The LAMB Devours the Oscars - Best Picture: The King's Speech

Editor's note: Welcome to the last of a 33-part series dissecting the 83rd Academy Awards, brought to you by the Large Association of Movie Blogs and its assorted members. Every day leading up to the Oscars, a new post written by a different LAMB will be published, each covering a different category of the Oscars. To read any other posts regarding this event, please click the tag following the post. Thank you, and enjoy!

by Jenny from 10 Things I Hate* about your movie

If The King’s Speech earned a nickel every time the term “feel-good” or, more recently, “Oscar-bait,” was thrown around, well, they’d make a lot more money than they already have.  Personally, I am not a fan of the term “feel-good.”  Anytime I see, “The feel-good movie of the year!” splashed across an ad, the phrase makes me want to run in the other direction.  It seems too syrupy, too exaggerated—it can’t make everyone feel that way, right?  And I don’t like being told how I’m going to feel.  Just let me experience it for myself.

But this film absolutely left me feeling warm and happy and, in a word, good.  And not just because our underdog triumphs in the end.  It felt good because it is a good story told well.

As for the “Oscar-bait” thing, I think that phrase creates an atmosphere of judgment in which you can no longer see the story for itself, but only for the boxes it tics on an imaginary Academy checklist.  And then you’re thinking about the politics.  I’m not saying the Oscars aren’t about politics (we all know they are), and maybe people do tend to vote a certain way.  But since I don’t understand that process whatsoever, I don’t care.  I’m looking for the best storytelling, as created by the cinematography, the writing, the acting, the choices, the music, how it made me feel, what I came away with, and all that mushy subjective whatnot that goes into art and stuff.  It can certainly be argued that this is a more traditional film.  Maybe that’s not your cup of Earl Grey, but I don’t think anyone should shy away just because it may share some common denominators with past Oscar winners.  But that’s just me being defensive.  Let’s go back to the beginning.

As you probably already know, The King’s Speech tells the based-on-history story of Prince Albert (or Bertie), Duke of York, and his stutter.  That is to say, we follow how Bertie worked with (and befriended) Lionel Logue, an unconventional speech therapist, to overcome his debilitating stutter, all while also becoming King George VI just in time for World War II.  The film begins with a speech, his famously disastrous first attempt at radio-recorded public speaking at Wembley in 1925, and ends with a speech, his broadcast to the nation on the eve of war in 1939.  In the intervening 100 or so minutes, we watch this stuttering second son become a king.

I didn’t know this piece of British history before the film and apparently the movie takes a few liberties with historical timelines, but the manipulation of events for dramatic purposes is nothing new.  In any case, there really was a Bertie, who really had a stutter, who really became king when his brother Edward abdicated the throne in 1936, just in time to really be in charge as his country prepared to enter World War II.  All of which happened in an era of radio broadcasts, making things a bit difficult for a public figure who could not speak in public.  After all, who could have faith in a leader who can’t even speak?  It becomes important that Bertie overcome his stutter, not only to prove to his father that he is as good as his older brother, or to prove to his country that he can be king, but to prove to the world that he can guide Great Britain through the trying and painful times ahead in World War II.  We aren’t just watching a moving personal story (which would probably still be a good movie, especially with these actors).  Over the course of the film, the stakes are pushed higher and higher, moving seamlessly from personal to global significance.  And I think such built-in symbolism, micro to macro, in an essentially true story no less, is pretty damn sweet (to use a technical term). 

In thinking about why Bertie’s eventual triumph feels so good, I realized that with the nerves, high stakes, and public settings of his speeches, the movie can be paralleled to the classic underdog sports film format.  The sport may be public speaking, but Bertie is the underdog, he has a trainer, faces one hell of a big final “game,” and what bigger opponent could there be than the Nazis?  There is even a training montage!  But I don’t think this fact should be seen as reductive.  Rather, the format provides a very clear goal with a very clear obstacle, making for a well-crafted story in which nothing is wasted.  Though I suppose it could also seem old or a little too familiar to some.

In Entertainment Weekly, director Tom Hooper said his movie is “full of me actually challenging what you’d expect from this kind of film,” and that his goals were “to subvert, to be unconventional.”  While I’m not sure “unconventional” is a term that I would use to describe The King’s Speech (that’s a hard word to use around the Royal Family in general), I think the film deserves more than to be written off as Oscar-bait.

For me, it’s the performances that make the film so successful.  As King George VI, Colin Firth is brilliant and deserves that Best Actor Oscar.  He completely embodies his speech impediment, struggling with every fiber of his being to speak well, and his portrayal is the reason we feel his pain and cheer so loudly for him to succeed.  But while Firth is talented and likeable as he always has been, and would still be brilliant on his own, you wouldn’t have such a great performance from him or such a wonderful movie overall without Geoffrey Rush as Lionel Logue.  I was lucky enough to see Rush on Broadway in the play Exit the King and he was not only the best part of that show but the best performance I saw that year.  I learned firsthand what a masterful actor he is (something that I somehow did not get from seeing him play a hammy pirate… strange).  As Logue, he is a joy to watch – funny and lovely and at the tip top of his game, and the man plays a damn good game.  He elevates each scene in which he appears and the partnership between these two actors who are so fully present is what you’re there to see.  Their long scenes together are actually quite untraditional and a luxury, but then this is also a film about their friendship.  In the same Entertainment Weekly (clearly the Oscar coverage one, right?), Rush said that when they read the script they thought, “Who will want to see this film about two middle-aged men who become friends?”  When those men are Firth and Rush?  Yes, please, count me in.

I personally think The King’s Speech should win.  Not because it has a lot of the elements that the Academy traditionally rewards, but because it is a great film.  I will absolutely admit that I have not seen all of the Best Picture nominees, but this was the best film I saw last year.  Beautifully shot, fabulously acted, and telling a great story. 

Also, extra points because it has the best use of swearing that I have seen in a long time, possibly ever.  (If that was a category, it would be no contest.)

And, dammit, you’ll leave the film feeling good.  Tits.

The LAMB Devours the Oscars - Best Picture: Toy Story 3

Editor's note: Welcome to the thirtieth of a 33-part series dissecting the 83rd Academy Awards, brought to you by the Large Association of Movie Blogs and its assorted members. Every day leading up to the Oscars, a new post written by a different LAMB will be published, each covering a different category of the Oscars. To read any other posts regarding this event, please click the tag following the post. Thank you, and enjoy!

by Castor from Anomalous Material

Toy Story 3 picks up with a grown-up Andy getting ready to leave for college. His mother has him empty his room by forcing him to either take his possession with him, storing them in the attic, or tossing them in the garbage. Andy, faithful to his companion of 17 years, decides to take Woody with him but puts all the other toys in a garbage bag for storage in the attic. Through a series of mishaps and misunderstandings, Woody and his companion soon find themselves being “donated” to Sunnyside Daycare with most of the toys now believing that Andy abandoned them for garbage disposal. Welcomed by a grandfatherly teddy bear named Lotso, the daycare initially appears to be a heaven for toys. That is until our friends meet the youngest children –not the most delicate beings after all– and discover the truth about the inner-workings of the place. It is up to Woody to free his friends from the authoritarian group of toys which reigns with an iron fist over Sunnyside.

As we have come to expect from Pixar, the film is visually pleasing and technically masterful. The story-telling albeit unoriginal is still highly effective and engaging throughout. What is surprising to me is that this movie is clearly oriented to children and yet, it takes the turn for the dark, the grim and even the creepy. One of the main antagonist is Big Baby, a semi-nightmarish baby doll with one broken eye and a creepy laugh. Needless to say, Big Baby would have no problem fitting in some horror movies so I would strongly think before taking the youngest children to see this film. The young-ins may also be distressed to find that when our protagonists fall into a fatal trap with no way out, they silently resolve themselves for their imminent ending, holding hands and staring death in the face. This is also what makes Toy Story 3 a good animation: For once, it doesn’t only cater to children and finds way to unleash torrents of emotions in the most simple of ways.

The comedy albeit mostly funny is somewhat disappointingly cheap with humor about farts, effeminacy (a.k.a. gay jokes) and latino culture peppered throughout. Despite that, the underlying themes of the franchise such as friendship, loyalty and fear of rejection remain as strong as ever. The meaning behind the metaphors are rather vague and this may well be why this movie is so mass-appealing and affecting. For many, it may be about those beloved toys of our childhood. For parents, it may be about watching their kids grow up and leave for college and adulthood. For others, it may be about aging and death. Director Lee Unkrich manages to punctuate the franchise with an happy albeit bittersweet ending which is sure to pull on the heartstrings. Who would have thought a bunch of inanimate objects can leave you with a little lump in the throat as you leave the movie theater?

A loving and resonant farewell to the franchise, Toy Story 3 will satisfy children and adults alike.

The LAMB Devours the Oscars - Best Picture: The Social Network

Editor's note: Welcome to the twenty-sixth of a 33-part series dissecting the 83rd Academy Awards, brought to you by the Large Association of Movie Blogs and its assorted members. Every day leading up to the Oscars, a new post written by a different LAMB will be published, each covering a different category of the Oscars. To read any other posts regarding this event, please click the tag following the post. Thank you, and enjoy!

by Tom of Movie Reviews by Tom Clift

It seems like only yesterday when the blogosphere – myself included – was condemning the premise of David Fincher’s The Social Network as an utterly preposterous idea for a movie, and a colossal waste of a very talented director’s time. After all, how could they possibly make a movie about Facebook into something worth seeing? Yet as we count down the days to the 83rd Annual Academy Awards, that very same movie now finds itself one of the forerunners in the hotly contested Best Picture race. With a phenomenal and deeply nuanced screenplay by "West Wing" scribe Aaron Sorkin, an electrifying, propulsive score by Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross, rich dark digital cinematography from frequent Fincher collaborator Jeff Cronenweth, and one of the best ensemble casts of under thirty actors ever assembled, The Social Network is somehow one of the most discerning, enthralling and exhilarating motion pictures of the fledgling decade, and proof that under the guidance of a director as bold and meticulousness as David Fincher, even the most pedestrian subject matter can be turned into something great.

By now, the Oscar race has essentially boiled down to two films. In one corner is the aforementioned The Social Network. A favourite for a large majority of this year’s awards season, the film won many precursor accolades including the National Board of Review, a considerable majority of the US Critics Associations awards, as well the increasingly irrelevant yet highly publicized Golden Globe awards. In the other corner is Tom Hooper’s The King’s Speech, a film that has been gaining steam in recent weeks by taking three very important awards, namely: Best Ensemble Cast at the SAG (Screen Actors Guild) awards, Best Picture at the PGA (Producers Guild of America) awards and, most surprisingly and from The Social Network’s perspective most ominously, Best Director at the DGA (Directors Guild of America) awards. With only a few weeks until the winners of Hollywood’s ultimate honours are announced, it seems as though The Social Network is about to be overtaken, defeated at the last minute as the Academy prepares to select what in many ways would be a more traditional Best Picture choice. What follows is my argument as to what a mistake that would be.

The King’s Speech is not a bad film. In point of fact, The Kings Speech is an excellent film, one that is well made, superbly acted and at times legitimately moving. But for all its many qualities, The Kings Speech is a stunningly safe choice for the Academy to make; it is exactly the kind of film that springs to mind when you hear the words “Oscar bait”. The Kings Speech represents cinema’s past. The Social Network, on the other hand – shot on the innovative new RED camera, easily one of the most beautiful films to ever be captured digitally – represents all we have to be excited about for in cinema’s future. While The Kings Speech is filled with veteran actors who have long since been showered with acclaim, The Social Network features the very best that young Hollywood has to offer, whose talent and potential is only just starting to be recognized. While The Kings Speech features a largely traditional score by a well established filmic composer, The Social Network is scored by a rock-star, one who employed urgent, propulsive sounds to unique and electrifying ends.

Most importantly of all however, while Tom Hooper churns out Oscar bait, David Fincher has made a career out of creating dark and distinctive pictures that resonate with young, discerning moviegoers. And as a film that tells the story of the founding of one of the most visited websites on the internet, The Social Network has a particular relevance to youthful audiences of today. The film has been praised up and down by critics as speaking to the beliefs and attitudes of the so called “Facebook generation” – personally, I think this praise misses its correct target by just an inch. What makes the film so great is that it takes the birth of a recent social phenomenon, and uses it to tell a story with themes as old as humanity; a story of greed, ambition and
betrayal. Where the movie really delivers its critique of digital citizens is in its portrayal of Mark Zuckerberg. To quote from my review of the film:

“The Facebook CEO as portrayed by Eisenberg is a character for the ages; quick witted, abrasive, socially inept and unexpectedly ruthless – essentially every characteristic we would associate a youth who makes a life for himself online…Sorkins dialogue is rapid-fire and razor-sharp, and is delivered with the kind of blithe sarcasm and detached irony that is characteristic of internet users all around the world.”

We live in an age where the internet, and especially Facebook, allows us to be funnier, smarter and more capable than we actually are. But it also allows us to be crueler, and more detached. And what character is recent history better embodies that state of mind than Mark Zuckerberg, a billionaire barely more than a child; not an asshole, but trying so hard to be.

With eight nominations, The Social Network sits equal with Inception for the third highest number of nominations, behind only The Kings Speech with twelve, and True Grit with ten. If it were up to me, the film win Best Picture, not to mention Best Director, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Actor (Jesse Eisenberg) and, in the light of Tron: Legacy and Inception going un-nominated, Best Original Score and Best Editing as well. As it stands, the movie seems practically a lock for Screenplay categories, while at the other end Eisenberg can be essentially ruled out of the actor race in favour of Colin Firth more showy (though indisputably brilliant)
performance in The Kings Speech. I do think there is a reasonable chance that Fincher could defy the precedent set by the DGA to take Best Director. But unfortunately, when it comes to the night’s top prize, my money is on Tom Hooper’s conventional historical drama.

But whether or not The Social Network does get overlooked, in five years I have little doubt as to which film will be remembered. I will conclude by again returning to a quote from my review:

“The Social Network transcends the realm of movie based on true events; it is a masterpiece of modern screenwriting, a veritable acting clinic and a subtly gorgeous aural and visual experience. It is also one of the most discerning movies yet made in and about the internet era, and is the most mature entry in its director’s entire filmography. David Fincher ended the nineteen-nineties by producing one of its most important films; with The Social Network, he has started the twenty-tens in a similar fashion.”

The LAMB Devours the Oscars - Best Picture: True Grit

Editor's note: Welcome to the twenty-third of a 33-part series dissecting the 83rd Academy Awards, brought to you by the Large Association of Movie Blogs and its assorted members. Every day leading up to the Oscars, a new post written by a different LAMB will be published, each covering a different category of the Oscars. To read any other posts regarding this event, please click the tag following the post. Thank you, and enjoy!

 By Clarabela from Just Chick Flicks

Known for movies featuring quirky, off-beat characters and botched crimes, the writing, producing and directing team, Joel and Ethan Coen are no stranger to the Oscars. With multiple nominations for Best Screenplay, Directing they finally won a Best Picture Oscar in 2009 for No Country For Old Men. Working again with Big Lewbowski star, Jeff Bridges the Coen's take on a new genre, the American Western with True Grit. Unlike the 1969 John Wayne movie, the Coens' True Grit closely follows the original Charles Portis novel, which focuses on the coming of age story of young Mattie Ross.

True Grill tells the story of Mattie Ross, a girl from Yell County, who due to hard circumstances is forced to grow up beyond her 14 years. Mattie arrives in town to handle the affairs of her murdered father. The plain-talking, serious young girl wants justice for her father's murder. Mattie hears of the reputation of Marshal Rooster Cogburn for having 'grit' and she hires him to track down and capture Tom Chaney, the man who killed her father.

Reuben (Rooster) Cogburn is a tough, unapologetically violent man who often shoots first and sorts out the details later. Tom Chaney is also a wanted man for the murder of a Texas politician and is pursued by a Texas Ranger named LaBoeuf. Played with a snarky attitude, Matt Damon's pompous Texan is a great comic antagonist for the cantankerous Marshall Cogburn. The two men join forces in their pursuit of Chaney, leaving Mattie behind.


Not willing to trust the drunken, slothful Cogburn, a fiercely determined Mattie follows Cogburn and LaBoeuf to make sure he does the job properly. Mattie, Rooster and La Boeuf set off on the trail of Tom Chaney, encountering dangers from man, beast and nature. Along the way, each one is tested and discovers the meaning of having 'true grit'. Like most of the Coen's movies, True Grit is set in a world all its own. It is a harsh, gritty and bleak old west with hard-faced, dirty people who speak in a plain straight-forward, contraction-free sentences. And like, most Coen Brothers movies, True Grit must be watched more than once to truly appreciate the greatness of the film. Fortunately, the more you watch any movie by Joel and Ethan Coen, the better they get. The same will be true of True Grit.

Against the stark landscapes in True Grit stand the brilliantly colored performances of Jeff Bridges as Rooster Cogburn, Hailee Steinfeld as Mattie Ross and Matt Damon as La Boeuf. In the smaller, yet memorable roles Josh Brolin is the murder, Tom Chaney, Barry Pepper is Lucky Ned Pepper. Jeff Bridges, who is nominated for a Best Actor Oscar for his portrayal of the gravel-voiced, quick triggered Rooster Cogburn gives a performance, completely different from John Wayne's swaggering Rooster.

The stand out performance comes from Hailee Steinfeld in her first major movie role. She holds her own alongside veteran actors like Jeff Bridges and Mat Damon. Hailee received a Supporting Actress nomination for her first major acting role as the strong-willed Mattie. But as the main character and appearing in almost every scene in the movie, Steinfeld should have been nominated for Best Actress.

The LAMB Devours the Oscars - Best Picture: Winter's Bone

Editor's note: Welcome to the twenty-first of a 33-part series dissecting the 83rd Academy Awards, brought to you by the Large Association of Movie Blogs and its assorted members. Every day leading up to the Oscars, a new post written by a different LAMB will be published, each covering a different category of the Oscars. To read any other posts regarding this event, please click the tag following the post. Thank you, and enjoy!

 by Jess from Insight into Entertainment

Every Monday, a theater about an hour away from me shows very second run indie or foreign flicks.  It's usually the only way those kinds of movies make an appearance in theaters near me.  Winter's Bone was released on DVD recently, but thanks to the encouraging comments by Scott and Whitney at Frankly, My Dear and The Mad Hatter, I trekked to the theater to see it on the big screen.  They were right - this is a movie that was meant to be seen in a dark theater with no distractions.   However, that's obviously a thing of the past for most people - the DVD will be how most people see this from this point on (though if you have the chance, catch it in any theater you can). 

The story is simple: Ree Dolly (Jennifer Lawrence) takes care of her younger brother, sister, and infirm mother.  Her absentee father has been arrested and in order to get bonded out of jail, he put up their house and land for collateral.  Now he's missed his court appearance and the bail bondsman wants his due.  Ree decides she needs to find her father to be sure she doesn't lose the house and her hold on life.  Basically, this was what I knew when I went into the theater, and was the better for it.  The only reference in the movie to where it takes place is near an Arkansas border, so the Ozark mountains most likely.  Ree is related, in some fashion, to all the people she goes to to try to find her dad, but that doesn't mean they won't kill her if she crosses them.  There are obviously family feud's going on, and since they're all part of illegal meth operations, it's not surprising they fight to the death (either by blowing up their houses, or actually dumping them in a 'holler').

Jennifer Lawrence is amazingly bad-ass trying to stay strong.  The gender roles among the families are strong - only women can beat up other women, men shoot other men.  They govern their own, and at least at a minimum level take care of their own.  There are moments of levity from the tension building as we find out the level of difficulties Ree faces, but mostly they continue to build tension throughout the film, with a few unbelievable moments, a few "jump in your seat, this is going to end badly" moments.  One thing that struck me in particular is the relatively unknown status of the actors.  There were a few I recognized, but only in a very general sense, and it added to the tension of who would survive or help our heroine.  This is a story built on scarcity and minimalism with characters not so much shaped as carved from the cold, cruel landscape of their world.

John Hawkes deserved his nomination as Teardrop, Lawrence's uncle who won't help her find her dad because he doesn't want to get involved.  He has the great arc through the movie - being terrorizing and completely unhelpful at the beginning, to finally taking her side and coming in as part of her family at the end.    Overall, the pacing, cinematography, and design of the movie are terrific - award worthy in almost every aspect, though it was only nominated for the BIG ones - Best Picture, Actress, Supporting Actor, and Adapted Screenplay.  I don't think this movie will pull off any upsets, but I also don't think there's a single person who has seen it who would be disappointed if it did.  That may be a better lasting impression of this movie than the fact that it won't win.

The LAMB Devours the Oscars - Best Picture: The Fighter

 Editor's note: Welcome to the fourteenth of a 33-part series dissecting the 83rd Academy Awards, brought to you by the Large Association of Movie Blogs and its assorted members. Every day leading up to the Oscars, a new post written by a different LAMB will be published, each covering a different category of the Oscars. To read any other posts regarding this event, please click the tag following the post. Thank you, and enjoy!

 by CS from Big Thoughts from a Small Mind

Sometimes our greatest enemies are the ones who we are linked to from birth. In the case of boxer Micky Ward (Mark Wahlberg), it is his family that causes a great deal of his strife in his life.

Based on a true story, The Fighter looks at Micky Ward’s turbulent journey towards becoming a boxing champion. Micky is managed by his overbearing mother, Alice Ward (Melissa Leo), and trained by his brother Dickie Eklund (Christian Bale). The latter is a former boxer whose biggest claim to fame is knocking out Sugar Ray Leonard many years earlier. Much to Micky’s dismay, Dickie, still hanging onto his past glory, becomes entangled in the world of drugs. After losing a series of boxing matches to opponents that he had no business fighting in the first place, Micky starts to question whether or not Alice and Dickie are really working in his best interest. When Micky starts dating Charlene (Amy Adams), he begins to seriously think about getting his life back on track. Yet in order for Micky to move forward with his boxing career he will have to sever ties with his family, a task easier said than done.

After taking a minor misstep with his last feature length film, I Heart Huckabees, director David O. Russell is back in top form with The Fighter. Although the film is set in the world of boxing, boxing is actually secondary. The Fighter is more of a character study than it is a boxing movie. All of the members of Mickey’s large family constantly talk about the obligations to family, but Micky seems to be the only one to actually adhere to “family” logic. The rest of the clan seems more than happy to ride Micky’s coattails. Alice and Dickie, in particular, are especially blinded by the money and the celebrity status they believe they have. This is prominent in the way both of them prance around for the HBO cameras. One of the best scenes in the film arrives when Dickie is watching the HBO documentary, which he believes is about his boxing career, and realizes that the show is actually about his drug addiction. The range of emotions which he goes through in the short span of time is fascinating to watch.

Christian Bale is mesmerizing as Dickie, he really does deserve many of the supporting actor awards he has be receiving this award season. Within the first five minutes of watching The Fighter you completely forget you are watching an actor. A similar point can be made for both Melissa Leo and Amy Adams, as they each completely immerse themselves into their roles. While each are strong on their own, their scenes together are filled with so much tension that it is only a matter of time before the rage starts to boil over. While Wahlberg may not bring the same impact as his fellow cast members, he still gives a rather good performance. While Wahlberg is talented, a lot of his best work in this film is due to Russell’s direction. Similar to other films they have worked together on, Russell finds a way to perfectly play up Wahlberg’s strengths as an actor. Russell is able to bring out a vulnerability in Wahlberg that is not often seen on screen.

The supporting categories are where The Fighter will most likely see some Oscar love. While I was fairly confident that The Fighter would be nominated in the Best Picture category at this year’s Academy Awards, I do not think it has enough support to stop the juggernauts that are The Social Network and The King’s Speech. Before Russell’s film can even get near those two flicks, it would need to pass Black Swan and Toy Story 3.  I just do not see The Fighter having enough support to overcome those films.

If you go into The Fighter looking for a straight movie about boxing you might be a bit disappointed as the boxing scenes are nothing out of the ordinary. Films like Raging Bull, Rocky, The Hurricane and even Girlfight had more exciting in-the-ring scenes. Yet, if you are looking for a film that delivers both a good story and great performances, then The Fighter is definitely a film worth seeing.

The LAMB Devours the Oscars - Best Picture: Inception

Editor's note: Welcome to the twelfth of a 33-part series dissecting the 83rd Academy Awards, brought to you by the Large Association of Movie Blogs and its assorted members. Every day leading up to the Oscars, a new post written by a different LAMB will be published, each covering a different category of the Oscars. To read any other posts regarding this event, please click the tag following the post. Thank you, and enjoy!

 

By Adam Batty from Hope Lies at 24 Frames Per Second 

Ambition ruled the day when it came to originally registering my interest in the LAMB Devours The Oscars project. Blue Valentine was the film that got my vote, with a view to write on that when the film was nominated for Best Picture. Alas, that wasn't to be, yet "ambition ruling the day" would perhaps be an apt description of the film that I did end up looking at.

As far as spectacle, ambition and masterful storytelling on a massive scale goes, Inception really is quite something. Christopher Nolan’s follow-up to The Dark Knight was originally mooted to be a quieter affair, a punctuation point between bat-flicks, yet with Inception the filmmaker once again surprised audiences by turning out his most ambitious work to date, and one that truly reinvigorated the concept of blockbuster spectacle cinema.

While the exposition may be heavy at times, Nolan never patronizes his audience in the manner that one would expect of this type of film, nor did he contradict or hinder his vision in return for the quick sell. Action figures and merchandise didn’t precede the $200 million film, nor did a spoiler laden promotional campaign, instead, Warner left a talented filmmaker to his own devices and he produced an exciting work that was a) original, and b) drew the crowds in.

As a construction Inception is a genuinely impressive piece of cinema. First we have the performances, with not so much as a damp squib from any one of the fairly large ensemble cast. Hans Zimmer’s score is genuinely fascinating, his use of the slowed down Edith Piaf track Non, je ne Regrette Rien to form the films already-iconic refrain truly astonishing.   Complimenting Wally Pfister’s sublime cinematography we have the special effects, largely practical or in-camera, and never overly reliant on intrusive technology or gimmicks. Shunning 3D, Nolan chose to utilise older filmic techniques, such as 65mm photography, painstakingly selecting the right format for the right moment in the film (in total using seven different types of film and cameras), all in aid of building spectacle. And yet there is heart. Has Leonardo DiCaprio ever shown as much emotion in a moment of film as he does in the scene in which the “reality” of his wife’s fate is made clear? Has anyone ever wanted a spinning top to stop turning quite as much as the one that dictates DiCaprio’s Cobb's outcome at the end of the film?

When discussing Inception's place within the academy awards its difficult not to bring up the places where it wasn't nominated. Cries of "snub" etcetera filled the digital highways on Tuesday after afternoon in the wake of the announcements, with many a commentator furious at a lack of director and acting nominations for the film. Rabid fanboys have all but ruined the ability to write thoughtfully on Inception, lest thee be declared “one of them”. While I’m not about to get in to the argument about who should have been praised for what, the sheer absurdity of how much one gets caught up in the silliness of awards ceremonies are never made more apparent when it is the big commercial hits of the year at the centre of the discussion. Last year it was James Cameron’s Avatar that rode the storm of fanboy anxiety, it somehow deemed worthy of Best Picture by default because it was the most successful film of the year at the box office. In 2009 it was Nolan’s first “snub”, when The Dark Knight left barely a mark on the Academy, in spite of breaking a billion at the ticket booth. Three years running, and yet people are still outraged at a lack of “respect” for the year’s breakthrough blockbuster. The Academy Awards, rightly or wrongly, do not celebrate this particular kind of cinema. It’s really not worth getting angry about.

The LAMB Devours the Oscars - Best Picture: The Kids are All Right

Editor's note: Welcome to the ninth of a 33-part series dissecting the 83rd Academy Awards, brought to you by the Large Association of Movie Blogs and its assorted members. Every day leading up to the Oscars, a new post written by a different LAMB will be published, each covering a different category of the Oscars. To read any other posts regarding this event, please click the tag following the post. Thank you, and enjoy!

by Yong of Yong's Movies and Thoughts

"The Kids Are All Right" is this year’s indie darling, nominated for an Oscar in the best motion picture of the year category. Directed by Lisa Cholodenko, It examines the family dynamics behind a rather unconventional one. Here’s a quick summary of the main characters. Annette Bening and Julianne Moore play Nic and Jules, a loving lesbian couple raising two children conceived by artificial insemination. Nic is a physician and plays the role of the strict parent. Jules is a much more laid back and likes to hug things out. Their oldest daughter, Joni (Mia Wasikowska) is an independent and intelligent young woman getting ready to leave home for college. Their younger son, Laser (Josh Hutcherson) is an athletic teenager who doesn’t seem as well put together as his sister, but you can tell that he is a good kid with a kind heart. Your typical upper middle class family, just with two mommies instead of one.

The story picks up drama when Laser pressures Joni into finding out the identity of their moms’ sperm donor. The mysterious biological father turns out to be Paul (Mark Ruffalo), a free-spirited bachelor with a successful organic restaurant. Paul plays the stereotypical new age hipster, all about organic farming and composting. I’m all about trying to save the planet, but there was just something about Paul that just got me annoyed. But, that’s just me. When Paul is introduced to the family, Nic and Jules instantly feel threatened by his presence. They do not want to lose their children’s love to some strange man who had no role in raising their wonderful kids except for working his magic into a cup. Nic and Jules are fearful of losing their bond with their growing children. Mia is leaving home and Laser seems distant, not wanting to open up to them. Naturally, Paul’s entrance only adds to their insecurities as parents.

I was genuinely interested in seeing Paul establish a relationship with his kids. I felt Ruffalo had a good on screen chemistry with Mia Wasikowska. However, the movie shifted its focus to showing the effect of Paul’s presence on Nic and Jules’ relationship. While Nic sees Paul as a constant threat to her family’s stability, Jules is more welcoming to the idea of letting Paul into the family.  As Paul’s involvement with the family grows, so does tension between Nic and Jules.

This film shows that every family, no matter how unconventional or boring it may seem, all come face to face with its set of troubles at some point. It is how a family handles its tribulations that really show how much love a family really has for one another.

This movie has its share of funny and touching moments. I really enjoyed the cinematography of the opening scenes. And the actors all delivered an excellent performance. I thought Julianne Moore was deserving of an Oscar nomination just as much as Bening. I found myself really interested in Mia Wasikowska’s character, and I just wished she had a bigger role in the movie. She is a rising actress with a lot of potential. Even though I think ‘The Kids Are All Right’ is a long shot to have a legitimate chance of winning the best picture behind the favorites like ‘The Social Network ‘ and ‘The King’s Speech’, it was definitely one of the better movies of the year and deserves its place among the ten nominees.

The LAMB Devours the Oscars - Best Picture: 127 Hours

 Editor's note: Welcome to the eighth of a 33-part series dissecting the 83rd Academy Awards, brought to you by the Large Association of Movie Blogs and its assorted members. Every day leading up to the Oscars, a new post written by a different LAMB will be published, each covering a different category of the Oscars. To read any other posts regarding this event, please click the tag following the post. Thank you, and enjoy!

by Duncan of Kinematoscope


Before the Oscar nominations were announced, Danny Boyle's 127 Hours seemed to be losing steam, and rapidly.

Gone were the reports of standing ovations, stunned and speechless festival audiences. The King's Speech had stolen all of the feel-good bandwagon, and all 127 Hours had left was James Franco's good buzz and a distant memory of a few people fainting at screenings.

I even left it off my Best Picture predictions, opting for the growing buzz of The Town instead. Shows what I know: not only did 127 Hours make the BP cut, it scored six nominations total. Fox Searchlight, the distributor with a history of indie Oscar success, even had the foresight to plan a re-release of 400+ theaters on January 28th, three days after the good news.

But we can all agree its prospects on Oscar night are not that of Slumdog Millionaire, the Best-Picture-winning sensation that marked the previous collaboration of Boyle, Fox Searchlight, screenwriter Simon Beaufoy, and producer Christian Colson. But both films are inspiring, soaring tales of triumph that wowed critics and won over audiences. So what changed this time? Why isn't 127 Hours poised to steal Best Picture from The Social Network instead of The King's Speech? It's also a true story, after all.

Because it's subtle, that's why. Also a dude saws his own arm off (uh, spoilers?).


Boyle gets in his share of spectacle, sure- there's a reason he's helping with the opening of the London Olympics next year. 127 Hours opens with a hugely loud mix of A. R. Rahman's score and multiple split-screens flickering on and around the frame- there are images of large crowds and sporting events cut in for some reason. It's a whirlwind of noise and activity, just so we can get our heart rates up as we watch Aaron Ralston (Franco) wake up and prepare to go mountain biking. He checks his messages, he fills his water bottle, he drives out to the hills and takes a nap to wait for the sun to finish rising. It's not terribly exciting stuff, but the film tells us: things are happening.

Next, Ralston bikes around for a bit to more roaring soundtrack, and pow-wows with two hikers (Kate Mara and Amber Tamblyn)- charming them with his out-sized personality, and the effortless affability that James Franco brings to every role. He shows them a hidden pool, they invite him to a party the next night, and they part ways.

Then he of course gets his arm stuck, and nothing goes the way you'd expect. Reading the synopsis, this seemed like a distant cousin of Slumdog Millionaire in a way: a young man in a high-pressure situation reflects on his life. So it seemed natural for 127 Hours to present flashbacks in an episodic way, much like the real-life Aaron Ralston's memoir does, alternating chapters between childhood and his famous entrapment.

But Boyle takes things in a quieter direction. The first day or so is spent with Aaron in the ravine, rationing his supplies and rigging a harness with his climbing gear so he doesn't have to stand awkwardly the whole time. He cries for help, he stretches his foot out to feel sunlight. He notices birds flying overhead. His first flashbacks, not framed in any way by voice-over, are pragmatic- he thinks of ducking his call from his mother, and the short conversation with a coworker: both times he could have told someone where he was going, but didn't.

He eventually thinks of his childhood, but we see only a fragment, a short scene presented in bright light as if through the haze of memory. He doesn't have structured flashbacks to particularly telling episodes- the only exception might be when he remembers a past love (Clemence Poesy) the night she broke up with him, which isn't too far of a stretch, given his situation. Everything else is a just a random moment, no more than a thought. Here's a telling fact: Lizzy Caplan, a wonderful actress by all accounts, is cast as Ralston's sister but she only appears once and doesn't speak a single line! Treat Williams plays his dad and barely has any lines either.

That leaves it all to Franco, and he more than carries the experience of the film. A highlight is when, with his mind starting to fray, he hosts an imaginary talkshow in which he interviews himself, the 'host' character mocking him relentlessly for thinking of himself as a superhero that doesn't need to rely on anyone else.

But subtlety in storytelling aside, Boyle doesn't ever lose speed, with soaring overhead shots, rapid-edit sequences reminiscent of Requiem for a Dream (including a shot inside the water bottle!), and a pulse-pounding dream sequence in which Aaron is freed by a torrential rain. It makes the climactic sequence, in which he finally breaks his arm and cuts through it with a dull multipurpose tool, all the more thrilling.

And that's the other issue, the other big hurdle. As well-established as awards-maker's distaste for subtlety may be, it's clear they care even less for graphic scenes of self-amputation. I think that's why the furor for 127 Hours was a flash in the pan, while the mass-appeal of other contenders has taken over. The shock-factor of the scene might be slightly overblown, especially in today's age of nonstop graphic violence, but it is realistic, and it is, well, intense. It's a great piece of makeup effects work by Tony Gardner, and a great job by Franco making us forget that it's not really his arm in the first place.


127 Hours succeeds in being life-affirming by limiting itself in scope to Aaron Ralston's life. It's not preachy, or ham-fisted, or contrite. It's probably a little too loud (it could have just been my movie theater) and a little too graphic for most people.

It reminds me a little of 2007's Into The Wild, another film hindered during awards season by a basis in real life that some people found a bit macabre for their tastes. But in the end, it's just a straightforward tale of survival, present with Danny Boyle's trademark flash. It doesn't have the epic...epicness that Best Picture winners seem to require these days, or the surge of white guilt that Slumdog Millionaire had (heyo! Sorry, that was The Dark Knight snub year, still bitter). But it's still a wonderful piece of filmmaking, as the technical branches of the Academy verified.

In the age of ten Best Picture nominees, I should never have counted it out.

The LAMB Devours the Oscars - Best Picture: Black Swan

 Editor's note: Welcome to the sixth of a 33-part series dissecting the 83rd Academy Awards, brought to you by the Large Association of Movie Blogs and its assorted members. Every day leading up to the Oscars, a new post written by a different LAMB will be published, each covering a different category of the Oscars. To read any other posts regarding this event, please click the tag following the post. Thank you, and enjoy!

by Julian Stark of Movies and Other Things

Darren Aronofsky’s cautionary tale about a dedicated ballerina who does any and all things necessary to be perfect landed five Academy Award nominations, including one for Motion Picture of the Year. But after a record-breaking twelve nominations at the Critics’ Choice Awards and a huge mass of support throughout the guilds and industry awards, are those five nominations really impressive?

Its five Oscar nominations are…

Best Motion Picture of the Year (Mike Medavoy, Brian Oliver, Scott Franklin)

Best Achievement in Directing (Darren Aronofsky)

Best Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role (Natalie Portman)

Best Achievement in Cinematography (Matthew Libatique)

Best Achievement in Editing (Andrew Weisblum)

Why didn’t the Academy bite the bait with more desire? Sure, the writing doesn’t fit convention, but its attention from the Writers Guild of America, BAFTA, and various critics groups should have helped it get an Original Screenplay nomination. Golden Globe and SAG nominee Mila Kunis gave a daring performance, but the Academy didn’t pay her any mind. Additionally, the lack of huge support in the technical field sends the mind into even further bedlam.

This situation daunts initially, but deciphering this peculiar dilemma isn’t so confusing once you step back and take a look at the big picture: Academy tastes. The film is simply a casualty of the precursors not lining up with them. In the past few years, we’ve seen other films attain significant Oscar buzz only to fizzle out at the last minute, such as Into the Wild in 2007, The Dark Knight in 2008, and Invictus and Nine last year. I’d love to argue that a list of only five Best Picture nominees would have included Black Swan, and even that the film could easily snag the top prize, but that just isn’t the case.

Oscar hope has yet to fully evade the film, though. Natalie Portman’s riveting portrayal of Nina Sayers boasts the seemingly unstoppable momentum to win Best Actress. Only if SAG or BAFTA say otherwise does she fall from Academy grace. Darren Aronofsky might pull off an upset in the Director race, especially if Academy voters view The Social Network as more of a “writer’s film” than anything else.

Regardless of the film’s stance in the Oscar race, Aronofsky should be proud of the modern masterpiece that he’s created.

Predicted Wins: Best Actress (Natalie Portman)

Should Have Also Been Nominated For: Best Supporting Actor (Vincent Cassel), Best Supporting Actress (Barbara Hershey), Best Supporting Actress (Mila Kunis), Best Original Screenplay, Best Art Direction, Best Costume Design, Best Sound Editing, Best Sound Mixing

The LAMB Devours the Oscars - Best Picture: The Hurt Locker

Editor's note: Welcome to the thirty-second of a 33-part series dissecting the 82st Academy Awards, brought to you by the Large Association of Movie Blogs and its assorted members. Every day leading up to the Oscars, a new post written by a different LAMB will be published, each covering a different category of the Oscars. To read any other posts regarding this event, please click the tag following the post. Thank you, and enjoy!










By Nathan Bartlebaugh of Cinematropolis.

Kathryn Bigelow’s The Hurt Locker has gone further than many ever expected it to go.

Opening last summer as a dubious war flick in a time that has seen far too many of them, it seemed destined to open and then disappear. But, it didn’t. It stayed, and stayed and stayed. Now, Bigelow, one of a few female directors ever nominated for Best Director, is going to the Academy Awards with his ‘action-film-that-could’ and a terrific bit of added irony, will go to head-to-head with ex-husband James Cameron for the best picture crown. If she wins, she will be the first woman to take home the honor. And me, I think she has a really good shot of winning it too.

I first saw The Hurt Locker last summer when it played as the closing night event of the Maryland Film Festival, and afterwards Bigelow and her screenwriter Mark Boal sat down for a live-audience interview with Ann Hornaday. At the time, I experienced the film as a purely visceral experience; it was in the context of a festival that had been filled with methodical and meditative indie pictures—the kind that can lull you into a sort of academic trance—and then it was dropped like a shrapnel spewing IED at the very end of the weekend. I loved it, but I thought of it as an action film with little character definition.


Bigelow discussed her approach and what she wanted to focus on in a modern war picture, and it was evident from what showed up on screen that she had achieved this. What she said in regards to the character motivations, especially Renner’s Sgt. James, was also illuminating. These are men defined by their actions and their response to action in the field. Of course, most directors of films where things go boom say some variation of this. Now, two more viewings later, I’m of the mind that she’s right.

Like Alfred Hitchcock before her, she understands that film can be an expressive and immediate medium that can crystallize a feeling into a truth just by presenting it to the viewer in the right way. The Hurt Locker moves beyond simple questions of “is this right?” or “what sense do we make of it?” and instead tells us “yes, this is happening and it’s happening right now”. What each of us does with it might be different. For some, like Sgt. James, it’s a never ending rollercoaster that provides him with the only thing that makes sense. For others, it’s the very definition of madness.

Despite the glut of films centered around it over the past few years, the Iraq War has not exactly made for compelling cinema. Tangled in extreme political stance or statement, or designed around a general cluelessness about the way the actual battle itself is being fought, previous pics like In the Valley of Elah, Lions for Lambs and Redacted were dead on arrival.

Instead, The Hurt Locker wisely leaves behind politics and posturing and brings the viewer onto the grimy, narrow streets of downtown Baghdad. With a singularity of vision and a documentarian’s eye for extreme and seemingly inconsequential detail, Bigelow transcends not only her own previous films but typical action clichés to deliver one of the most suspenseful and intense cinema experiences I’ve ever had. Best of all, it is a sustained intensity that can survive the first peek and offer more for those that return.


The film’s structure is perhaps its greatest asset. Essentially, there are about six or seven tense, action-oriented sequences and they occur in succession with only the briefest of interludes in between. There is a repetition to these scenes that brings home the reality of what it must be like to operate in this environment–each day is just one more on the job, terrifying and exotic to us, but business as usual for Bravo Company.

We wait, nervous that a bomb will explode. Bigelow draws out the tension, painting all kinds of little details into the surrounding landscape. Everything looks like trouble, and sometimes bravado prevails, but more often a cool, sensible head. Several recognizable faces show up, and then disappear again. People die when we assume danger has passed, and some scenes escalate and then have no climax. Survival is the goal, but there is no triumphant victory when these guys succeed. When tomorrow holds the same danger and probably the same odds, how optimistic can you be?

To describe Staff Sergeant James, he sounds like a typical action stereotype, but the film avoids that completely. His obsession with the adrenaline rush of being the star player of the bomb squad is internalized by Renner and visualized in the more harrowing passages when Will lingers at the work of manually defusing a car-based explosive while his teammates fret they might all be gunned down in the process. Renner’s job is to play a believable human being and a cipher at the same time, and he excels at it.

I’ve had it pointed out to me by a good buddy of mine who happens to be in the Marines that the idea of a bomb squad unit functioning like the one in this film lies in the realm of fiction. He assures me that James’ reckless hotshot who puts the rush of the job above his fellow teammates would never last in such a scenario and would be washed out as soon as his deficiency was discovered. I know little about the way the military works, but I venture to guess that technically he’s correct.


But what of the possibility of a guy like James existing in the modern military? That seems entirely likely, and that’s the reality the film is going for. It possesses an emotional plausibility that boys will keep playing war if they get a taste for it, regardless of duty, responsibility or morality. Now, thankfully, most of the men in the armed forces I know possess far more of the latter qualities and have little tolerance for the former. But, those exceptions do exist, and Bigelow handles them with a wise restraint.

The script develops James in small bursts, in between the action, but the movie defines him by his grace under pressure in the field sequences. It also doesn’t shy away from the fact that his is a sickness; a psychosis of sorts that might very well do him and his team in if it isn’t held in check. Will has swagger and a personal record of defusing 873 bombs (he keeps a box of detonators under his bed, along with his wedding ring, as a reminder of things that nearly killed him) but in a film like The Hurt Locker there is no guarantee that he, or anyone else for that matter, will live to the next scene.

The world of the Baghdad streets and the nearby military base are presented with such clarity, both in the dynamic cinematography and in the considerable sound design that they take on the feel of a documentary. In getting down into it, and following it with the thrust of a genuine narrative, Bigelow and her team have generated more reality than similar real-life news footage has achieved. The film is a thrill-ride, but it has the presence of mind to flesh out those thrills to the point where the audience is forced to ask: is it really a good thing to desire this kind of thrill? The comic carnage of Transformers this is not.

Visually, the explosions are breath-taking and stomach-churning. When an IED explodes early on, we see the immediate impact shake clots of rust off an abandoned vehicle, thrust and hurl waves of rock and gravel, and fling human bodies through the air, cracking face-plates and breaking bones. There is more information here than we sometimes want. Hard choices and harder realities drop from minute to minute in The Hurt Locker. There is no breathing room left. But instead of a hyperactive upheaval that moves us cleanly from scene to scene like Black Hawk Down, Locker can move agonizingly slow when danger hits. Seconds may seem like hours. The film runs for 131 minutes, but it seems longer than that, and yet we are engaged and riveted for the entire thing.


This is not a message movie, but in reproducing the milieu of war, Hurt Locker provokes thought. Bigelow dissects everything from the daredevil, adrenaline-seeking male warriors to the confused, frustrated, sometimes deadly civilians dealing with an occupation in their already besieged city. In one scene a man in a taxi has approached the site of James latest bomb situation. Sanborn and the others are understandably excited and unnerved by his appearance. James pushes a gun through the window and against his head. If he is part of an insurgent group, this makes sense, and there is no way for anyone to know for sure. Showing weakness could get everyone, including the civilians killed. The man, if he is just a taxi driver, can be somewhat understood in his actions. What he does isn’t smart, but likely frustrated he cannot bring himself to back down from these foreign occupants in his city.

Finally, I think it’s important to note that both this film and Avatar are not the typical front-runners for an Oscar race, and I consider that a very good thing. Both of them tell a story primarily through the resources of film and depend on the visual, the aesthetic and the visceral for their power, more than an elegant script or biting dialogue. These films are throwbacks to the heart of cinema; they are powerful escapes that take us somewhere we aren’t likely to go and they work so well on that level they provoke feelings we are unlikely to have otherwise. In the end, which has more to say? For my money, it’s this one.

Kathryn Bigelow, despite not having any of her own, has specialized in the roaring testosterone of the boy’s club for years. In The Hurt Locker she captures it and then moves beyond it to even more primal urges and emotions; fear and self-preservation.

The LAMB Devours the Oscars - Best Picture: Inglourious Basterds

Editor's note: Welcome to the thirtieth of a 33-part series dissecting the 82st Academy Awards, brought to you by the Large Association of Movie Blogs and its assorted members. Every day leading up to the Oscars, a new post written by a different LAMB will be published, each covering a different category of the Oscars. To read any other posts regarding this event, please click the tag following the post. Thank you, and enjoy!










By Adam Cohen of The Jack Sack.

Quentin Tarantino deals in basic human emotions, and that's why his films connect so readily with audiences. One of Tarantino's favorite themes is revenge- most notably told on an operatic scale with "Kill Bill" parts 1 & 2. Revenge is where he returns for "Inglorious Basterds," which is set amidst one of history's greatest crime scenes- The Third Reich. One could argue that making a revenge flick about killing Nazis is kind of a cheat- who wouldn't want to kill some Nazis? Well, that may be true, but Tarantino doesn't go after the Germans, he obliterates them in the most creative ways imaginable. So, on a very basic emotional level, "Basterds" is exactly what it says it is- a movie about killing Nazis. But that alone shouldn't get you a Best Picture nomination. And to that end, there's a lot more to this film than offing brownshirts.

When the film opens, it presents its best character, Best Supporting Actor nominee Christoph Waltz as Colonel Hans Landa of the SS. Landa is the film's main villain- the embodiment of all that is evil in Germany. He hangs over all that takes place for the rest of the movie- from Shoshanna, the sole survivor of a family of Jews hiding underneath the farmhouse (that Landa and his team kill in the film's violent opening scene) to the later showdown between him and Lt. Aldo Raines- who recruits the titular "Basterds" that are dropped into occupied France to kill Nazis. The film is set up and executed brilliantly by Tarantino's sure hand. Nothing in this movie is wasted. No character lacks life- even ones who are more comical than dramatic (the "Bear Jew") are indelible screen presences.


So, what has the Academy so excited about this "pulp historical fiction?" For one, it's a movie about movies- Shoshanna has fled the French country to Paris, where she becomes the proprietor of a quaint cinema. She is a cinephile, as are many other characters in this film. And the love of film displayed in "Basterds" is an odd but appropriate common thread. German cinema preceding the Third Reich was experimental and groundbreaking. Fritz Lang, Germany's most famous director, was squired by Nazi propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels early in Hitler's rule. Lang, like many others, later fled Germany for the West when it was clear that anyone remaining would have to cooperate with Nazi ideology. Leni Reifenstahl remained and became Hitler's most famous and accomplished propagandist filmmaker. No doubt all of these auteurs, and many more were included in British Lt. Archie Hicox's writing for "Films and Filmmakers" (I love everything about Hicox's scene with a silent Winston Churchill).

And "Basterd's" climax exists in Shoshanna's movie house- which I won't ruin for anyone who has yet to see this film. But where fantasy branches from reality, it is wholly befitting that the most ridiculous events occur in this setting. Some may criticize "Basterds" for making some very major departures from actual history. But Tarantino didn't come to this subject to film a "Saving Private Ryan." He purposely plowed through the restrictions a conventional movie might hold itself to and decided "I'm going to let this beast loose." His choice works because he did so with a purpose- to cause the audience to become engulfed in the chaos that exists in a state of war.


I would equate "Basterds" to Tarantino's other most-acclaimed film, "Pulp Fiction" in that it seeks to rip down the barriers that make 99.9% of films safe and predictable. Tarantino wants you to shift in your seat and peek through the fingers covering your eyes. He, like Alfred Hitchcock, embraces the darkest parts of human psychology, and he does so in several brilliantly acted and directed scenes. From the opening farm house massacre, to the most terrifying chat about German pastries ever, and to a gut-wrenching sequence in a lazy pub riddled with drunk German revelers, "Basterds" is a sneaky creation- it's a horror movie, but it's covered in a war movie genre wrapping.

While other films in the Best Picture Category have legitimate claims to the golden statue, "Inglorious Basterds" is the most pure example of movie making among the bunch. It doesn't rely on CGI trickery, nor does it play to safe emotions like finding redemption, etc. Instead, Tarantino uses the film medium to pay a tribute to something old but does so with a modern awareness. I believe its chances of winning Best Picture are strong.

The LAMB Devours the Oscars - Best Picture: The Blind Side

Editor's note: Welcome to the twenty-eighth of a 33-part series dissecting the 82st Academy Awards, brought to you by the Large Association of Movie Blogs and its assorted members. Every day leading up to the Oscars, a new post written by a different LAMB will be published, each covering a different category of the Oscars. To read any other posts regarding this event, please click the tag following the post. Thank you, and enjoy!










By Mike Cersosimo of Spaghetti Sauce and Sweet Peas.

I'm going to be completely honest with everyone reading this. The Blind Side isn't going to win Best Picture. I'm sure some of you are disappointed to hear this, but it's the truth. This film is simply what is wrong with ten nominees. Am I saying this is a bad film? No. The Blind Side is a good film, but definitely not great. Definitely not an Academy Award nominee for Best Picture.

The Blind Side is one of the feel good movies of the year. It's based on a true story about current Baltimore Ravens' offensive lineman, Michael Oher. Actually, the movie is based on a book by Michael Lewis, which also looks at how football changed since Joe Theisman took a vicious career ending hit from Lawrence Taylor. After that hit, the position of left tackle became one of the most important on any team. Why? That player protects the Quarterback's blind side.

Though, the film focuses more on Oher (Quinton Aaron) and how he was adopted by Leigh Anne Tuohy (Sandra Bullock) and Sean Tuohy (Tim McGraw). It also looks at Oher's friendship with his adoptive brother SJ (Jae Head), which makes the two of them on screen look like the next odd couple. It's a very Hollywood story structure and a highly predictable film. At times, it's too overly sappy (i.e. "This team is your family"). Still, it's effective in it's own right and the film is anchored by a great performance by Sandra Bullock.

It's a performance that has garnered her numerous awards this season and has made her a frontrunner for the Best Actress Oscar. Without Bullock, there would have probably been no chance for it to get nominated for Best Picture. She's really the reason this film is still being talked about this time of year. The rest of the cast in the film give forgettable performances.

The film only has two nominations (Picture and Actress). Really it should be happy that it garnered that much support from the Academy. I really want to write more about this film, but there's nothing else to really say. It doesn't belong in the Best Picture race even if Sandra Bullock may very well be named Best Actress on March 7th.