. One of my favorite neo-noirs, the classic science fiction film Blade Runner, features a flat and emotionless protagonist just like Drive. However, the visuals of Blade Runner serve as the primary focus of the film while answering insightful philosophical questions. Drive, on the other hand, attempts to use visuals to portray emotional connections. I think it failed in this regard. 

EE: You don't always need dialogue to convey emotions CC. Have you ever just looked at someone and smiled for no apparent reason? If you haven't, I feel bad for you son, because you've got 99 feelings, but love ain't one. But seriously, sometimes you just simply don't need words. With proper camera work and strong actors, you can mimic a true connection. To me, it's clear that both sides really enjoyed spending time with each other, and not just for their looks. Locking of the eyes and simultaneous smiles depict a rare and meaningful relation. Let's also keep in mind that she is married here. So even though she knows that her husband isn't the guy for her, she can't just jump all over The Driver. (like most girls would like to) 

CC: I'm glad you brought up looks, because lots of movies tend to throw to very attractive leads in a situation with minimal exposition/dialogue, and expect the audience to "create" an emotional connection out of thin air. I think Drive is somewhat guilty of this. 

EE: Let's give Ryan Gosling and Carey Mulligan some credit here. If acting consisted of just being attractive and starring at other attractive people, I'd be an actor myself. It doesn't. It requires a lot of talent, and both these actors have that. Gosling dominated the screen throughout the film, and gave off a reserved, yet gripping sense of power. 

CC: You must have an interesting definition of attraction then, ha! All joking aside, I'd like to bring up my last issue with Drive: its unrelenting, brutal, and unnecessary levels of violence. I consider myself to have a strong stomach when it comes to movies, having seen all kinds of gore and violent acts depicted on screen. The violence in Drive is borderline pornographic and fulfills no function whatsoever aside from titillating gorehounds and disgusting the rest of us. The gore and violence in the film seemed straight out of a crazy horror/sci-fi film. I have no problem whatsoever with gore/violence if it serves a purpose and is done well. Drive's violence is done extremely well and looks quite convincing and realistic. However, I don't think that level of violence was necessary for the story that the film was trying to tell. It felt very out of place and jarring. 

A moment of silence before The Driver strikes

EE: Again, it all has to do with protection. He meets two people, connects with them, and begins to care deeply for them. The violence is merely a representation of how far he's willing to go to keep them safe. In perhaps the bloodiest scene of them all, it ends with a long shot of The Driver's blood-smeared face. It's an expression of shock, fear, and disbelief. I'm under the impression that he wouldn't have acted violently if he didn't have to. He doesn't run around kicking skulls in for fun. In each violence sequence, he was attacked or threatened. They weren't only acts of self defense, but also acts of defending others. 

CC: I understand what you are getting at, I just think his affection for those under his protection could have been conveyed without the over-the-top gore effects. Just my $.02.

CC: Well I think we have definitely covered a lot of ground on the controversial film Drive. To sum up, for me Drive is a beautifully shot and expertly crafted film that is ultimately hollow. It tries and fails to establish a connection between the main character and the supporting cast, and features excessive and unnecessary violence. However, Drive isn't a bad film overall, and is still worth checking out if the plot seems intriguing or you are drawn to visually striking films. 

EE: Enjoyed the discussion CC. As you said, Drive is a stunning film. Unlike you though, I believe the beauty goes beyond the production values. I think Nicolas Winding Refn, Hossein Amini (screenplay) and James Sallis (book) did a stellar job of portraying human emotions, and adding strong dialogue where necessary. Depending on your view, the film goes much deeper than your typical crime drama. In regards to CC's qualm with the violence, I quote Peter Hartlaub of the San Francisco Chronicle: 

"Mainstream audiences will probably be confounded by Drive, while lovers of gritty filmmaking will defend every exaggerated shotgun wound as art. Know which camp you're in before you enter the theater." 

While CC and I are both lovers of gritty filmmaking, we're definitely in separate camps when it comes to Drive. Though, if you can tolerate the violence, I highly recommend giving it a chance. A very well made film that will keep you thoroughly entertained and visually amazed. 

- CC & EE


If you don't decide to check out Drive, at least take a listen to its awesome soundtrack: 

The rest of the soundtrack can be found here:

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9K7rmxjk5RQ&list=PL8AF7F89F397B8941