Best Picture Hall of Fame

Tools    





Save the Texas Prairie Chicken
WARNING: "SPOILER!!!" spoilers below
I think most people are just inherently good, and try to help people who look like they're struggling to do something. That's why she helps him, and probably why women helped Ted Bundy. They didn't think that they were in any danger. They just wanted to help someone who needed help.
WARNING: spoilers below
I never really bought into the theory that people are inherently good (I seem to run into a lot of people that make it seem like it is such an effort to do something out of the goodness of their hearts). I think a lot of people have a tendency to be inherently simple. And that, perhaps, helps them to have this "good" side, but I am not that kind of person. I happen to be suspicious of society. I even give people a once-over in the grocery store if they ask me to help them with something. I want to make sure they can't do it for themselves first. Particularly if it is a man asking for help. I'm not saying that if, for example, a person should slip on ice and is having trouble getting up that I wouldn't help them. That is a different story. But if we are talking about a situation in the case of Ted Bundy, I wouldn't help at all. I have always been so baffled as there were so many men around. Why wouldn't a woman wonder why this man chose her? And why is he riding a bike with a broken arm? In the case of TSOTL, though, it was nighttime and there wasn't anyone else around. That would've made me extra cautious. I honestly would've wondered why this man is moving that big piece of furniture all by himself with a broken arm, anyway. And how did he get the furniture there in the first place? More than anything else, I most definitely wouldn't have gone into the van to help get that furniture in it. Truthfully, I would've found a way to get away from him as fast as I could then. Of course, I wouldn't have been helping him in the first place. I would've gone in the house. And if my overwhelming paranoia and cautiousness makes me somewhat crazy, and not a very good person, so be it. I would always rather be safe than sorry.
__________________
I became insane, with long intervals of horrible sanity - Edgar Allan Poe



Nothing good comes from staying with normal people
Rocky (1976)

Realized about 15 min in that I'd actually never seen this, which makes this a fortuetous opportunity I guess. I believed I'd seen this and the one with Drago, but it seems I've only seen the one with the Swede doing a russian accent (hey Dolph! That's Stormare's thing! Back off!).

I was surprised to learn that Stallone could be genuinely warm and funny. Not that any of his jokes land, but he does come off as a fun guy to be around. In any other movie he's given lines that are written to be funny (most aren't), but in Rocky we have a guy who's unsure of himself, doesn't really know how to act around women he's attracted to and that gives off a kind of charm, I guess. I'm not doing a great job explaining what I mean, but let's move on.

I never really got a feel for the actress playing Aiden. If that's a sign of Stallone's fledgling scriptwriter skills in portraying a female character or the actress herself I don't know, but she felt a bit flat throughout.

But then, it's not just Aiden that's a little thin. Paulie not the deepest guy, although we get more of him interacting with Rocky so it feels like we get to know him more. I did feel he was way into feeling sorry for himself and was very domineering towards Aiden. It seems to be just the way they were raised, but it still felt a bit wierd to me.

And then there's Mickey; he's more or less every sour, bad tempered trainer that sees something in a nobody athlete because of years of experience, though in this case he gets a pass as I feel he epitomizes the role. He's the reason for the clichť existing. This is saved, though, by the high class acting of Burgess Meredith. This guy steal every scene he's in with a bad temper and no-nonsense way of talking. The sulphurous hiding he gives Rocky about being a simple thug for a mobster when he could've been a champ is glorious to behold, and you can feel him putting everything behind it. Best supporting role in the movie, without a doubt.

A good movie overall, even if I've never been into sports movies all that much. Thing is, this isn't good because it's a sports movie. It's just a good movie.

Of the '77 oscar nominees for best picture, I've only seen Rocky and Network, but between the two...I think I'd given it to Network. Rocky got the heart (and Burgess Meredith), but Network got the more interesting story in my mind.
__________________
Why not just kill them? I'll do it! I'll run up to Paris - bam, bam, bam, bam. I'm back before week's end. We spend the treasure. How is this a bad plan?



Nothing good comes from staying with normal people
All the King's men (1949)

I think I'll have to go with Vicky this time, but for a few exceptions. I never got very much from Crawford when he tried for the natural portrayal of Willie Stark, talking with his family or with Jack in private. He comes into it way more when he's on a podium, shouting and gesticulating in front of the masses. Crawford does good poitician, but as a natural, ordinary man he doesn't sell it.

The three performances that I actually liked throughout was Jack, Sadie Burke and Judge Stanton. All three where fully fleshed out and developed, with Sadie being the one I liked the most. A tough, no nonsense professional that's rare to see in this time in a female role. Falling for Stark at an early stage, she's then put aside in favour of Jack's fiancť, something that lead down a road to sticky end for everyone involved.

Jack himself starts out following up on a story about Stark and is transfixed with his honest wish to make the world better for his friends and neighbours. He follows him as he rises through the political world, but as Starks power grows, he seems less occupied with the wellfare of his voters and more with amassing dirt on his competitors and consolidating his hold of the state. Jack still follows him, but now as an investigator, using his reporter skills for more nefarious ends. Ireland does the role well, beginning idealistic and then getting worn down, realizing in the end that all they've done is remove one group of corrupt leaders so as to place another in power. I guess he tries to justify it with the fact that Stark still keeps his promises, although through unsavory means.

And then there's the judge. A honest man, he's retired but still holds sway and commands great respect from his fellow man. Greenleaf portrays the old gentleman character with perfection, equal parts doting uncle and rightious lawman. What happens to him in the end is tragic, even more so when we get to find out how it came to pass. That segment, where Jack, Adam and Anne are together and the truth is laid bare, might just be the best scene in the movie. We think it's Jack, but he still had some integrity left. It's heartbreaking for sure, but that is what makes it so powerful.

In the end, this wasn't for me. I agree about the loud score and the somewhat unrealistic acting (outside the speaches and rallies, where they actually fit in), as well as a story that, while tackling a serious topic and seeming to verberate in the modern day (orange bully, indeed!), comes a bit short of holding my interest throughout. Great acting form some of the supporting characters, but overall not my cup of tea.



Bright light. Bright light. Uh oh.
Broderick Crawford's Willie Stark isn't half as melodramatic and fake as Trump.
__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page



... It was only during this HoF when reading other reviews that I considered looking at their "roles" differently and seeing this movie in a varying light...And that was seeing Ratchet as doing her job in the orderly way she sees fit and McMurphy being a trouble maker looking for the easy out in a prison stint only to find something else.


Was Ratchet looking for something more diabolical when threatening Billy?...This time around. . . I'm not so sure. It was a tried and true method to achieve obedience that, this time, went utterly south in the worst way. And she looked shocked and then kept it hidden, being the one in control and instantly took measures regarding it, so I don't really think she was looking for that end result.
*Spoiler*

Good point Ed...regarding Nurse Ratchet and Billy and what happened.

Think of it from the writer's stand point. The writer wants McMurphy lobotomized so we can have the big end scene with the Chief. So it's necessary for McMurphy to do something so atrocious as to make the decision to lobotomize him believable. The solution is: he tries to kill Nurse Ratchet. But the writer then needs a reason for McMurphy to do that: enter the idea of Ratchet taunting Billy until he commits suicide which then pushes McMurphy over the edge. That's why the Nurse taunts Billy as it necessary for the story.

Oh, and remember the writer has went to the trouble of telling the audience that most all of the patients are voluntarily there, and they can leave anytime. So Nurse Ratchet doesn't have the power of life or death over them, and it's not a story of an evil nurse. It's her demeanor and her stoic face and her controlled voice that says evil to us, but she never does evil actions. We just think that of her.



Thursday Next's Avatar
I never could get the hang of Thursdays.
12 Years A Slave

*spoilers*



I watched this when it was in the cinema. I was working away in London and saw it one evening in Leicester Square. It wasnít exactly a cheery night out. Actually, I think it was the closest Iíve ever come to walking out of a film. (Right near the start, at the slave sale, when they separate Eliza from her children. But I didnít.) Watching it on dvd is a less intense experience, but itís still a harrowing film.

I havenít read the book and canít make any comparisons.

The start of this is as captivating as any film, but there are a few lulls as it goes on. Itís a common complaint that it doesnít feel like 12 years, and Iíd have to say I agree. One of the things it is less successful at is showing the passage of time. You donít know how long he spends in each place. In part this is because itís done more as a series of set pieces and in part the way those are edited together. This time round it felt even shorter, but perhaps because I could gauge this time how close it was to the end. On a first watch you donít know when or even if his time as a slave will end.

Thatís not to say that itís not well directed, though; on the contrary itís masterful.

Steve McQueen is a very physical filmmaker - from Hunger about a hunger strike to Shame about a sex addict to this film about slavery. Slavery - even without the hard labour and frequent beatings - is something completely physical, the very idea of a human being being owned by another, his freedom and his dignity stripped entirely in one night.

The shot of Solomon calling for help while you can see the white capitol building in the background may be a little on the nose, but itís effective.

Thereís also a theme of loss of identity, right from the start when one of the other men on the boat tells Solomon to forget everything he is if he wants to survive. But he doesnít want to survive, he wants to live. And then his name is changed. And slavery changes him. Near the start Eliza says she has done unsavoury things to survive and for all of it she ended up a slave. And towards the end Solomon finds himself in difficult moral positions - when the overseer betrays him over the letter but he betrays the overseer right back by claiming heís made it all up and when Epps wants him to strike Patsy. And then afterwards he breaks the violin. Him remembering or choosing to forget who he was is tied up as well with his reading and writing which he has to conceal.

Thereís an interesting moral discussion about the character of Ford. Solomon says heís a decent manÖ under the circumstances. And he is, to a point. But Eliza has the right of it when she retorts, ďUnder the circumstances, he is a slaver.Ē No amount of personal kindness can undo the wrong of keeping slaves in the first place. And is he even that kind in the end? He might listen to Solomon when he has ideas to help his plantation, but he refuses to hear Solomon when he tells him he was a free man.

Thereís also an interesting angle to the story, having the main character as an educated free man sold into slavery. Itís a true story, of course, but it works well also as the audienceís Ďiní to the story. But his enslavement isnít wrong because heís a free man, itís wrong because slavery is always wrong. ďIf justice had been done I never would have been here.Ē he says at one point. If justice had been done, none of them would have been there.

The ending, the slow comprehension on Solomonís face when he recognises his friend and is in sight of freedom at last is gut wrenching.

This film has a fine collection of some of my favourite actors working today - Chiwetel Ejiofor, Benedict Cumberbatch, Michael Fassbender. Iíll leave it to the US participants to say whether their accents are up to snuff. Interesting that this was made by an non-American director with so many non-Americans actors.

Chiwetel Ejiofor in particular is fantastic. He absolutely embraces the physicality and the delicacy involved in the role. The raging horror when he first realises what is happening, that he has been kidnapped into slavery is Oscar-worthy alone. I think he deserved the Oscar but then again Matthew McConnaughy in Dallas Buyers Club is pretty good too. (I think Fassbender was better than Jared Leto though).

Lupita NyongíO was good when sheís asking Solomon to kill her and her confrontation with Epps when she gets back with the soap. Itís another very physical performance, as much in her hands and eyes as in her words.

Paul Dano over-acts, or his part is overwritten or both. I also didnít care for Brad Pitt, but again, whether it was his character or the way it was written Iím not sure.

I liked the music, the score is fairly understated and sparingly used, with the exception of one scene, and I liked the integration of the slave songs.

Altogether itís technically excellent and emotionally moving.

Did it deserve to win Best Picture? I canít remember rooting for it particularly at the time, perhaps I hadnít seen all the nominations by that point, but looking at them now, yes, definitely.



Nothing good comes from staying with normal people
Moonlight (2016)

Nope, this wasn't my kind of movie either, I'm sorry to say.

Mahershala Ali deserved the Oscar he got, I'll give it that. Every scene he was in was great. Liked the girlfrend too, Teresa. The actress came off as genuine and caring, so no negatives there. Praise also goes to Naomi Harris. She had a few moments, beyond the drugfueled explosion at Little, were I thought she did a good job. The smaller moments, as when Ali brought him home the first time, showed an actual mother worrying for her son rather than a drunk/high woman yelling at an inconvenient kid hanging around. It was hard watching that last explosion from her, and I sympathised for the kid.

And mentioning the kid, I do think he did a good job. Not saying much means that he had to emote through expression and movement alone, something I think he did quite well for someone so young and (as far as I know) new to acting. He was definately the best Chiron of the three in my mind.

From the point of moving on to the next Chiron, though, the movie lost me. I didn't feel invested past the youngest actor's part of the movie, and what followed was slow and hard to get through.

As far as the Oscar, I was always hoping Hacksaw Ridge would get it, and seeing this hasn't changed my mind.

Not much more to say, really, just not a movie I got along with past the first segment.



Nothing good comes from staying with normal people
The Silence of the lambs (1991)

I believe this to be the first "horror" movie I ever saw, even if it's more akin to thriller or crime. Must've been 11, I think, and I was terrified.

But not by Lecter, really. His escape was frightening, sure, but I remember being more facinated than scared with him when we first meet him. His entrance into the movie was/is very well executed, his straight posture and slight smile always reminding me of a butler or a valet, someone eager to meet your needs, but not really for your benefit. I guess he's trying to come off as ingratiating and charming, but the surroundings create a dissonance that results in what I can only describe as an uncanny valley effect. Something is clearly off, but in a normal setting, you'd either not notice or you couldn't place it, as he'd fit in more with his surroundings. He triggers something in the back of one's mind, a recognition of danger in the reptile brain, as it were, but not strong enough to immediately identify it as such.

Hopkins portrays his role very, very well is what I'm getting at. But at the same time, he can come off as a bit...goofy. In later years, I've never quite been able to supress a laugh when he does the Chianti line with the wierd sucking noise through his teeth, nor when he dissmisses Starling with the "fly, fly little starling" line. I don't really know if it's ment to be funny or if he's just going for quirky and aloof.

No, as I said, not terrified by Lecter. It's the last scene with Starling and Gump that had me on pins and needles. I'd been really scared of the dark when I was younger (younger than I was then, I should say) and that sequence in the cellar might've been the perfect hell for 6 year old me. Totally dark, with someone/something being there with me, hunting for me. Even at eleven, I found that hard to sit through. Add to the fact that we're watching from Gump's point of view, something that only unnerved me even more at the time, and you have the making of a very intense and harrowing scene. Watching it now, in later years, I have to say it's a very well shot scene, and also a well planed one at that. They solved the problem of how we as the audience could watch the scene play out in a pitch black room very well. I don't know if this is the first time they used night vision effects in a movie, but it is a very effective way they used it.

Dr Chilton was another role that, while not being scary, creeped me out when I first watched the movie. Again, in later years I realized he was ment to come off as ingratiating, like Lecter, but in contrast to Lecter he's also arrogant, preening and alot sleezier. I don't remember if he asks Starling out to dinner, but it feels like it something he would do with a certainty that she'd accept with both Starling and the audience feeling uncomfortable by it. It's a good actor that can get his audience to feel this, so props to the guy (forgot his name, had to look it up, but it's Anthony Heald). Still don't feel bad about Lecter eating him, though. He was a douch.

Praise should also go to both Foster and Levine for their roles. Foster comes off as a bit of blank slate at first, but she grew on me as the movie wore on. I liked that she went from being almost in awe of Lecter to eventually just tiering of his crap. She grows into the role of a federal agent quite naturally over time and that's not as simple as it might appear at first.

Ted Levine as Buffalo Bill...I'm not completly sure about. We don't get much screentime with him as he remains a mystery throughout the better part of the movie. We get to know him from what Starling learns of him rather than watching him (for the most part), so when Starling actually meets him, we know as much as she does, except for the fact that we know what he looks like. That said, what few scenes we get to see, Levine does good work.

That's about it. I like it, have always liked it. Did it deserve the Oscar? I've only seen this and Beauty and the Beast from that year's nominations, so between those two? Beauty and the Beast, no contest. Both are good, but Beauty and the Beast is in a class of its own.



Nothing good comes from staying with normal people
A Beautiful Mind (2001)

I think I've watched this once or twice since its release, but didn't remember much about it past the very basic plot. So youcould say it was a semi first viewing for me this time.

And in the end I thought it was good. The thing that impressed me most was the acting. Throughout the movie every character was at least good, if not great. At the forefront we have Crowe, of course, but to have a cast that is good going the full length of a feature, that doesn't happen often. I never was much for Adam Goldberg or Josh Lucas, but both have put in some effort here, despite smaller roles. Lucas especially, starting as the seemingly douchier of the two douchbags on screen (yes, Nash is a douchbag) gets a late issued heelturn and becomes something of a fixed point for our protagonist as he tries to claw himself back into something resembling normalcy. I loved the scene where he (Lucas) get called to the library for what he thinks is another emergency, only to discover Nash sitting with a group of students discussing high level math that he'd never been able to before. That was such a warm and natural situation, I loved it.

As far as the story goes, it mostly entertaining and interesting. It drags a bit at times, wallows in moments that could've moved a bit quicker (the time between the first round of treatment and getting back to the collage comes to mind) but otherwise it was fine.

A moment to mention Paul Bettany as well. Ever since I saw him as Chaucer in A Knight's tale, I've watched anything he was in and I can say I looked forward to watching this mostly because he was in it. He dosen't dissapoint this time either. He starts out pretty much as if he'd jumped from the Chauser persona into this, funny enough, falling into the room he and Nash shares, drunk off his ass and semi-naked. What follows isn't as fun, but through it all he keeps the high standard I've usually seen him in. It was heartbreaking when Nash had to say goodbye to his (Bettany's) niece,thou. The entire scene where he finally gets it is kind of hard to watch, but then it's meant to be, and the filmmakers do not shy away from that.

Overall a good movie with great acting from everyone involved and characters not soon forgotten.

As for the Oscar...Oh, that's the year Fellowship of the Ring was up for best picture...Get out! Hand that off to Jackson, thank you very much!



Nothing good comes from staying with normal people
The Godfather (1972)

First of all, the music in this is amazing. And not just the main theme, called "The Godfather Waltz" (you learn new things every day) but also the background stuff, it's all a joy to listen to.

As for the rest (and I'm feeling like a broken record now), I liked it, but I didn't love it.

I'm actually surprised at the amount of reviews that had the same sentiment. You'd think there'd be nothing but praise for a movie/trilogy that has such a high status in the film community. That said, it's near enough the best made movie I've ever seen. There doesn't seem to be a frame that wasn't thought through before it was shot, and while I did think it dragged at times (I'm going to agree with Vamp here and say that the Sicily bit was slow and in need of a trim) the work behind it is near enough above approach.

The acting was also of a high class, both Brando and Pacino did a great job, but I do think my favourite is Duvall. Not as much screen time and he keeps himself quite low key throughout, but that is where he's suppose to be. He is the level-headed one where everyone else runs around like so much headless fowl. Had Sonny just listened to Tom and waited, he'd been alive. He's the cool one, able to see ahead and advise as to the most favourable direction. Also, I just get a kick from imagining him crouched low, husteling across towards Woltz's house with a horse head under one arm (yes, that probably didn't happen, but let me have this moment!).

And then there's Luca Brasi...I guess I'm the only one that cheered when he got garotted?

This goes back to the book, actually. I haven't red it, but a friend had it sitting on a shelf and while he did something else, I opened it and looked through. I happened upon a passage concerning Brasi and I do believe it's one of the more chilling book passages I've red. For those who might want to read the book...

WARNING: "Godfather book spoiler" spoilers below
When in Sicily, Michael comes across a midwife who asks if Brasi's really dead. When Michael confirmes this (after an exclamation of joy and some tears) she tells of a night she was dragged in front of a young girl in labour and helps to deliver the baby. She is then led down into the boiler room by Brasi and forced to throw the baby into the furnace after Brasi admits to being the father. He later decides to strangle the young mother as well.


And that is why I applauded Brasi's demice. @sshole!

So yeah, more impressed than in love with the movie, but still a totally ok flic, if a little slow at places. As far as the Oscars, I've seen this and Deliverance and I'd say I'd vote for The Godfather.

P.S.
GBG, I do believe the reason Brando sounded like he had a mouth full of cottonballs was that he actually stuffed his cheeks with cottonballs to get that effect.
D.S.



@neiba @donniedarko @Sarge

Haven't heard from you guys in awhile, how you doing?
Good, I'll be watching most films in the coming days and will write them up promptly
__________________
Yeah, there's no body mutilation in it



The thing isolated becomes incomprehensible
@neiba @donniedarko @Sarge

Haven't heard from you guys in awhile, how you doing?
Sorry, lot of work. But I'll finish this don't worry! I've got it under control!



All The King's Men



Was pretty shocked at how inept I found this film. The story is good, universal across time, and feels very cinematic but directors have had two shots at it and in my opinion haven't gotten it right. My first problem is how quickly Willie Stark goes from what is supposed to be an honest politician to crooked. The transformation is never given a chance to feel real. Similar turns are taken by two other characters and it makes absolutely no sense.

The acting is poor. The sense of time is handled poorly. The film doesn't look that great either. All around bust for me on a movie I was fully expecting to love because of my thematic sensibilities. Oh well, someone will take another shot at it one day, maybe next time.
__________________
Letterboxd



Think you used enough dynamite there, Butch?
a VERY solid collection of reviews, @Clazor! BRAVO!!

Just finished watching 12 Years a Slave and will be reading all the reviews before writing up mine. Did read @Thursday Next's review just now and it's exceptional and touches a lot of points I agree upon including the incredible work of the actors and actresses mentioned.
VERY nicely done, Thursday!!
Should have mine up in the next day or two.



Nothing good comes from staying with normal people
12 Years a Slave (2013)

This was, as many have said before, a good movie...just not an enjoyable one.

Ejiofor portrays Solomon Northup excellently, with just a hint of innocence. I think we learn that he himself had never been a slave, that he was born and raised as a free man in New York. Thus, the utter bewilderment we see as he wakes up first in the dark room and then after he's put on the boat sells the performance. He hasn't yet fully accepted what has happened to him. He can grasp it on an intellectual level, but he hasn't yet realized the horror that's about to befall him.

And he keeps resisting it, which is a natural reaction, but in the end it digs him even deeper into trouble as he meets Tibeats.

I wouldn't go so far as to call Dano's character a caricature, but the role is cetainly over the top. It's the weakest role of the film, but it's not a weak performance. I think Dano is an actor that, when he emotes with force, he comes off as too forceful, falling over into overacting. He needs a more restrained role, or at least a more calm one with outbursts coming after a long build-up (his role as the priest in There will be blood comes to mind). Here, it not a slow simmer, it's a flash boil. As soon as he's questioned, he threatens. Question again, and it's shouting and out with the whip. For me, that comes off as almost cartoonish, and that creates a dissonance with the overall tone of the movie.

And then we come to Fassbender. This is a man whom has mastered the art of the explosive. I would almost call him bi-polar, if he didn't go so fast from one extreme to the next. No, I think it's a case of megalomania mixed with alcohol that is his biggest flaw. Anyway, Fassbender is incredible as the self-titled "slave breaker" and plantation owner, Edward Epps. This is probably the most entertaining character, while also being the very worst. Going through three daily modes, Epps manages to be buisnesslike when he tallies the harvest (while still putting slaves up for whippings when they underperform), euphoric/drunk in the evenings (usually acompanied by a sudden lust to wach his slaves dance??? ) and bat ***** crazy whenever he's questioned or his paranoid mind thinks something is amiss regarding his favourite slave/target of sexual abuse. The one time I actually laught in this movie was when Epps, driven by paranoia, starts chasing Solomon around the yard like so much a greased piglet, ending with Epps face down in a pig sty.

Now, I know it's not meant to be funny, Solomon's life is very much in danger, but it reminded me so much of a scene from Sunrise I couldn't help myself. That said, it's a very well done scene and it shows how bad it's become for the target of Epps' brutal affections, Patsey, played very skillfully by Lupita Nyong'o.

Patsey is something of a contradiction to me. In some ways, she's got it the best and worst of the slaves on the plantation. In some scenes, she seems to view herself as better than the other slaves. She has priveliges the others don't, she's free to roam as she sees fit once a week. But then there's the other side of that coin. She's visited by Epps by night, her misstress hates her for what her husband is doing and frequently takes it out on her.

This mix of pride she shows (admittedly it's only one scene that I can recall, maybe they had a different direction planed in some previous draft?) and the abuse she falls victim to doesn't harmonize with me, and in the end it seems that it doesn't work for her either (those of you that have allready seen the movie knows of what I speak).

As the end rolls around...it's kinda anticlimactic. A cart shows up, they ask Solomon a few questions, some ineffectual threats are wispered and cut to New York, back after twelve years, meet the family (very touching of course, but also seems rushed, as if they wanted to get to the credits ASAP) and fade to black with some aftermath delivered in a text dump. I know it's allready 135 min, but maybe give us a few minutes for him to acclimate back into his previous life. Perhaps cut a few minutes across the film in order to give us a less rushed end.

And that's about it. A good movie, bit of a quick cut to the end for me, but overall, good. The Oscar? No contest, give it to Her.



Nothing good comes from staying with normal people
Mutiny on the Bounty (1935)

High-seas adventure with the Devil himself at the helm.

The story as such was ok, but nothing special. It felt rather like they went through a check-list of things that has to happen during a nautical story. Powerful storm threatening to almost sink the ship? Check. Getting caught in a calm that has them sitting for days without wind? Check. Talk of bad food and that officers get better provisions? Check.

Now, I could forgive these things because they hadn't yet become the clichťs that they are when the movie was made. What does bother me is the execution with which these points were dispatched. It really felt as if someone was standing with a clipboard ticking things off, because they just poped up. There was no build up for them, they just appeared. No outlook shouting about a cloudbank coming up on port side, sir! Nothing in the aftermath where they clear the deck or tally their losses. They just cut to a random point after and a bit later it's time for the calm. Build your story, don't just drop elements into the film.

And Captain Bligh, I know you got total power while you're out to sea, but come on! Learn to plan and lie better, man! Sending a crewmember off to deliver stolen cheese to your house and then trying to blame the crew while the same man stands in front of you? Think, [email protected]! You hire a couple of men who isn't going with you to take the cheese, then you blame the crew!

Does it show that I got really annoyed about that part?

The best part of this movie is Laughton's and Gable's performances beyond a doubt. I liked Tone's work too, but I continuesly got him mixed up with the other two other midshipmen while they were on the Bounty. That said, they were a bit overdramatic at times and one did tire of all the shouting from Laughton after a while. As far as the rest of the crew, there were highlights, but only ever small ones. The surgeon, what few moments he had, was a uplifting presence, and the sailor who had a wife and kid, (Ellison I think, I only ever heard them say Tom) had a scene where he could emote abit after the trial started.

All in all, an ok story and some good acting, but not a overwhelming film. Haven't seen any other noms from this year.