The OFFICIAL 2012 Oscar nominations thread... — Page 6

You're welcome, best! I haven't seen any of the animated features, but there isn't a single one in the mix this year that I'm not interested in. To whatever extent I have a "list," though, none but "Rango" is near the top. I'll have to rewatch the trailer for "Chico & Rita," and perhaps that will be a motivator. It is definitely an unusual crop this year, and it's very refreshing.

I saw "Tree of Life" four times in three weeks during its initial release. It obsessed me a little, I admit. And when I see it a fifth time tomorrow, it will top my previous "most viewings in a cinema" film, which was "Titanic" back in high school. And I absolutely cannot wait. I'm thrilled as sh!t to see it on a movie screen again, so stunning and new I've found it with each viewing. Of tomorrow's films, I've seen that and "Moneyball," which I thought was great. (Perhaps it's the Sorkin connection, but I left the theater thinking it was this year's "The Social Network," especially in its sound and cinematography.) "War Horse" and "The Descendants" will be new for me, as will three of next week's movies.

Because of this marathon, every year when Oscar season rolls around, I try to avoid seeing movies I suspect will be nominated for Best Picture because it's fun to see as many new ones as possible during the marathon. (When I had to sit through "Avatar" a second time two years ago, I wanted to scream.) But "The Artist" is the one I'm most looking forward to, partially because everyone else has seen it and I have to leave the room when discussions of it arise... and also because the trailer has had me captivated for months and months and months, and everyone whose opinion I respect has, so far, loved it.

---

That's a nice story, best, and I'm pleased that your dear (old) friend took her responsibilities as an voter to heart. Not knowing much about the inside of the industry, it's discouraging to hear it so often said that many voting members don't watch the screeners they are sent, and here was your friend trekking out with you to catch them before the convenience of home entertainment. (From the way you tell your story, in my head, the two of you are going about this very determinedly!) And that must have been a lot of fun for you, too!

First marathon has come and gone. I liked "Moneyball" just as much and maybe a little more on a second viewing and still believe it deserves all its praise. "Tree of Life" was as rich an experience the fifth time as it was the first, and obviously I feel its (limited) Academy attention is justified.

"War Horse"... was fine, I suppose. I don't like schmaltz. I don't like the seeing so baldly the machinations of the strings tugging at my heart. The play failed to engage me for the same reason, and I was bored for long stretches of the movie. The first 30 or 40 minutes are quite strong, but once Joey and Albert are separated and the story meandered through the French countryside, my attention meandered with it. Spielberg is unabashedly making an old-school genre pic (how anyone who's seen "Gone With the Wind" missed the ending's visual quote is beyond me), and on that level, it has one or two thrilling sequences, especially Joey's attempted escape and the raid of the German encampment. (Joey's untangling was also nicely handled). But a horse is a horse, and -- though I make this comparison with apology -- the most engaging things about the stage version, for me, were the specific and complicated personalities of Joey and Topthorn, both of which in the film are conveyed primarily by their coat colors and what other characters say about them. In the play, Joey was clearly an extraordinary creature. In the movie, what he goes through is extraordinary, but as a dramatic character, he's just not all that amazing, even though everyone else keeps insisting that he is. So there's frequently a void at the center of the movie. Emily Watson was a beacon, and Jeremy Irvine does some really great work. Also, it's about 20 minutes too long.

"The Descendants." Whew. Aside from "The Artist," "The Descendants" was the unseen nominee I was most looking forward to. And, boy, did it leave me frustrated. Was this movie manufactured on some Hollywood Dramedy Assembly Line? Jordan and I had a conversation a couple of weeks ago wherein I expressed concern that Alexander Payne may be becoming Wes Anderson-like in his stylistic repetition (though I hasten to add I've liked everything he's done so far), and Jordan assured me that the quirk factor of "The Descendants" was comparatively low. He was absolutely correct... and I wish he weren't. A little more quirk, banal though it be, might have at least given some personality to the movie, which starts flat and somehow flattens continuously over 2 long, long hours. There's a midpoint revelation I didn't see coming, but which still completely failed to surprise or even affect me because its very presence felt like just another appropriate piece in a by-the-numbers schematic. Alexander Payne clearly knows how to direct a movie, but all I saw here was point-and-click. And what on God's green earth is all this talk about George Clooney's performance? To the extent that Clooney's got a "thing" that he does when he's not doing something exceptional... he's doing it here. The supporting performances are hardly worth examining because the poor actors are trapped in caricatures, the dialogue for which sounds like it was written (and rewritten and rewritten and rewritten) by committee and then filtered through six focus groups. Violent senior citizen! That's funny! Foul-mouthed teenagers! Funnier! The character of Alex, the oldest daughter, ignites a few dramatic sparks in her relationship with Clooney, but then she all but disappears. What's most frustrating is that the end result isn't really... *bad." It's just completely uninteresting. Two other movies I felt exactly the same way about are "Up in the Air" and "Juno." There's nothing *wrong* with these movies. But -- to crib a line from Neil Simon -- there's not the least bit of adventure in them.

---

Updated On: 2/20/12 at 08:37 AM

Spielberg is unabashedly making an old-school genre pic (how anyone who's seen "Gone With the Wind" missed the ending's visual quote is beyond me)

That was actually one of the things I loved most about the film. Spielberg could have gone all gory and bloody and raw as with his WWII films, but with this particular story, he showcased his love for 30s/40s epic dramas in a way I found quite beautiful and refreshing. This was definitely a year for film nostalgia. I do think it's rather interesting that Spielberg receives gripes over a visual quote while The Artist is FILLED with them and receives praise. I find The Artist to be the better film, but I did love War Horse for what it was and personally, I found it to be worthy of becoming a classic.

---

Matt, I don't know if you were addressing me particularly or something specific in another thread, but I referenced the GwtW nod as the most obvious proof of Spielberg's mode in "War Horse." I certainly had no gripes about it. It was a very respectful (and gorgerous) nod and didn't strike me as a "steal" or a cheat, even though I did find the movie's strokes in general too broad and crying out to be cried for.

---

I haven't seen any of the animated features, but there isn't a single one in the mix this year that I'm not interested in. To whatever extent I have a "list," though, none but "Rango" is near the top.

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the nominees. I put Rango tied with Puss in Boots at the bottom of the list. I was completely bored with both.

---

I'm really looking forward to Chico & Rita.

---

Chico & Rita are really looking forward to "Best 12 Bars."

---