Oscar Watch 2011 Predictions & Wrap-Up

My annual run up to the Oscars is officially complete. For the third time in 4 years, I've seen all the Best Picture nominees, something I'm geekily proud of. I will freely admit, however, this year's "accomplishment" didn't really fulfill me in the way last year's did. I'll get into that after I present my list.

To create this list, I ranked all sixteen films I saw for this project in order, 1-16, ignoring what was actually nominated for Best Picture or not. I then went through my list to come up with my offical Best Picture nominee rankings, but opted to leave the list as-is when I looked at the results. 

Without further adieu...

timmmc.com's Official Oscar Watch 2011 Rankings
Best Picture nominees indicated with an asterisk 

1. The Artist*


2. 50/50


3. Drive


4. The Descendants*


5. War Horse*


6. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo


7. The Ides of March


8. The Help*


9. Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close*


10. J. Edgar


11. Midnight in Paris*


12. The Iron Lady


13. Moneyball*


14. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part II


15. Hugo*


16. The Tree of Life*

Yes, The Artist is the best film of the 2011 for me, by quite a margin. Did I love it so much because of what it was, something so new and so fresh to me? Maybe. I'm only speaking the obvious when I say silent films just aren't made much anymore. But The Artist is more than just a silent movie: it's a very funny comedy with a whole lot of heart, something I happen to appreciate a ton. The performances were wonderful, the screenplay funny and unpredictable, the direction spot-on, everything. Without a doubt, to me, this is a film that deserves every accolade it's recieved and will recieve. And it will recieve quite a bit come the Oscars ceremony, I'm sure of it.

Looking through the rest of the list, I have to say... WTF, Academy? I understand nominations for some of the nominees, and, hell, I even understand some of the glaring snubs (in my opinion). But The Tree of Life or Hugo nominated? Really? I'm sure I could go back through 2011 and find at least 5 other films I'd consider nominating over either of those two. I'd also consider Moneyball to be in this WTF category. I find it disappointing how mediocrity is rewarded.

As I discussed in my open, I didn't find this year's project as fulfilling as year's past. Last year, I enjoyed comparing The Social Network and The King's Speech in my head, coming up with pros and cons of each, thinking over which film was better made, all that good stuff. This year? Not so much. The Artist was a clear winner for me. Last year, the project led me to watch a whole bunch of great films... this year was filled with disappointing mediocrity, or worse.

Some other predictions (only half-hearted, as I admit to not seeing all the nominees in most categories)...

• Best Actor: in a two-man race between George Clooney and Jean Dujardin, I have to go with Clooney... but I haven


• Best Actress: I haven't seen Albert Nobbs or My Week With Marilyn, but I love me some Viola Davis. That said, Meryl Streep was a force as Maggie Thatcher, and she's past due...


• Supporting Actor & Actress: I haven't seen enough of the performances to really judge. Of the ones I HAVE seen though, I'd go with Max von Sydow & Bérénce Bejo.


• Director: Michel Hazanavicius, The Artist


• Adapted Screenplay & Original Screenplay: again, I haven't seen all the nominees, but The Ides of March and Midnight in Paris of the ones I have seen. 

But, anyhoo, there you have it. It's been real, 2011 film year. Here's to hoping 2012 is more like 2010!

OW11: Drive

Image via Wikipedia

First, a warning. I cannot say what I want to say about this film without partial spoilers. So, consider yourself warned.

We've all seen or at least heard of this whole "driver" genre, if you will. Epic chases about dudes finishing their jobs to protect and/or exact revenge. They all follow more or less the same template, their appeal lying in their bad ass action star leading man or the sweet cars or the epic chase sequences or whatever. Seen one, seen them all, for the most part.

Except Drive.

Drive takes that whole driving action gimmick genre and turns it into a legit film. All the cliche elements are there, sure, but Drive is sexy, dangerous, exciting, bad ass, suspenseful, dramatic and heartwrenching, often all at the same time. Ryan Gosling turns in an absolute tour de force performance here, one of the best I've ever seen in an action film (from an acting standpoint). 

One of my favorite parts of this film is how much is said with so few words. The performances from the cast and the slick, perfectly stylistic direction always told exactly what was going on, even if the characters weren't doing a whole lot of speaking. The performances and the dramatic action speak for itself, which I thought was extremely effective and, frankly, refreshing.

Not to spoil my OW11 wrap-up post (which is due around 6pm on Sunday evening), but I have absolutely no idea what the Academy was doing this year. Drive is an effective film that keeps the audience guessing, filled with stunning performances, solid direction, a fantastic screenplay and was a success at the box office... and was largely ignored by the Oscars. Extremely disappointing. This film deserves better than that.

OW11: The Ides of March

Image via Wikipedia

What an interesting, interesting filmThe Ides of March is.

I don't mean interesting in reference to the plot. Everyone knows politics is a dirty game. The people involved will do or say anything to win an election. Turn on CNN or MSNBC or whatever today and you'll see it clear as day in this primary season. Plus, any film-going audience has seen all the backhanded political tricks in any film that has any sort of political/election background. The Ides of March doesn't really offer anything new on this front. Nothing new is offered, it's not viewed from a radically different angle, no fresh commentary is offered. 

All that said, I absolutely loved this film. I can honestly say this is the first time I actually got Ryan Gosling (I wasn't enamored with him in last year's Blue Valentine). George Clooney's direction is top notch, filled with wonderful pacing and some truly fantastic choices (the press conference, for one).

Having seen all 9 Best Picture nominees, I would officially call this a snub. Snubs all around, actually. Gosling, Clooney's direction, Best Picture, everything. Sure, the film could be something more than it was, but for what it was, it was wonderful. Now, to read the play the film is based on...

OW11: Hugo

Image via Wikipedia

Hugo... To be blunt, Hugo was a troublesome film for me.

The film's plot is long winded, filled with twists and turns... but not suspenseful twists and turns. Instead, the twists and turns are the tone and point of the movie; first it's a story about how bad this kid's life sucks, then it's an adventure story, then it's a mystery, then it's an ode to the silent film era, then it's.... you get the point. What is the point of the film? After seeing the film I read various online writeups, all of which praised the film as a love letter to a forgotten era... if that's what this film is, why do you not even get into that until past the film's midpoint? If it's an adventure film, why does the adventure stop about a quarter of the way through? 

I know the argument against me. Maybe that's the point. Sure, whatever. I don't like that in a film.

All the other elements in the film are strong enough. The performances are nothing to write home about, but nothing glaring either. The imagery is downright stunning. The 3D gimmick here is used masterfully, truly enhancing the film (which usually doesn't happen). I just can't get past the composition of the film.

 

And with this, I've seen all 9 2012 Best Picture nominees, and with two weeks to spare (well, one as I write this, but I saw Hugo over a week ago). If I can swing it, I want to see some "snubs" this week, will write if I do. Do stay tuned for my OW11 recap, to be posted on Sunday!

OW11: Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close

Image via Wikipedia

Next stop on the Oscar Watch 2011 Express is Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close, Tom Hanks's mostly-annual Oscar bait flick. As a whole, I enjoyed this film quite a bit, and don't really understand the outrage from some film blogs about this being nominated for Best Picture. It's not a perfect film by any stretch of the imagination nor is it anything groundbreaking or important or anything like that, but it is far from the worst film of the 9 nominees this year. 

One of the biggest problems this film faces is the 9/11 background for the story. This is a story that simply cannot be told without almost reliving that nightmare of a day, and director Stephen Daldry does not tread lightly here. For that reason, EL&IC may not be an easy watch for some. All of the 9/11 imagery and descriptions and everything may be necessary to the story, but I'm not sure all the superfluous details and speculation was necessary (if you see the film, you'd know exactly what I'm referring to).

Another problem for the film is the unabashed sentimentality in the film. The story is clearly a story that will draw tears, something else Daldry is not shy to go for. In fact, some portions of the film play to that effect far too much, bordering on overkill. Had there been a little more restraint in this department, this film could be something special.

Beyond those two things, everything else about this film is absolutely lovely. The cast is top notch, with especially wonderful work being turned in by Viola Davis (again), Jeffrey Wright, and Mac Von Sydow. As was the case in War Horse, the supporting cast had to be strong and make an impression in limited screentime, and they most certainly did just that.

Based on the reactions to this film being nominated, it's clearly a polarizing one. In fact, I'd say I enjoyed it a whole lot more than Marissa, who saw it with me. Other people I've talked to was the same thing - some really like it, others not so much. For that reason, this is a film that has next to no chance for the Oscar... in fact, I'm going to guess it was the 8th or 9th nominee, which is a shame. Nonetheless, it's a film worth seeing.

Random sidenote, almost a postscript... I enjoy that James Gandolfini's name is on the poster I've embedded, courtesty of Wikipedia. His role was cut from the film. 

OW11: The Artist

Image via Wikipedia

Of all the movies I've ever seen, this is not my favorite.

But of all the movies I've ever seen, or at the very least all the movies I've seen in recent memory, The Artist might be the closest to perfection I have seen.

I have absolutely no idea what to write here beyond that. There is not a single thing I can complain about. Not even a small, trivial qualm. The screenplay, the direction, the performances, the score, the cinematography... everything was absolutely, positively delightful.

The movie ended over three hours ago, and I think I'm still smiling because of it.

I know I said in a recent review that I didn't want to spoil my wrap-up entry... but screw that. This needs to win all of the awards. Even the awards it's not nominated for. Or eligible for. All. Of. The. Awards. Done and done. 

OW11: Moneyball

Image via Wikipedia

Moneyball is a movie in search of an identity. Is it something of a biopic of the general manager of the Oakland A's, Billy Beane? Is it an examination of what goes into the "moneyball" style of managing a baseball team? Is it simply a baseball movie? The answer is a little of all three, but not enough of any.

If the film aims to be a biopic, it fails because Beane isn't fleshed out enough; he's merely a man who fails, tries something new, and doesn't quite succeed with that. The film goes to great lengths to show that Beane was a failed baseball player... but for what purpose? To show he's a different type of general manager? That much is made very clear by him trying the whole "moneyball" concept. To be fair, the film also paints a picture of a divorced father who loves his daughter, but very little comes of that, as well (although, I suppose it becomes the reasoning for the decision he has to make at the end of the film). 

The film is clearly does not aim to be a documentary of sorts, explaining the concept of advanced statistics and all that good stuff, the essense of "moneyball" baseball. While that would be interesting to some (me included), a good 90% of the movie-going audience would be lost. So instead, all of it is glossed over, with the audience told that getting on base wins ballgames, accept it and move on. I'm torn whether or not this is a good thing or not, but since I'm a baseball stats geek, I'm too biased to form a proper judgement.

Finally, if the movie aims to be a baseball movie, it fails completely. The only actual baseball action shown was to further the plot of the movie, to show Beane's wishes being ignored, to show the only player featured in depth finally succeeding. Again, this is where my bias comes in - I knew the 2002 Oakland Athletics. I recall the team's later summer run quite fondly, how it happened. The team won 20 games in a row on the strength of quite possibly the greatest home-grown starting rotation ever assembled (led by Tim Hudson, Mark Mulder and Barry Zito), and on the back of eventual American League MVP Miguel Tejada. Sure, Scott Hatteberg contributed, but that team did what it did because of Hudson, Mulder, Zito and Tejada... none of whom were featured in the movie. Hell, Tejada was mentioned in passing once, the back of Mulder's jersey was flashed periodically, and Hudson was seen getting shelled in the 20th game of the streak. That's all. Those four players didn't fit into the "moneyball" concept as presented in the movie... so they were ignored in the film? And here I thought only politicians twisted the facts to fit their own means...

/rant.

The leading performances in this film are extremely strong. I whole heartedly enjoy when I can lose track of the actor in a role, and think of them in terms of the character only, and Moneyball featured two such performances, Brad Pitt and (shockingly!) Jonah Hill. I'm not so sure either are Oscar-worthy, but time will tell. 

Overall, I can't say I loved this movie. Maybe it's the baseball fan in me talking, but I'd personally put this in the "summer popcorn flick" category before the "best picture contender" category; enjoyable, but hardly the right caliber of film. The fact that it's nominated over something like 50/50 is a sheer testament to the powers behind the film (Pitt, Sorkin) in contrast to some of the other snubbed films.... but that's a topic for my wrap-up blog post.

OW11: Midnight in Paris

Image via Wikipedia

I'd heard absolutely wonderful things about Midnight in Paris from all over: critics loved it, film bloggers were delighted by it, even my own brother said it was really good. So when I finally found a time to settle in to watch the film, I was pretty excited, expecting big things... but was ultimately disappointed.

Now, don't get me wrong. Midnight in Paris is a charming little film filled with lots of imagination, a witty and interesting screenplay, an involving plot and some endearing performances... but, frankly, the whole thing came off as somewhat slight. The whole film I expected some big cathartic moment where suddenly everything becomes clear for Owen Wilson's character... but it was not to be. He learns the grass isn't always greener on the other side. How charming.

While I can't say that I was completely enthralled in the intellectual world created by Woody Allen in the film, I never found it confusing, which is a credit to the lovely screenplay. I consider myself a pretty educated guy, but start throwing around theories by Gertrude Stein and Ernest Hemingway and Salvador Dalí and chances are you lost me... this was not the case in this film. So it's a job well done in that aspect.

I know it probably sounds like I didn't enjoy this film, but that's not the case. The film is a breath of fresh air, filled with charm and intelligent talk all without coming off as pretentious, which isn't easy. Plus, the performances are truly something to smile about. As a whole though, the feeling is just that the movie is "cute"... not Best Picture worthy, though. 

OW11: The Iron Lady

Image via IMPAwards.com

Traveling to the movie, I remarked to my good friend Marissa that each and every year, you can write, in ink, "Meryl Streep" under the 'Best Actress' heading on your Oscar ballots, and just fill in the film title later on. If awards can be seen as a measure of greatness (which the Oscar is, generally), Meryl Streep is, without question, the actress of this generation. Each year, Steep's mere presense in a film's cast makes it an Oscar contender... and if the film isn't good enough, Streep typically shines anyway, and usually picks up numerous award nominations for her efforts.

Unfortunately, The Iron Lady is one of those films.

Margaret Thatcher holds a very important place in history, that can't be denied. The things she accomplished in her lifetime are things Hollywood biopics are made to show. The problem with this particular film is the way her story is told, through flashbacks of an elderly and lonely Maggie Thatcher. Such a framing would be all well and good, but the flashbacks merely show Thatcher's rise and ultimate fall from power; they do very little to further the framing plotline. I do wonder what how this film could have been with the elderly Thatcher portions eliminated. 

As hinted at before, Meryl Streep is the attraction in this film. All of the traditional "Streep-isms" are found in the film: the eye rolls, the sighs, the "thinking eyes", the spot-on accent... but, as usual, they are placed and timed perfectly, allowing Streep to completely inhabit the character. As usual. While I live for a great Meryl Streep performance, which this is, I do long for something new from her. 

(Side note: Streep is quite possibly the only actress I can think of that uses the same tricks and characteristics in film after film, yet every time creating a new, vivid, lively character)

In all, The Iron Lady was a bit of a disappointing film... though certainly entertaining, if only for the performance of Meryl Streep (as expected). I left the film feeling I knew more about Margaret Thatcher than I did a couple of hours earlier, which I suppose is one of the points of a biopic. To talk Oscar chances, Streep will find herself in a close race with The Help's Viola Davis... I'll reveal my pick on Oscar Sunday!

Oscar Watch 2011 Update

The 2012 Oscars telecast is scheduled for February 26th, just over one month away. I've been at this whole "Oscar Watch 2011" business for about a month now, so it's probably a good time to put up something of a status update, no?

Initially I came up with a list of eighteen films for my "to watch" list. One nominated film was not on my initial list (The Artist), so it will have to be added. I've worked my way through eleven of those films and have written reviews of nine of them as I write this (eight can be read right now, the ninth will be posted later on today, with the other two hopefully written at some point this weekend). For the sake of saving myself some time (and money!), I will eliminate movies not nominated (for now... if I have the time/money/opportunity, I will see them to discuss snubs). This leaves me with three nominated films:

• The Artist


• Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close


• Hugo

As I am writing this, I'm looking back and starting to put the movies I have seen in some sort of order. Now, I'm not going to spoil my final list... but let's just say that I'm hoping one of the three remaining movies blow me away, or else my final judgement of this year's nominees will not be a positive one.

OW11: War Horse

Image via Wikipedia

I saw Spielberg's War Horse film in a somewhat unique fashion: I saw the film literally minutes after seeing the play the film is based on, and perhaps a month after finishing the original novel. As a result, I knew 100% what type of story I was in store for, so I could focus on the other aspects of this film. 

The performances... across the board, the performances in War Horse are nothing short of wonderful. Due to the whirlwind adventure-esque nature of the story, characters come and go somewhat quickly, but I can honestly say that each lead actor in the various segments of the film left a highly memorable impression on me. Peter Mullan, Tom Hiddleston, David Kross, young Celine Buckens and, of course, Jeremy Irvine deserve special mention. Without impactful performances like theirs, the film would completely fall flat... fortunately this was not the case. 

The most impactful part of this film, however, is the cinematography and the images presented. Reading the novel or even watching the play, it's easy to lose track of or not even realize the sheer scope of this story and what is discussed in it. Speilberg's trademark pan up to the horizon shots make the absolute horrors of war crystal clear, adding a whole new layer to the story that I didn't quite get from other incarnations.

This is not a movie or story I will soon forget. Sure, the plot itself is merely a series of convenient coincidences culminating in a somewhat predictable ending... but overall, the film is much more about it's message than it's content, if that makes any sense at all. I simply loved this film, quite possibly more than both the play and the novel (and I loved both). I definitely see this film having it's name called at the Oscars a few times, one way or another.

OW11: The Help

Image via Wikipedia

I dragged my feet in seeing this movie for over 6 months. I'm not exactly sure why that is, as I love me some Voila Davis and enjoy Emma Stone muchly. A 4+ hour bus ride to New York City provided the opportunity for me to see the movie, so I took it… and was very glad I did.

Almost everything about this movie was strong. Viola Davis, Octavia Spencer and Jessica Chastain have already received Golden Globe nominations for their performances, all absolutely well deserved (with a victory for Spencer). The performances from Emma Stone and Bryce Dallas Howard are also lovely, rounding out the great cast. There are some problems with the storytelling in the film (who's story is being told?), but that's minor in the grand scope of it all. To use a pop culture cliché to describe the film, The Help is simply a "winning" film.

Is The Help a perfect movie? No, it's not. Is it historically accurate? I've heard criticisms that it's not. Is it the best written/directed/acted film of the year? Probably not on all counts. But what the film is is a very strong feel good movie, which doesn't happen all that often. Feel good movies are usually sappy, slight things… neither of which could describe The Help. This is a film who's name will be heard as Oscar time, one way or anothe.

OW11: The Descendants

Image via Wikipedia

The Descendants isn't a movie with a plot full of twists and surprises. It's not a movie with a sweeping love story where the endearing hero ends up with the girl of his dreams. It's not a movie about a quirky famiy that, against all odds, sticks together through thick and thin. But what The Descendants is is a truly honest story of a man whose personal world is coming down around him, the story of a man who has to pick through the pieces to remain true to himself. It's also a movie that has one hell of a performance by it's leading man, George Clooney. In fact, the performances in the film are uniformly strong behind Clooney, especially by Shailene Woodley, someone I was unfamiliar before seeing the film.

Given the events depicted in the film, it'd be extremely easy for the screenplay to come off extremely sentimental, cliché-ridden and clearly aiming for tears, but this was not the case in The Descendants. The writing here is very realistic, really adding to the honesty of the story. I didn't find the direction anything to write home about, but it certainly told the story as it should be told.

The Descendants is a film that will be most certainly be honored one way oyu another come Oscar time, that much is certain.

OW11: The Tree of Life

Image via Wikipedia

The Tree of Life, to me, comes off as two completely separate movies blended together: a sweet coming of age story and a National Geographic-esque documentary about the origins of life. Does that sound like a big 'ole mess to you? Because it is.

The coming of age story is quite strong, if not completely realized. You follow the life of this boy, his struggles with his strict father, his relationship with his younger brother, and, decades later, how he is unhappy with his life. The problem is that decades-long jump. Why is he unhappy? How did he get to where he is? Did he make a wrong choice along the way that we didn't see? All these questions could be answered if there was any development at all with the older version - instead, Sean Penn mopes around his completely kick-ass office building, culminating in a strange existential vision where all his family members are around him. Does he miss his family? Is that the point? I suppose that makes sense... but it's just not clear.

Then we have the NatGeo segment. I had no flipping idea what was going on. First there's galaxy images then there's lava then there's dinosaurs then there's an astroid. How is this at all relevant to the other story? I'm sure you can make some artsy connection that merely connects them, but it most certainly does not enhance the main story. It all comes off as trying way too hard to be important.

Am I missing the point of this film? Quite likely. I hope so. I hate for a movie to be a completely disjointed mess that comes off as obnoxiously self-important and artsy. 

OW11: 50/50

Image via Wikipedia

What we have here is a beautifully written movie filled with absolutely wonderful performances. The script by real-life cancer-survivor Adam Reiser is heart-breaking, hilarious, touching, and full of hope, often all at the same time. The performances are all top notch, especially from the always wonderful Joseph Gorden-Levitt and the delightful Anna Kendrick. Seth Rogan was also surprisingly good, even if he was playing the same old Seth Rogan role (which I learned later was the point, as his character is based on... Seth Rogan).

In all, this movie is sure to go down as one of my favorites of the year. I typically find a "little" movie to root for at the Oscars... 50/50 will almost certainly be 2011's.

OW11: The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo

Image via Wikipedia

Read the book... found the first half interminably slow, but a strong second half mostly made up for it.

Saw the original Swedish film... thought mostly the same thing, plus a truly fantastic performance from Noomi Repace.

This new US version... solves the problem. The adaptation by Steven Zaillian is nothing short of masterful, giving all the pertinent exposition without the book's plodding, meandering subplots. That, coupled with David Fincher's typically sparkling direction, moves the movie along at a breakneck pace (though slower when it needs to be). Outside of Daniel Craig and Rooney Mara (who give spectacular performances) in the lead roles, the movie didnt look quiet as I expected, which oddly added to the experience.

As you can tell, I enjoyed this film immensely. It was absolutely everything I wanted as I read the book, which helps. Ideally, truly hope the sequels get made, as I'll be right there to see them.

OW11: J. Edgar

Image via Wikipedia

J. Edgar is a rather peculiar little film with big aspirations. It is filled with some great imagery, a wonderful stylistic choices by director Clint Eastwood, a stunning performance by Leonardo DiCaprio, a very well done love story, a solid screenplay… but it ultimately comes off as somewhat slight, rather boring and, frankly, kind of pointless.

The screenplay by Dustin Lance Black is both a strong point of the film and a source of many of the film's problems for me (if that makes any sense at all). The dialogue is quick and appropriate, telling the story wonderfully. The problem is that the film doesn't really give any information about J. Edgar Hoover I didn't already know, and it didn't delve into the why; why was Hoover so insecure, why did he do the things he did, why was he so obsessed? Beyond that, most of the action of the plot wasn't all that engaging to me, so there were times in the film where I felt bored. Though I must say that the love story between Hoover and his protege Clyde Tolson was handled very well, not once taking over the film or being 'over the top', if you will. 

In all, J. Edgar is a film that could have been much better for me. I do highly recommend it if you like the whole biopic genre, as it's definitely worth a watch - the direction and lead performance see to that. 

 

OW11: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part II

Image via Wikipedia

As an adaptation of J.K. Rowling’s novel, HP7.5 is wonderful, right in line with the 3 previous Yates films. My problems with the film largely extend from my problems with the novel itself, and the decision to break the novel into two films. In essence, director David Yates made one giant film based on the seventh book and split it into two pieces, exactly as the full title of the film indicates: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part II. The result is a movie that struggles to build as a well-made movie should, culminating in a disappointing, largely predictable ending and an absolutely wretched and unnecessary epilogue.

The performances in the cast are wonderful, some of the best of the series. Looking back on the whole Harry Potter octalogy, it’s been an absolute pleasure to watch the young trio of actors, Daniel Radcliffe especially, grow alongside such celebrated actors, seemingly acting as mentors for the young actors. The visual effects are superb, as expected, with the visual feel to the movie right in line with the other Yates Potter films. The overall structure of the film is also a bit lacking, since the first half of the film is missing, as previously noted. It is tough to fully judge this film without the first part, but since the films were packaged as thus, that is how they are judged. It is truly disappointing, as this film could have been, and should have been, an epic finale to an epic series.

I’m including this in my Oscar Watch 2011 series not because of the quality of the film being worthy of inclusion, but because it is the finale of such a landmark film series. As discussed last year with Toy Story 3, the Academy likes to honor landmark finales, so this bears keeping an eye on. I only wish David Yates could go back and re-make the relatively lackluster first four films in the series....

 

Oscar Watch 2011

It's come time for a decision, re: "Oscar Watch 2011". Last year, I'd seen 4 of the films named to the American Film Institute's Top 10 list. The AFI announced their awards recently, and I've seen a grand total of.... zero. #timmfail. There are a couple on the list that I absolutely plan on seeing (The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, War Horse), a few that I planned on seeing just never got around to (Moneyball, J. Edgar, The Help), a couple that certainly intrigued me (Hugo, The Descendants), one I wouldn't mind seeing (The Tree of Life), one I absolutely avoided seeing (Bridgesmaids) and one I've only vaguely heard of (Midnight in Paris). Plus this list is only a starting point, as there are a bunch of movies this year that I've heard wonderful things about, but aren't on the list (Drive, Ides of March, 50/50... to name a few). 

So I'm putting together a list of the big buzzworthy movies, culled from various best-of lists and such... fortunately, all seem to be available for me to see (or, in some cases, will be available within the next month or so). Here's what I'm going to strive to see:

My list

• The Adventures of Tintin - out 12/21


• Bridesmaids - out currently on blu-ray, added to my Netflix queue.


• Carnage - out 12/16


• The Descendants - out in theaters now


• Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close - out 12/25


• The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo - out 12/18


• Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - already seen, full review to follow


• The Help - out currently on blu-ray, added to my Netflix queue


• Hugo - out in theaters now


• Ides of March - out in theaters now


• The Iron Lady - out 1/13


• J. Edgar - out in theaters now


• Midnight in Paris - blu-ray comes out 12/20


• Moneyball - blu-ray comes out 1/10


• The Tree of Life - out currently on blu-ray, added to my Netflix queue


• War Horse - out 12/25 (though I won't be seeing it until I see the play in January)


• We Bought a Zoo - out 12/23


• 50/50 - out in theaters now, though may be difficult to find

Of course, as I generate this list, I think of a slew of others... but this is what I will begin with. This will be a vaunting task... but I will try my best. Hell, I may even start tonight. Stay tuned for updates!

2011's Early "MUST SEE" List

Now that 2010’s film book is nearly closed, save for WINTER’S BONE, 127 HOURS and the actual Academy Awards ceremony, it’s time to look ahead to 2011. Looking back at 2010’s list, a majority of the films on the list I likely hadn’t heard of or knew of in January of 2010. This is quite likely the case with 2011. Likewise, there were films on my 2010 “MUST SEE” list that came nowhere close to being included in my ‘Oscar Watch 2010’ series: Iron Man 2, Burlesque, Tron, Alice in Wonderland, Harry Potter 7A (as I like to refer to it as), Shutter Island, Tangled, Scott Pilgrim vs. The World, Kick-Ass, and more. Hell, I didn’t even get around to seeing some of the movies on the list!

Anyhoo, I just scanned the list of movies coming out in 2011, and these are the titles that jump out at me. I’m going to proactively warn you, however, that most of the films on my list will make me look like an uber-dork.