Anna Karenina (2012, UK)

Sheesh. So it was easier to get through this movie than it was to get through the novel, but I didn't like it nearly as much as the Vivien Leigh version. For one thing, the whole artsy, pared down stage setting thing was just too much. They were trying way too hard to be clever with that one, and it took away from the story. A lot. Plus the adaptation completely missed the purpose of the book, although that seems to be true of every AK adaptation I've seen. At least Levin seemed to have a more prominent role here than in the Leigh one, which helped.

Also, I was majorly unimpressed with the casting. I know, normally I think Knightley and Law are awesome, but here they were completely blah. Of course, it could have been the uninspired script. And the guy who played Vronksy... ugh. I did love Matthew Macfayden as Oblonsky, however. He's awesome.

And Marianelli's score was beautiful. Really helped carry things!

Rating: 3.5

The Artist (2011, France)

It is so clear to me how this lovely, charming, wonderful film won so many Academy Awards this year. I would have loved to have seen it on the big screen, because it was just wow, and a theater would have made it even more so.

Seriously, everything about it was just magical. A silent film about the silent film era is a strange but successful subject. Modern audiences could be thrown off by the lack of speech, but the actors convey so much with their faces and bodies, and the absolutely stellar score (heavy on the jangly piano) does the rest. I smiled, I laughed, I cried, I loved it!

They captured the era with the subject, the sets, the costumes, the score (especially the score—maybe the best Oscar-winning score of all time!), the title cards, the props, the everything. Yet the story of a man who suddenly finds himself obsolete (and in love with the new face of the future, to boot) was timeless. Really, the story was just... charming. I was enraptured. I even loved the use of blatant symbolism (like when he sinks into a sand pit in his final silent film) despite (and maybe because of) its obviousness. George Valentin has this dream where suddenly there is noise everywhere but he can't speak, and it was just brilliantly executed. Brilliantly.

As I mentioned, the actors were incredible and portrayed a wide range of emotion flawlessly. (Dare I include the adorable Uggie, who played The Dog? He was much better here than in Water for Elephants!) Dujardin certainly earned his Oscar. He was every inch the charmer, but he was also believable when he fell on hard times too. (When he finally did speak his only two words of the film, I felt the urge to clasp my hands to my chest and grin like an idiot.) He makes the viewer fall in love with him and mourn for the world he represents, a world that is vanishing for him and has already slipped into the fog of the distant past for us. But Bérénice Bejo was just as good as Dujardin, and sometimes even better. Her Peppy Miller was vivacious, effervescent, and so full of life that I kept expecting her to pop out of the scene at any second. Her megawatt smiles and flamboyant dance moves and ceaseless energy were hard not to fall in love with too. But her character had a big heart too, as her occasional tear-filled eyes illustrated well. Seriously, I've said it twice in this paragraph already, but I just fell in love with them both. I don't see how any film lover could avoid succumbing to their sparkling charms. Captivating doesn't even begin to describe Dujardin, Bejo, or the entire film.

I could ramble forever. This is a love letter to the movies, and it bears reading and rereading by cinephiles everywhere. (The fact that audible language plays such a small role makes it even more accessible to film lovers worldwide.)

I can't wait to watch it again. Did I mention I was in love and entirely charmed?

Rating: 5.0

Beginners (2010, U.S.)

This was just a lovely, thought-provoking, touching indie film. From the previews, you'd think it's a comedy about a grown man whose 75-year-old father suddenly comes out. That's kind of what it is, but it is so much more than that.

Following his father Hal's death, Oliver's primary relationship seems to be with his father's dog Arthur (an adorable Jack Russell whose thoughts sometimes appear to the audience via subtitles). He projects his own feelings onto Arthur, using the dog as an excuse to stay in seclusion. His work as a graphic artist, his friendships, and his mental health are all obviously suffering. When his friends force him to attend a costume party, he meets Anna, a French actress in town for work, and they seem to have an immediate connection. However, he struggles with the budding relationship. In flashbacks, we can see that this may stem from his mother's unconventional parenting, his parents' passionless marriage, and his continuing struggle to come to terms with father's sexuality and, more specifically, his jealousy of Hal's much younger lover.

I offer this brief plot summary because I don't think the previews do the film justice at all. I'd hate to think of people blowing this film off as another comedy that uses the gay lifestyle as easy material and missing out on a really special work. Watching Hal come alive as he embraces his true nature and finds companionship not just with a lover but with a large network of friends is just beautiful. (I especially love the scene when he has his hospital room packed with friends drinking a toast to him and they get in trouble with the nurse for having alcohol.) He's coming alive while coming to terms with his death, and then his son has to do the same thing. Oliver has to choose whether to cling to his grief or to take a chance on love, which is even harder for him because he has no example to follow.

I'm doing an awful job of explaining this, but clearly it was a complex film, though in a simple, very human way. Of course Christopher Plummer was great, a scene stealer in almost all of his scenes. Ewan McGregor's character was very different from anything I've seen him play before, both innocent and mature at once. And I thought Mélanie Laurent was perfect in her role. She almost seemed a blend of the French actress and struggling actress sterotypes—impoverished, bohemian, classy, sexy, spontaneous, shy yet sociable. The writing for this film was so good that almost any actors would have made it good, but these three made it great. (*edit: Christopher Plummer's Academy Award? Totally deserved and one of the few categories I had an opinion on and was rooting for! Also, oldest every winner... Go him!)

Anyway, I'll stop now. In summary, it's really worth seeing, whether you're interested in the parent/child aspect, the coming out aspect, the figuring out how love works aspect, the dealing with death aspect, or even the dog with thoughts aspect. A true gem.

Rating: 4.5

Cleopatra (1963, U.S.)

I've always planned to watch this movie, so I'm not sure what took me so long to get around to it. I think I was inspired to finally watch it because I've been having my love of historical fiction renewed in novels, so I thought I should have one in films too.

So what do I have to say? It was long. Looooooong. I have no problem sitting through Meet Joe Black, Titanic, or Gone with the Wind (even after countless viewings), and they don't seem long at all. Cleopatra, however, seemed like it would never end. I think it would have been much, much better if it was made into two movies as originally planned. (I gather they combined it into one so as to cash in on the Burton-Taylor affair, since Burton doesn't appear in the first part.)

Aside from the length, my main reaction was horror at the countless anachronisms. The sets and the costumes were just absolutely ridiculous. It looked exactly like what it was—a 1960s Hollywood version of the ancient world. Taylor's costumes were especially awful. Yes, some of them were quite beautiful, but they were a far, far cry from anything Cleopatra would have actually worn. (On a more positive note, they did an incredible job aging Cleopatra over the course of the film, mostly with her hair but partially with makeup. Good work.) I'm cringing just thinking about the costumes and sets, especially considering that this won Oscars for set design and costuming. The horror! (I guess the criteria don't include accuracy. They were beautiful except for that, really.) What else? The music was way over the top, very brassy sounding. I guess that's pretty standard for this kind of film from this time period, but boy did it grate. Oh, and don't get me started on how inaccurate a lot of the history was here. Obviously, it goes without saying.

The saving grace of this film, as far as I'm concerned, was in some of the acting and writing. Some of the writing was bland, some of the acting was bad, but there were parts that simply shone. Harrison, Burton, and Taylor all delivered some of the most passionate performances I've seen. Harrison was nearly inspiring with some of his speeches as Caesar. Burton's anger-filled rants were a sight to behold. And Taylor was so full of life, whether she was speaking words of love, rage, or anything in between.

Overall I'm glad I saw this, but I wouldn't watch it again.

Rating: 2.5

The Fighter (2010, U.S.)

I never really had much interest in seeing this, because I'm just not a big sports movie sort of gal. But after all the Oscar buzz, I decided I better check it out anyway. Besides, I have great respect for the talents of Christian Bale, Mark Wahlberg, and Amy Adams.

Basically, it's exactly what you'd expect it to be. Poor guy from Lowell, Massachusetts tries to follow in his older brother's athletic footsteps, but not his drug-addicted, law-breaking ones. He wants to maintain his relationship with his brother, who he loves and once respected, even though his brother is dragging him down. He wants to get out of the neighborhood and away from his overbearing mother and gaggle of sisters. He wants to earn enough to support his daughter. He wants to be with the woman he loves even though his family doesn't approve. He struggles, he triumphs, the end.

I hate to oversimplify the plot and make it sound like I'm mocking it, because I'm not. The acting was phenomenal, as you would expect from Bale (a well-earned Oscar), Wahlberg, and Adams especially. The real surprise to me was Melissa Leo (another well-earned Oscar) and the 5? 6? sisters. Between all those women, the two men, and Adams (who played Wahlberg's girlfriend), the dynamic was astounding. The family felt like a big, crazy, female-dominated family, and there was especially no love lost between the sisters and the girlfriend. Realistic stuff, and funny in a sad sort of way. Excellent ensemble.

When it comes down to it, though, it's just another sports movie to me. Exceptionally well acted, and probably interesting to those with an interest in the subject, but all the brilliant acting chops in the world wouldn't make this my favorite movie. It's just not my thing, and I appreciated it for what it was. (Probably a must for sports fans in general, boxing fans in particular, Massachusetts residents, and fans of the lead actors.)

Rating: 3.0

The Social Network (2010, U.S.)

I was absolutely immersed in this film within the first five minutes. It amazes me how quickly they made a movie about such recent history, with a wealth of mostly accurate detail. Truly fascinating.

The acting was very strong. I think the only other movie that I've seen Jesse Eisenberg in was Adventureland, which I also loved him in. However, I think he was even better in this. From the very first, his witty, sarcastic, fast talking makes him the picture of the arrogant, insecure intellectual. He was definitely the sun around which all the other actors/characters orbited. Though none of them touched Eisenberg in terms of talent, most of the other actors were fairly strong. Even Justin Timberlake, who I was more than a little wary to watch, wasn't bad.

This is a dark film, both literally and figuratively. Perhaps the dark, mostly nighttime settings were symbolic. (Then again, maybe computer nerd types mostly work at night.) Even the brightest scene in the Facebook offices toward the end of the film didn't seem "light." It was a clinical, lonely sort of whiteness. It's also dark in that there are many betrayals and broken friendships. This has to be the unhappiest movie about a billionaire ever made. (Well, perhaps discounting Marie Antoinette and other non-modern billionaires.)

I can't even think of another movie I've ever seen about such modern history/pop culture, so it's hard to compare this to anything, but I will definitely say that it paints an interesting picture of the world we live in and the dark side of the birth of a company we take for granted daily. I would highly recommend this to anyone.

Rating: 4.0

The King's Speech (2010, U.S.)

The trailer for this film was pretty badly done, if you ask me. I still went to see it because I knew that any film with Colin Firth, Geoffrey Rush, and Helena Bonham Carter had to be a winner. On top of that, what could be better than a film about a relatively unknown part of British history?

What can I say? Obviously those three were fantastic, as were most of the supporting actors. The chemistry between Firth and Rush was especially wonderful, particularly in their therapy sessions. The film was enlightening. It was well written. The score meshed perfectly. The cinematography was beautiful. I felt like I'd stepped into the 1930s. Sure, it wasn't the most fast-paced movie. But it was engaging and moving and informative and even somewhat inspiring. I knew it was going to sweep Best Picture and the Best Actors at the Oscars.

This one was a very unsurprising surprise, if you will, and well worth watching.

Rating: 4.0

Black Swan (2010, U.S.)

I really don't know how to rate this film. I'm giving it a 3.0 because I could appreciate all the technical aspects—acting, cinematography, score, costuming, writing. It really was phenomenal. On the other hand, I don't remember the last time I felt so psychologically damaged after watching a movie. I guess you could consider that to be some powerful filmmaking, but I was completely out of sorts for the rest of the day and just can't give it more.

The use of colors was quite well done. There was a very monochromatic scheme, mostly whites, blacks, and grays. Perhaps the colors were symbolic. Nina (Portman's character) wears a lot of gray, while the other dancers wear white and Lily (the slightly evil nemesis) wears black. There's an occasional splash of pink (inevitable in a ballet film), though most of it appears in her "innocent" bedroom.

I was very impressed with the score, which incorporated a lot of crashing ballet-type music, which gave voice to Nina's state of mind and gave the film a frantic feel. It also added to the terror.

Of course the acting was superb. I've always seen Vincent Cassel as a lively, playful, mischievous man, very French and sexy in a fun sort of way. This film gave him a whole new persona. Much more masculine, dangerous, powerful. He is very talented. Natalie Portman is another brilliant actor, with one of the most expressive faces I have ever seen. The way her eyebrows dip down when she cries make her look so childlike, and she seamlessly transitions from innocent to terrified to terrifyingly chilling. She really looked like she was having a mental breakdown. A truly powerful performance, and I knew she would win the Oscar for her role.

Lastly, what an ending. Obviously I won't give it away, but I will say that I didn't see that coming. On the other hand, I don't know how it could have ended otherwise. Pretty stunning.

Rating: 3.0

Crazy Heart (2009, U.S.)

I went into this film knowing that it wasn't really my thing, but I decided to give it a try because it was critically acclaimed. Well, I will say that the two Oscars it won were probably earned. (I haven't seen all the competition, and something tells me that Morgan Freeman could have beaten Jeff Bridges.) I'm not a big country music fan, but I have to say all of the original songs were pretty good, and Jeff Bridges performed them exactly like a has-been, alcoholic country singer.

So those were two good elements. And I guess the story wasn't terrible, but the writing could have used some work. It was very slow paced, which wouldn't have been so bad except the characters just weren't that sympathetic. It wasn't the acting—it was the writing, Bridges and Gyllenhaal are both talented actors.

I don't know, it was just boring, boring, boring. Not as bad as The Hurt Locker, but still.

Rating: 2.0

The Young Victoria (2009, UK)

I feel like I use the same words a lot, but believe me when I say this film is indescribably beautiful.

To begin with, there were some incredible special effects done with the camera. My favorite was the servants setting up for the king's birthday dinner; as they laid glasses down this long table, the camera's focus shifted from glass to glass seamlessly. There was another scene with an attempted assassination of Victoria, and they zoom in on her mother's arm, where the hairs slowly raise on end at that moment. It was completely unnecessary to the story, but lovely.

The acting in this film was superb. Emily Blunt was perfect as a young and unsure but strong queen. She was so real and vibrant and full of life she practically left of the screen. (I was especially fond of the scene where she proposes to Albert.) Rupert Friend, as Prince Albert, was a perfect contrast. He was silent and steady, Victoria's rock. And between the two of them there was this kind of quiet chemistry. It's hard to explain, but it's almost like you can see their hearts touching and softly warming each other. That sounds incredibly cheesy, but I don't know how else to describe it. Their relationship brought this story alive, and I will never think of Victoria as an old dowager queen ever again.

And on the subject of actors, Jim Broadbent as King William. Wow. He is something else, that Jim Broadbent. I have no idea what King William was like in life, but I will never picture him any other way than the way Broadbent portrayed him. Jolly and kind. Perfect!

Artistically, the film was a visual delight. The costumes were well deserving of their Oscar. especially Victoria's coronation ball gown of gold and scarlet. I thought the settings looked pretty accurate for upper class Victorian England, but something tells me a lot of grime was missing.

I liked the choice at the end to mix shots of Victoria and Albert with end titles about what happened next, because it really emphasized how much they loved and relied upon each other. It suitably concluded the film and left a memorable impression of the ending, always a plus.

One last note on the score, which was heavy on the piano and fit the film perfectly. I'd also be willing to guess that it would stand on its own if you're looking for a soothing piano album.

I really liked this one, and I'd love to see it again. I'll also be on the lookout for more films featuring Emily Blunt.

Rating: 4.0

Avatar (2009, U.S.)

This was possibly the most underwhelming movie of the year. (Okay, maybe not fair to this movie. The Hurt Locker was worse.) It was not the biggest epic of all time, as all the hype would have you believe. Something tells me that the main reason for the hype is that it looked amazing on the big screen in 3-D. I do think it deserved its Oscars for Art Direction, Cinematography, and Visual Effects, but Best Picture nomination? I don't think so.

Avatar is like a combination of the Matrix and Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee. (Actually, Dances with Wolves might be a better example, since the soldier goes native.) Not a good combo. A bunch of Americans colonize an alien planet in order to get their hands on this valuable rock, but they don't even bother to say why this rock is so valuable. It seems like they were so focused on visuals that they ignored the need for a clear plot. In addition to that, the blue people seem to be a racist mix of Native- and African-Americans. Terrible.

I've always been a fan of James Horner, but this score seemed very recycled. Some of the music sounded reminiscent of Titanic, which I guess isn't a huge surprise. But then there was a repeated strain that sounded identical to one from Troy. I looked it up, and lo and behold, Horner composed that score too. Seems like the well of creativity is dry. Not that it wasn't good, it just didn't seem original.

Overall, this movie was just one big disappointment. Visually beautiful, at least!

Rating: 2.5

The Hurt Locker (2008, U.S.)

An army bomb removal squadron disenganges a bomb in Baghdad. And then they disengage another. And a few days later they do another. On and on and on, blah blah blah.

This had to be the slowest paced movie I've ever seen in my life. It would be one thing if they tried to make some deep statement about the psychology of war or something like that. What made it worse was that they probably thought that's what they were doing. But no. Characters weren't sympathetic, writing wasn't good, acting was wooden... awful.

I was already doubtful about the Academy Awards in recent years, but the fact that this movie actually won the Best Picture Oscar just completely made me lose faith in the Academy. I've only seen a couple of other nominees, but all of them were better by far.

Rating: 1.0

Love Story (1970, U.S.)

Yes, I finally saw it. Was I impressed? Not so much. Perhaps it's one of those movies that just has so much hype (hello, half the girls born after 1970 are named Jennifer!) that there's no way it can live up. Or perhaps it's cheap melodrama.

Look, it has some positive points. For instance, there was obvious chemistry between O'Neal and MacGraw. I loved all their witty banter in the beginning. The part of the story when they were falling in love was much better than the part about their marriage and aftermath.

And the (Oscar-winning) score was lovely. But redundant. Seriously, there were shots that seemed to last for five minutes with the same few bars playing over and over again. The score was just repetitive, and the use of long shots was not effective. Combined... yikes.

If you're looking for some romance that ends happily until the tragically-ever-after, you're better off watching a movie based on Sparks—Message in a Bottle, The Notebook, A Walk to Remember, even the not-so-great Nights in Rodanthe might be better than this one.

Sorry, all you ladies who were my age in 1970. I just don't see how it became a classic.

Rating: 2.5

Saving Private Ryan (1998, U.S.)

It only took me 11 years to see Saving Private Ryan. Travesty, I know. And this is really going to kill people, but it wasn't nearly as wonderful as I imagined it would be.

The concept was great. The score, beautiful. The acting, convincing. The cinematography, breathtaking. Yet somehow, it just didn't quite get me.

The opening scene was incredible. I thought it really captured the essence of war—the chaos, the fear, the horror. But then it kept going. And going. Perhaps the point was that war is like that. The horrors never end, and all that. But there were so many scenes that could have been just as effective if they were cut in half. Or even quartered. (Is this how other people felt about Australia?)

And I think this was really my primary quarrel with this film. While, as I mentioned before, the usual elements were in place to make this the kind of film I would love forever, instead it felt like it would just go on and on forever. I'm pretty disappointed to feel this way.

Rating: 3.0

A Streetcar Named Desire (1951, U.S.)

I'm ashamed to say this, but I had absolutely no idea what A Streetcar Named Desire was about. And I have to take this opportunity to say how shameful it is the way all the DVD cases show a sexy looking Marlon Brando smoldering away. Aside from the fact that Brando is the complete opposite of sexy in this movie, he is also not the star.

Vivien Leigh as Blache DuBois was overwhelming. She was Blanch DuBois, that fragile, fading Southern lady/slightly loose/desperately lonely/mentally ill woman. Incredible. You can just feel yourself struggling to understand what's going on in her head, even though it was perfectly clear on her face—if your own mind was complex enough to comprehend. I really don't think anyone but Vivien Leigh could have played it. To be fair to Brando, he would have looked brilliant next to anyone else, but Leigh stole the show. However, he was also incredible as the scummy, crude, cruel, animalistic Stanley. The two together... Words cannot describe.

And really, that's all there is to say about it. A dark, well-written, literary play brought to the screen by the greatest director of the 1950s and two unparalleled actors with perfect photography. No wonder it's a classic.

Rating: 4.0

The Pianist (2002, France/Germany/UK/Poland)

Adrien Brody is a genius. He has such an impressive acting range, I just can't say enough to praise him. The variety of intense emotions he can portray just leaves me speechless.

This film was powerful, you can't deny it. I think the main reason that I didn't like it more was because it was so long, which gave a good feeling of time passing, but they didn't use a lot of the time as well as they could have. So many scenes that seemed like the natural progression of the story just never happened.

However, since the whole movie was pretty much Brody on his own, it was powerful stuff. Music was also beautiful. I would definitely recommend this for music lovers, Holocaust buffs, those who like character-driven films, and those who like slower-paced historical drama.

Rating: 3.5

Slumdog Millionaire (2008, UK)

I didn't know anything about this movie other than the fact that everyone was talking about it, it was nominated for tons of Oscars, and Stefanie insisted that I see it. As usual, I did what Stefanie said. Unlike her last disastrous suggestion (Montenegro), I loved it.

Everything about it was great. The cinematography was beautiful. The acting, especially that of the very young children, was convincing. The story was always moving and sometimes funny. The score was okay, but I really don't think it was Academy Award-worthy. (It was just average music by an Indian composer, and I can only assume that it won because it was "different.")

I love character-driven films, and this definitely falls in that category; it follows the same three children from the time the main character is about 5 until he's 18. The use of flashback (another technique I love) is employed in a fascinating manner. The "present" shows Jamal in a jail being interrogated about how he could know all the answers to the questions in the Indian Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?, which he is one question away from winning; he is suspected of cheating. Flashbacks show Jamal answering questions on the show. Flashbacks from there show events from Jamal's childhood where he learned the answers to these questions.

I also love the complexity of the "aboutness." On one level, it's a coming of age story. It's also a rags-to-riches story. It's also about the relationship between brothers. It's about the reality of life in Mumbai and its slums. And it's also a love story.

Words to describe this one: complex, beautiful, heart-wrenching, stunning, unique.

Rating: 5.0

Now, Voyager (1942, U.S.)

I rather like Bette Davis, especially because I really don't think she's the most attractive woman in the world and yet she was still cast as the heroine repeatedly. (Also, she probably did the best portrayal of Elizabeth I of all time.) She was quite good in the film as an "old" maid who has a nervous breakdown, goes to a "mental institution" to recover (where she's treated by Louis from Casablanca) before emerging transformed into a beauty and going on a cruise to further her recovery (where she falls in love with Lazslo from Casablanca). This film is centered around the self-discovery and transformation of her character, and she plays it well. If anything, it's understated.

It's a little old-fashioned (obviously) in its portrayal of a woman needing a man to be complete, but then it takes a remarkable forward-thinking approach when she ends up being her own woman. (Although even then, her role becomes very maternal. Still, it's not bad for 1942!)

The music was very typical of Max Steiner, and although the sound editing at times made the music quite a bit too loud for the scene, it still fit pretty well.

A lot of this film reminded me of An Affair to Remember, which is one of my favorite oldies (and one of the first ones I watched, since it was my Grandma's favorite). So if you like that one, you may like this one. However, you should be warned that the ending of Now, Voyager isn't nearly as satisfying as the ending of An Affair to Remember.

Rating: 3.5

My Oscar Picks 2008

Okay, here are my picks for this year's Oscars. I'm excluding nominations for stuff like sound editing (how would I know who was best?) and documentaries/foreign films/shorts (since I haven't seen any from the category and know nothing about them). Here's the key:

* a film I've seen

My pick to win

The actual winner

Best Motion Picture of the Year

*The Curious Case of Benjamin Button: Ceán Chaffin, Kathleen Kennedy, Frank Marshall
Frost/Nixon: Brian Grazer, Ron Howard, Eric Fellner
*Milk: Bruce Cohen, Dan Jinks
*The Reader: Nominees to be determined
*Slumdog Millionaire: Christian Colson

Notes: I am too in love with Benjamin Button to even contemplate anything else winning. It was just too good. There are a few films I'm surprised not to see here, but then when has the Academy ever listened to me?

*edit: 2/20/2009 I just saw Slumdog Millionaire, and I loved it. I'm really torn now.*

Best Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role

Richard Jenkins for The Visitor
Frank Langella for Frost/Nixon
*Sean Penn for Milk
*Brad Pitt for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Mickey Rourke for The Wrestler

Notes: This is going to be a tough competition. There's been a lot of buzz about these movies, and based on the previews for Frost/Nixon and the Wrestler, Langella and Rourke are definitely contenders. Sean Penn was incredible in Milk, but I still don't think he deserved the win for Mystic River, so not winning this one would even it out. Also, I think Brad Pitt is long overdue for an Oscar. The fact that he was only nominated once before this is inconceivable. And this was definitely one of his best performances yet. If he doesn't win, I will be unhappy.

Best Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role

*Anne Hathaway for Rachel Getting Married
*Angelina Jolie for Changeling
Melissa Leo for Frozen River
Meryl Streep for Doubt
*Kate Winslet for The Reader

Notes: This one is also tough. First, why did Cate Blanchett not get nominated for Benjamin Button? The woman deserves at least that. As for the rest, it's no secret that I love Jolie and Winslet. Jolie was great in Changeling, but if she was competing against herself in other roles, I'm not sure if she'd win or not. On the other hand, the same is kind of true for Winslet. But this is her 6th nomination, and like Pitt, she deserves one. So I'm going to pull for her (even though I would be just as thrilled if Angie won another). Still, I have never liked Anne Hathaway, and she was wonderful in Rachel Getting Married. Something tells me she will end up being the real winner, but I refuse to pull for her!

Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role

*Josh Brolin for Milk
Robert Downey Jr. for Tropic Thunder
Philip Seymour Hoffman for Doubt
*Heath Ledger for The Dark Knight
*Michael Shannon for Revolutionary Road

Notes: Heath. Need we say more? He was robbed in 2005 for Brokeback, and I don't think anyone can deny his Joker was incredible. If he doesn't win, this might just be the last year I watch the Awards. *edit: Michael Shannon was really great in Revolutionary Road, so he definitely deserved the nomination... just a comment. I'm still all for Heath.*

Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role

Amy Adams for Doubt
Penélope Cruz for Vicky Cristina Barcelona
Viola Davis for Doubt
*Taraji P. Henson for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Marisa Tomei for The Wrestler

Notes: I've barely seen any of these, but I'm going to make a wild guess at Amy Adams for this one, because I think she's good.

Best Achievement in Directing

*Danny Boyle for Slumdog Millionaire
*Stephen Daldry for The Reader
*David Fincher for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Ron Howard for Frost/Nixon
*Gus Van Sant for Milk

Notes: Just because I love it.

Best Writing, Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen

Frozen River: Courtney Hunt
Happy-Go-Lucky: Mike Leigh
*In Bruges: Martin McDonagh
*Milk: Dustin Lance Black
WALL·E: Andrew Stanton, Pete Docter, Jim Reardon

Notes: I don't really have enough to go on in this category, but I remember being surprised when I saw In Bruges that it was so funny and moving all at the same time. Which probably comes down to good writing.

Best Writing, Screenplay Based on Material Previously Produced or Published

*The Curious Case of Benjamin Button: Eric Roth, Robin Swicord
Doubt: John Patrick Shanley
Frost/Nixon: Peter Morgan
*The Reader: David Hare
*Slumdog Millionaire: Simon Beaufoy

Notes: Again, I just love it.

Best Achievement in Cinematography

*Changeling: Tom Stern
*The Curious Case of Benjamin Button: Claudio Miranda
*The Dark Knight: Wally Pfister
*The Reader: Roger Deakins, Chris Menges
*Slumdog Millionaire: Anthony Dod Mantle

Notes: Seems like I pick the visually stunning films to watch! Of all of these, I think Benjamin Button was best. I loved Changeling and really liked The Reader and Dark Knight, but Benjamin Button just seems right for this win. *edit 2/20/2009 Uh oh, now I've seen all five, and Slumdog was visually stunning too!*

Best Achievement in Art Direction

*Changeling: James J. Murakami, Gary Fettis
*The Curious Case of Benjamin Button: Donald Graham Burt, Victor J. Zolfo
*The Dark Knight: Nathan Crowley, Peter Lando
*The Duchess: Michael Carlin, Rebecca Alleway
*Revolutionary Road: Kristi Zea, Debra Schutt

Notes: Period pieces always win art direction. It's a fact.

Best Achievement in Costume Design

*Australia: Catherine Martin
*The Curious Case of Benjamin Button: Jacqueline West
*The Duchess: Michael O'Connor
*Milk: Danny Glicker
*Revolutionary Road: Albert Wolsky

Notes: Look, a bunch of period films got nominated! 19th century, scattered 20th century, 17th century, 1970s, 1950s. I get the feeling that the more elaborate the costumes, the more likely an Oscar is. Which is why I'm going for The Duchess.

Best Achievement in Makeup

*The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008): Greg Cannom
*The Dark Knight (2008): John Caglione Jr., Conor O'Sullivan
Hellboy II: The Golden Army (2008): Mike Elizalde, Thomas Floutz

Notes: I decided Benjamin Button would win makeup before I even saw it was nominated. The aging done on Blanchett and Pitt was too incredible. I will be beyond shocked if this doesn't win.

Best Achievement in Music Written for Motion Pictures, Original Score

*The Curious Case of Benjamin Button: Alexandre Desplat
*Defiance: James Newton Howard
*Milk: Danny Elfman
*Slumdog Millionaire: A.R. Rahman
WALL·E: Thomas Newman

Notes: This is probably the hardest category for me, because I will be disappointed for almost anyone who doesn't win. Desplat, Howard, Elfman, and Newman are four of my all time favorite composers. But of the three of these films I've seen, I can easily say that Defiance will win, since my immediate reaction to the film was that the score was the best, best part. It was haunting, beautiful, perfect.

Best Achievement in Visual Effects

*The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008): Eric Barba, Steve Preeg, Burt Dalton, Craig Barron
*The Dark Knight: Nick Davis, Chris Corbould, Timothy Webber, Paul J. Franklin
Iron Man: John Nelson, Ben Snow, Daniel Sudick, Shane Mahan

Notes: I'm a sucker for this film.

Best Animated Feature Film of the Year

Bolt: Chris Williams, Byron Howard
Kung Fu Panda: John Stevenson, Mark Osborne
WALL·E: Andrew Stanton

Notes: I haven't seen any of these, but I've just heard too much hype about WALL·E to think it won't win.

Pillow Talk (1959, U.S.)

This movie reminded me a lot of Down with Love, which I adore. And when I looked it up after I watched this, I found out that Down with Love was a giant nod to sex comedies of this era, but especially to Pillow Talk.

I liked this film quite a bit. It didn't blow me away or anything, but it was an enjoyable way to spend an evening at home. There were quite a few laugh-out-loud moments, and some sappy parts too.

This might be complete sacrilege or what have you, but I really wasn't too thrilled with Doris Day. I think this is the first film I've seen with her, and I just thought she was so-so. I think her character could have been just as easily played by countless other actresses. And her singing... yeah. I just don't see the allure. Rock Hudson, on the other hand, is dreamy, charismatic, and suave. Kind of Clark Gable meets Cary Grant, but mostly in a mold of his own. Very sexy.

If you like cases of mistaken identity, sex comedies, battles of the sexes, old movies, or a good laugh, you should definitely see this one.

Rating: 3.5