Oscar Watch 2008

Man, those Oscars really snuck up on me this year! I barely had time to watch the Best Picture nominees so I could be appropriate outraged/supportive when the final envelope is opened tonight.

Just for fun, I'll recap 4 out of the 5 Best Picture nominees and decide which one I think should win.

No Country for Old Men:
As I wrote a few months ago, I was really into this movie for the first three-quarters of it. Then things went south in a hurry. This movie had a great setup, awesome suspense, and a fantastic bad guy. Then in the last 20 minutes things became really cryptic, difficult to follow, and somewhat nonsensical. Some of it started to make sense after my initial viewing, but the movie was quite unsatisfying for the most part. I understand that not all movies should tie up things nicely in the end, but there seemed to be a bit of pointlessness in the way things ended up.

There Will Be Blood:
I caught the late showing of this movie last night, not realizing that it was nearly 3 hours long and I wouldn't be getting home until after 1am. I'd like to think that if it hadn't been late, I would not have glanced at my watch so many times. That being said, I liked this movie until about the 2 hour mark. Like "No Country," this was more a movie about a character than it was about a story. Daniel Day-Lewis is really good as always, and his portrayal of an early 20th century American oil driller is pretty awesome. But once again, I started to lose interest towards the end when it became clear the story was taking a back seat to the Plainview character and the filmmaking style. I didn't realize this movie was done by Paul Thomas Anderson (Boogie Nights, Magnolia) until the final credits rolled. I generally have mixed feelings on his movies, and this one was no exception.

On the plus side, the filmmaking was pretty awesome. The beginning starts off with almost no dialogue, but the images tell you everything you need to know. The music, while a little painful, creates the sense of dread and impending doom (both appropriate). And there's a superbly shot scene where an oil rig catches fire. Acting-wise, Daniel Day-Lewis is going to win Best Actor (deservedly), though I thought the preacher character was totally miscast.

Michael Clayton:
The only studio film of the bunch, I went into this movie thinking it was going to be a formulaic "hotshot lawyer fights against the system at great personal risk" movie. Well, I'm happy to say that it wasn't so formulaic, though no one's going to be surprised at how it ends. I really liked the way the story was told and probably would have liked it more if it weren't for the depressing air that pervaded this movie. I'm starting to grow weary of these movies with a social message--these days I enjoy more escapist fare. The normally charismatic Clooney plays a joyless character, which is appropriate here given the theme of the movie. Ultimately, it's not a fun movie, nor is it something you'd really feel the urge to watch again, but it is a good, solid film.

Juno:
Probably the most fun movie of the bunch, which is not surprising since it's the only comedy. It's about a quirky 16 year-old girl named Juno who gets pregnant. She's precocious, witty, and has no filter on her mouth--how fun! The guy who knocks her up is played by George Michael Bluth from "Arrested Development" (and Superbad). I think he's really funny, but he doesn't get much screen time here. The movie is quite enjoyable, though it's not so outstanding that it should be winning any major awards.

Atonement:
Oh boy, a turn-of-the-century British romance movie! The funny thing is that everyone else I know feels the same way about this movie. They have zero interest in spending two hours to watch it. Let's just eliminate this one as a contender, shall we?

If there's one thing about this year's crop of Best Picture nominees, it's that few of them were really enjoyable. Most of the films seemed less concerned with having a compelling story than they were about coming up with stylistic techniques to move the story along. Even so, it seems clear to me that "No Country for Old Men" is the best of the bunch. It's unusual, it's suspenseful, it sucks you in (for most of the movie), and there's a great bad guy (which is surprisingly hard to find in movies these days). From all accounts, "No Country" will win, and I think it deserves to.