The Tree of Life

I think some films should come with cliff notes. This is true for Terrence Malick's (The New World, The Thin Red Line) film The Tree of Life. Since I'm too dense to understand this film for its true meaning, this will be a short entry. Now I haven't seen any of his other films (although my love for the Disney movie Pocahontas makes me want to see The New World) so I don't know if this is something different for him, but for lack of a better term, The Tree of Life is artsy. I remember seeing a trailer for it months ago, and even though I wasn't sure what it was about, I knew I really wanted to see it because it had so much artistic elements to it that films are lacking today. The toymaker in Hugo use to be a director, but before that he was an artist and a magician so he decided to bring art and magic into films, and I thought that was so wonderful. The Tree of Life had such amazing cinematography that I kept forgetting it was probably mostly CG, even though the dinosaurs look so much more realistic than the Jurassic Park ones. I get the ones in JP were supposed to be robots, but still. Maybe if they remade it today, it would look better. But let's not get any ideas, the last thing we need is a remake. What happened to being original? Malick has that originality, at least in this film, that other films lack. Even though I didn't totally get the story, it was amazing watching these colors in everyday nature unfold before my eyes.

The Tree of Life is nominated for three Oscars. Best Film, Best Achievement in Cinematography, and Best Director. I honesty believe that it deserves Best Cinematography, and I've seen about half of the nominees. However, it's a tough decision on Best Director or Best Film. I think too many people didn't understand it enough to appreciate it to make it become Best Film. Also, I heard even some people walked out. Looking around the theater today, I saw that the majority of the audience (only a couple handful of people) were viewing the film alone. I think it's better appreciated alone because then you're not tempted to either explain it or have it explained to you. It's like a painting where everyone has their own interpretation of it, or at least that's what I think. I'm glad I was encouraged to see it in the theater because it's definitely more enjoyable on the big screen.

The Tree of Life stars Brad Pitt, Sean Penn aka Dustin Hoffman because I confuse the two a lot, and Jessica Chastain (who for some reason got nominated for The Help but not Tree of Life). So that's my comment on it, short and sweet.

The Oscars are tomorrow, and unfortunately I didn't see as many nominees as I wanted, but I saw some good ones. It's hard to decide who will get Best Picture, probably The Help, but hopefully not, and I guess that's why I'm not on the Academy. Good luck tomorrow nominees. May the odds be ever in your favor.

Hugo

I went and saw Hugo in 3D partly because at this point there weren't many other options, but I'm glad I did.  It was absolutely exquisite in 3D.  I felt like "part of their world".  I'll be sad when this fad ends again.

Hugo Cabret (Asa Butterfield; Nanny McPhee Returns, Wolfman) is an orphan living within the clocks of a 1930s Parisian train station.  He learns how to fix clocks from his late father (Jude Law) who was a clockmaker.  As long as he keeps winding the clocks, a job his uncle (Ray Winstone; 13, Indian Jones and the Crystal Skull) had before he abandoned him, no one will notice he's there. So he spends his days winding up the clocks, hiding from the station inspector (Sacha Baron Cohen; Borat) so as not to get sent to the orphanage, and stealing parts from the toymaker (Ben Kingsley; Shutter Island, The Love Guru) to help fix the automaton his dad found in a museum attic.  With the help of the toymakers Goddaughter, Isabelle (Chloe Grace Moretz; 500 Days of Summer, Kick-Ass) they get the automaton working and start on an adventure to figure out why the automaton drew a picture signed by Georges Melies, the toymaker.

Hugo has the most Oscar nominations this year with 11, only two less than last year's Best Picture, The King's Speech.  Hmm, same decade, different countries, but same continent.  Interesting.  Anyway, Hugo leads this year with nominations for Best Picture, Best Director (one of my favorites Martin Scorsese), Best Editing, Best Music (Original Score), Best Cinematography, Best Art Direction, Best Costume Design, Best Sound Editing, Best Sound Mixing, Best Visual Effects, and Best Writing (Adapted Screenplay, based on the Novel "The Invention of Hugo Cabret" by Brian Selznick).

Ok let's quickly compare this to the King's Speech before I give my opinion.  The King's Speech won 4 out of its 13 nominations.  Best Director, Best Picture, Best Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role (Colin Firth), and Best Writing (Original Screenplay) which goes to show that just because you're nominated for a lot doesn't mean you'll win a lot, but you may win the best ones (otherwise known as the only ones that count).  Rewind one more year.  Best Picture, The Hurt Locker, won 6 out of its 9 nominations.  Won for Best Director, Best Film Editing, Best Sound Mixing and Sound Editing, Best Picture and Best Writing (Original Screenplay).  

Now for my predictions.   Hugo will most likely win Best Picture and Best Director, well because its Scorsese and he's like a legend.  Unfortunately he has only ever won one Oscar out of his many nominations.  That was for The Departed.  Do I think Hugo should win Best Picture?  Let's just say I'm hoping for The Descendants.  Although, it is a children's movie so if it won it will be a first.  Best Director?  Yes.  It'll probably win Best Writing as well.  As for the other categories... I don't really pay too much attention to editing because it was my least favorite subject in college so I'm not one to discuss that category.  I don't really remember the music so there's that, plus I'm still holding out for The Artist to win.  I do think it should win a lot of the more arty categories.  Cinematography, Best Art Direction, and Best Visual Effects.  Costumes weren't that impressive because the characters all wore the same thing everyday, and it was hard for me to tell what year it was.  Sound Editing/Mixing I also don't pay too much attention to so I'm not really sure.  This could be Best Film, who knows.  Its another tough decision like last year.  We'll find out soon enough.  Be the judge yourself and go see it, in 3D.  If not, it comes out on DVD two days after the Oscars.

Moneyball

Baseball is probably my favorite sport, so naturally I love baseball movies.  I blame the trailers for being the reason I didn't want to see Moneyball at first.  For some reason I thought it was about fantasy football.  Yeah.  I don't know. Once I heard it was a baseball film, I was excited to watch it.

Moneyball is the story of Billy Beane (Brad Pitt), former baseball player and current General Manager of the Oakland A's, and his plan to finally win the World Series.  With the help of his AGM, Peter Brand (Jonah Hill; Superbad, Get Him to the Greek), Beane uses statistical data to put value on players and make a team after losing three of his best players to higher paying teams.  Although his team is filled with underrated baseball players and starts off with a rough season, they go on to win 20 consecutive games only to lose to the Twins during the Elimination round before the World Series.  Beane is tempted to leave the team for a higher paying job with the Boston Red Sox but declines.  Two years later the Red Sox go on to win the World Series due to the same statistical method Beane used, breaking the Curse of the Bambino.

Moneyball was nominated for a total of 6 Oscars; Best Picture, Best Editing, Best Sound Mixing, Best Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role (Brad Pitt), Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role (Jonah Hill), and Best Writing (Adapted Screenplay).  I don't really care about the other categories, but I do hope Jonah Hill wins for Best Supporting Actor.  This is his first serious role, and he really pulled it off.  Good for him!  This is his first Oscar nomination, and with good reason too.  He proved to other filmmakers that he's not just the token fat, funny guy or a Seth Rogen Jr. (since he's lost weight now too).  He can be serious too.  This was a pretty good film, and we all know that Brad Pitt can act, but viewers saw that Jonah Hill can too.

The Descendants

The Descendants, starring George Clooney, is a sad movie about a man whose wife is in a coma after getting into a boating accident.  Him and his two daughters (Shailene Woodley; The Secret Life of the American Teenager and Amara Miller; first film) set off on an adventure to find the man his wife had an affair with, which he finds out about from his daughter Alexandra (Woodley). While this is happening, with his many cousins, he is trying to figure out what to do with land that had been passed down to his family through generations.  They have seven years to make a decision before the trust containing the land disappears.  I didn't really understand the reason for the family losing the trust, so unfortunately I can not get into more detail.  I fell in love with this film right away seeing as it takes place in Hawaii, and I have an obsession with Hawaii even though I've never been.  Although, I had a hard time taking Matthew Lillard (Scream; She's All That) seriously, the film pretty much had me in tears by the end.

The Descendants is nominated for five awards.  They are Best Picture, Best Director (Alexander Payne; Sideways, About Schmidt), Best Film Editing, Best Performance by a Lead Actor, and Best Writing (Adapted Screenplay; its based on the novel by Kaui Hart Hemmings).

I think this film was really good and has a chance of winning most, if not all, of these awards.  The acting was great.  I loved the relationship between Matt King (Clooney) and his daughters.  He was this man that had no idea how to raise his two daughters plus his wife, whom he loved very much, was cheating on him.  I really felt bad for him, especially when his father in law kept blaming the accident on him.  The characters were very well developed and believable.  As for the character of Sid (Nick Krause, not in anything worth noting), he was probably my favorite character because he reminded me of friends I had in high school.  I do wish Woodley had gotten a nomination for Best Supporting Actress because she did a great job for someone so young.  I've never seen an episode of her show, but I'm pretty sure that character is a completely different person.  I think she pulled it off well.  She helped make that relationship between Alexandra and Matt so great.  I wish I had that same kind of relationship with my father.  I liked this film a lot, and if it doesn't win Best Picture, I hope it at least wins Best Director.

Midnight in Paris

Midnight in Paris is a story about a young man who is forced to see that life different from your own isn't necessarily better.  Gil (Owen Wilson) is a script writer who is struggling to write his first novel.  For inspiration he travels along with his fiancee's (Rachel McAdams) parents to Paris.  He is in love with 1920s Paris in the rain, referring to it as the Golden Age.  One night, while walking around Paris at midnight, he is pulled into a cab and brought to his favorite decade.  He hangs out with fellow writers from that era, such as Scott and Zelda Fitzgerald (Tom Hiddleston; Thor, War Horse and Alison Pill; Kim Pine in Scott Pilgrim vs The World), Ernest Hemingway(Corey Stoll; Push, Salt) and Gertrude Stein (Kathy Bates).  He often escapes to this fantasy land causing him to drift apart from his fiancee.  He falls for Picasso's mistress Adriana (Marion Cotillard; Inception, Nine) and is swept away to her idea of a golden age, 1890s Paris.  She soon decides she wants to stay and that's when Gil realizes that everyone's idea of a golden age is different.  He may be in love with the 1920s, but people from that era may wish to live in a different era as well.  He also soon reevaluates some of his present day relationships.
Midnight in Paris is nominated for Best Picture, Best Director, Art Direction, Writing (Original Screenplay).
Midnight in Paris is director Woody Allen's sixth nomination for Best Director and 15th nomination for Best Writing.  He's won both awards together once before in 1978 for Annie Hall.  He won Best Writing once again in 87 with Hannah and Her Sisters, but hasn't won an Oscar since then.  The writing and dialog has the same flow as all his other films, so to me its nothing really special.  The main story, however, was a different concept.  Any book lovers dream, whether you write or just read, would be to meet any great other of another time.  Seeing these authors, I know for me at least, portrayed in the film was exciting.  One of the things that bothered me in the film, other than the very long establishing shots of Paris, was the character of Gil.  Sometimes I felt as if Wilson was just told to act like a young Woody Allen.  Some of the things he said or they way he said them reminded me of characters Allen had played in his other films.  It wasn't very different from his other films, so I don't know if he has a good chance of winning.  This is his first Best Picture nomination, but I don't think its Best Picture material.  It was good, don't get me wrong, but I wouldn't go out and buy it to watch everyday.  Then again, so far out of the Best Picture nominations I've seen, I haven't felt so excited about any of them.  I guess we'll see in a few weeks.