Sunday, 27 February 2011

Winter's Innuendo.

There's always one film nominated for several Oscars that nobody has actually seen. This is often because they're low budget films that didn't get a large release so had a very small advertisement campaign. Often, these films are so under-appreciated and this is an example of such a film getting the recognition it deserves. Winter's Bone.

A film about rednecks. Them fellas from down the southern states of the US of A. But it is so good. 17 year old Rees (Jennifer Lawrence) looks after her two younger siblings and her sick mother since her father is nowhere to be found. This becomes a particularly big issue when he uses their house to pay his bail. If he doesn't turn up to his trial, the family lose the house. This sets Rees on an adventure to find her father. Bumping into many a southern hick, she begins to get into trouble. But she finds help in Teardrop (John Hawkes) who also says that it is likely her father is dead. Either way, dead or alive, finding him will save her family.

Two nominated performances. Hawkes and Lawrence. Let's start with Lawrence. Apparently, statistically, it helps to 'ugly up' for a role if you you would like an Oscar. Jennifer Lawrence does this more than any other nominee. Firstly, in reality, she is stunning. In the movie, she's... well... a redneck. That's uglying up. Plus her performance is captivating. She makes an hour seem like ten minutes. From smart, to violent, to terrified. She does everything and she does it well. Her slightly dark yet inspiring performance is certainly worth the Oscar. Unfortunately, she's not very heard of and therefore unlikely to get it. Hopefully she'll get a gong one day. John Hawkes is also very good and very surprising. It seems, early on the film, like he'll be a real jerk. A typical hick. But he is really touching. Also nominated in possibly the most contested category he stands next to no chance of winning which is a shame. His performance is on of the most varied in the year. His range is stunning. Stunning I say.

As you do.

Generally a very good film. Dark, aggressive but also very touching. It basically encompasses everything. The score particularly stood out for me. Very minimalistic but when it comes in, it blends so well and doesn't make a big deal or slip into cliches. I'm so fed up of dramatic music over mild moments to make them seem dramatic. Really very good. Camera work has glimpses of brilliance but is mostly a little generic.

I actually adore this movie. Further proof that you don't need a lot of money to make a damn good movie. Big budget films are getting repetitive but low budget ones are really stunning (Just look at the hurt locker.) This is really my type of movie.

Best bit? All of it. It's really good.

Ninety Four Minutes.

Claustrophobic films seem to be doing well nowadays. All over the place we see films popping up, mostly horrors, that feed themselves on lonely, isolated and cramped places. We've seen Phonebooth, Buried (Both reviewed on this blog) and now we have Danny Boyle's latest creation. I think I'd have been more content if the movie had've carried on for another 33 minutes. Then it would've been 127 minutes. Guessed the movie yet?

Like many other films that are set almost entirely in a small space and only starring one person, it's not the most difficult of plots. Aron Ralston (James Franco) is a small town man wishing to follow his dream as a guide. He goes out hiking and rock climbing, ocassionally taking a break to help some hot girls enjoy themselves. But all takes a turn for the worse when one boulder slips and traps his right arm. Trying to avoid insanity, Ralston films video messages for his family off his attempts to escape and how his attempt at survival is going. Water starts to run out but there is plenty of urine. With little or no sleep (debates rage as to whether he slept) hallucinations begin to come to light and food runs out as well. Yes, Aron Ralston's experience is a brilliant depiction of hell.

Aron was so drunk he couldn't ride his bike.

Hopefully will be a short review, a lot less out there to discuss. A good movie. Mainly down to Franco's performance. One of the best performances of the year and completely worth it's Oscar nomination. Unfortunately, the other four nominations are also the best performances of the year. In fact, this is one of the strongest acting years for a long time and I'm really struggling to decide on my final decision. But let's talk about Franco. His incredibly subtle performance is stunning. When asked about factual accuracy, Ralston said that the performance was as close to a documantary as it could be but still remain a drama. Rather than going for the over the dop desperation that we saw in Buried earlier in 2010, Franco opted for a calm, mildly disturbing performance that also showed Ralston's boredom. It really is a stunning performance and any other year would be likely to win the Oscar. Will he win this year? Unlikely, but he deserves it if he does. Plus, he's hosting... That may not help him.

Technically it was excellent. Brilliant music and stunning camera work. Danny Boyle is one of my favourite directors and he once again proves himself worthy. If Inception and True Grit weren't nominated, 127 Hours would get the cinematography gong without a doubt. Unfortunately, they are and so 127 Hours is a dark horse here. There are some brilliant songs, particularly If I Rise, which has an Oscar nomination in ANOTHER close category. I See The Light and We Belong Together will give it a close fight. But we shall see soon. My main issue with this movie was the hallucinations and the flashbacks. Sometimes, they were perfect. But there were too many of them and not all of them helped. It came to a point where they just seemed to be put in there to make the movie a decent length.

A really good movie. Sorry for the short post. There isn't a lot to write about in such a short and one manned performance. But see it. It's worth it. Though, one man, claustrophobic movies seem to have a trend when it comes to star ratings on my blog... Hmmmm.

Best Bit? The insanity causing Ralston to create a gameshow. Funny as well as touching.

Friday, 25 February 2011

Gay People Are All Right.

When presenting a modern relationship, movies can often get a bit cliche. Things have to be mixed up in order to create something new, original and unique. Following the success of troubled gay man Harvey Milk in 'Milk' in 2009 in which Sean Penn won the Best Actor Oscar, how about this year we haven a lesbian couple with two kids. Oh, and the sperm donor starts hanging around. But don't worry, The Kids Are All Right.

The premise is rather simple. A gay couple of women Nic (Annette Bening) and Jules (Julianne Moore) have two kids Joni (Mia Wasikowska) and Laser (Jos Hutcherson) who is particularly interested in meeting their biological father. When Joni arranges a meeting, they immediately bond. Slowly, sperm donor Paul (Mark Ruffalo) begins to be invited into the family which cause discomfort with Nic. This is only made worse when Jules starts as Paul's garden designer and begins to spend a lot of time with him. Feeling like she is being pushed out in preference of a father figure in the family, confrontations come to light.

Annette was tired of pretending to love Julianne. She just wanted to finish her wine.

Unfortunately, it's difficult to delve to much into the movie without giving away a lot of spoilers. I mean, there isn't that much to give away, but if you're like me, you like to not know any details about what happens in the film. So I shall restrain myself. The film is good. Not as good as other Oscar nominees but better than, I don't know, anything made by Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer. But seriously, it's not the best film to be nominated but still enjoyable. It may sound like I criticise the movie a lot in the paragraph to come, but I promise, it isn't bad. I'll start with the best things. The performances. Two of which are nominated. Bening is up for Best Actress. Does she deserve the gong? In my opinion, no. While she is better than a lot of performances out there, I think the only reason she may get it is due to her numerous nominations in the past with no big wins. She does portray all the emotions that Nic is likely to feel but it all seems a bit mild. In contrast, other nominees like Portman, almost drove themselves to mental and physical torture to do the best damn performance they could. Ruffalo, however, is up for the Best Supporting Actor Oscar and is great. Also a mild performance but so is his character. The calm and collected character who seems to have found what he needs in life. A family. Against such strong competition, I doubt he stands much chance at winning, but he's very good all the same.

All other performances were also excellent. I think it's very unfortunate that Julianne Moore wasn't nominated but already the actress categories have such strong competition. However, I felt she did a better performance than Bening. Both young performers did really well. Wasikowska as the more sensitive and independent daughter and Hutcherson as the 'cool' kid. Wasikowska certainly showed that she has great potential and Hutcherson is showing promise, but still has a way to go.

'The Sofa Musical's' finale number didn't go down too well.

My biggest issue with this film is it all seemed very rushed. It builds up slowly and then all the exciting and tense moments just seem to pass. The ending in particular left me very frustrated. I'm not sure whether it's the screenplay's fault or the directing or whether they just cut a lot out in order to decrease it's running time. I don't know. All I know is, it was very unsatisfying. Perhaps it was just love overcoming all obstacles and all the jazz.... Apart from that, everything else was very average. There was nothing special in the sound, editing or cinematography departments. Generic would be a good word to use.

Like I said, it seems like I'm slating the film but it's one of those times when the few negatives stand out over the many positives. Also, there is a lot of sex scenes. I think there's too many. But still, it's a good film and I recommend it. If you can't tell from the star rating.

Best bit? The dramatic confrontation between Paul and Nic. Best part of Bening's performance and shows that Oscar winning potential.

Thursday, 17 February 2011

I Do Not Know This (Little Golden) Man.

Ah, The Coen Brothers. Very love them or hate them when it comes to directors. Some may dislike their anti-climactic endings but their latest film is sure to satisfy even those haters. Yup, this movie has True Grit... And ten Oscar nominations.

Okay, moving on from cheesy references to the movies title, what's it about? Well Mattie Ross's (Hailee Steinfeld) father is murdered by notorious criminal, Tom Chaney. (Josh Brolin) In search of revenge and to bring Chaney to justice, Mattie hires U.S. marshal, Rooster Cogburn (Jeff Bridges) but only after she turns away Texas Ranger LaBoeuf (Matt Damon) because he wanted to take Chaney back to Texas for killing a U.S Senator. Rooster and LaBoeuf make a team and leave Mattie behind to continue the manhunt alone but she soon catches up. Travelling miles of the wild west and encountering gangs and snakes, the group fall out and make up several times but won't stop until they find Chaney.
Have you ever gone to a movie and not known what to expect? Despite Empire's 5 star review and it's Oscar nomination, I had no idea what I was going to get. The Coen Brothers have done it again. They proved they can handle the concept of a Western with No Country For Old Men but True Grit is a modern masterpiece in the genre. A pure western which is something we don't see much nowadays. There isn't a single flaw in the casting. I stand by my opinion that The Coens put more effort into casting every role than any other movie maker. My reason being, even the smallest characters in their movies are perfect. (The shop owner in No Country For Old Men, the horse trader in True Grit)

"Aye aye love"

"Actually, you only have one"

Let's start with the Oscar nominated performances. Jeff Bridges is up for Best Actor again, two years running. He certainly deserves it though. As the drunken, mumbling and merciless marshal, he really shines. He also provides most of the funniest moments. Oh, did I not mention that the film is HILARIOUS? The Coen Brothers' humor just runs throughout the movie. Does kicking immigrants off fences amuse anyone else or is it just me? Bridges is also very quotable. You'll leave the movie saying, "I do not know this man," or, "That didn't pan out." Sounds plain, but see the movie and you'll understand. Should he win the Oscar? If there weren't such strong performances in the category already then I'd say he does. I think he is definitely a strong contender. Winning last year may hurt his chances though... Perhaps someone who hasn't won should have a chance.
This year, age has been no boundary for Oscar nominations. With Bridges at 61 and his nominated co-star, Hailee Steinfeld, who is only 14, True Grit manages to cover the whole age range of the nominees. And boy do they cover it well. Despite being nominated as a supporting actress, Steinfeld is definitely a leading actress; she was put in supporting as it offered her a better chance at winning. She really deserveds the nod. She essentially holds the film. She's quick, witty, brave and mature but she remembers how young her character is and throws in sensitivity, nerves and fear. Definitely one of the best child performances to ever grace the cinema screen. Should she win the Oscar? She should. But she won't. I would love for her to win. She deserves it completely. Unfortunately, there are a few factors in her way. Mainly her age. Children don't win Oscars. Not in such a strong year... Not when you're against big shots like Amy Adams, Helena Bonham Carter and even Melissa Leo. Also, it's her first feature film. Winning on your first feature is very unlikely. Finally, she wasn't a supporting actor. The voters may not like the manipulation of the categories so that she has a better chance.
The film is full of great performances. Some (including me) may say that Matt Damon was snubbed and that he should have got a nod for Best Supporting Actor. Unfortunately, the Academy can't nominate everyone and so we'll have to honor Damon's performance with our memories. His turn as Texas Ranger, LaBoeuf, is funny and dramatic. He goes from fool to hero and back to fool throughout the movie and his character is all the richer for it.
Finally, Josh Brolin. He may not be on screen for very long but in the time that he is, he's captivating. The slightly psychotic criminal known as Tom Chaney, comes to life through Brolin's performance. Perhaps with a bigger part, he may have been nominated for his second Coen Brothers film related Oscar.

Hailee's reaction when she discovered she'd only been nominated for Supporting Actress.

The Big Lebowski. No Country For Old Men. A Serious Man. O Brother, Where Art Thou? Fargo. All brilliant films. Why? Their directors. The Coen Brothers. I've already mentioned how many people dislike them. Personally, I don't see why. They produce masterpiece after masterpiece. I mean, who doesn't like The Big Lebowski? These siblings are so talented. Not only do they direct their movies, the write most of them. All over True Grit is their humour and their subtle touches and it is that that makes it a great movie. However, they've won the Oscar before and therefore are less likely to get it again. Let another masterpiece producer have it. David Fincher anyone?

The cinematography is excellent. Certainly worthy of an Oscar. Prepare to fight with Inception though. The score fits the atmosphere of the action perfectly. Now, readers, a warning. I'm about to embark on a rant about generic things I loved about this movie. Ready? Here I go: The combination of action, comedy and touching moments is so wonderful and so rarely seen nowadays. Speaking of the action, few movies manage to take a historical context such as the wild west and make the fights so exciting. Or make the plot so gripping. Despite long montages of horses travelling across desolate plains, I was still often on the edge of my seat wanting to scream at the screen. Plus I like the locations of westerns. Those infinite landscapes are simply stunning. Okay. Rant over.

Just go and see it.

Best bit? Oh there's so many. I really can't say. Let's just say the best bits made me either want to laugh, cry or shout at the screen. Not many films achieve all three.

Monday, 14 February 2011


If movies could win Best Picture on their ability to tune into a zeitgeist alone, films such as Twilight and Harry Potter would leave the Oscar's very pleased. But they didn't. When a film manages to dissolve a zeitgeist and shows every aspect of it from the nerdy to the awesome, we get something special. So here we have a movie for the internet age. A movie made for everyone who has used a particular website. Anyone who has used The Social Network.

Mark Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg) wants to be cool. After being dumped and a host of blog posts later, he creates a website known as Face Mash. It turns out to be a hit and crashes Harvard's servers. This serves as insperation. It also catches the attention of Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss (Josh Pence and Armie Hammer respectively) and Divya Narendra (Max Minghella) who wish Mark to work on their new site, Harvard Connection. A social network site exclusively for Harvard students. More insperation. Mark builds on this idea with his best friend Eduardo Saverin (Andrew Garefield) and they create 'Thefacebook.' Believing that their idea was stolen, the Winklevoss twins (or Winklevii) begin taking action, first as 'Harvard Gentlemen' and then they take legal action. Court case number 1. As Facebook grows, now outside of Harvard, Mark and Eduardo begin to drift apart especially when Sean Parker (Justin Timbelake) gets involved. Slowly, Eduardo is pushed out of Facebook and, after his name is removed as co-creator, he takes legal action of his own. Court case number 2. Poor Mark. He never even wanted a profit. He just wanted to be cool.

As the world's youngest billionaire, Mark decided he'd try out his 'early retirement look.'

The film blends perfectly from the 'present day' court cases to the past and history of the famous website. But more on that later. For now, the performances. Only one nominated. Jesse Eisenberg is up for the Best Actor gong but does he deserve it? In a weaker year he may stand a better chance. While his turn as the world's youngest billionaire may, if you're like me, become one of your favourite on screen personas, he lacks something that the other nominated actors have. However, it's still a brilliant show. The fast talking character is a brilliant hybrid of arrogance and self consciousness. His sarcasm and wit give the movie pace and a a level of intelligent humor that so many films lack nowadays. Both Andrew Garfield and Justin Timberlake throw in brilliant supporting performances. Garfield excels as the angry, hurt and probably very jealous best friend. When you consider how close Eisenberg and Garfield are, their dramatic and tension filled, onscreen relationship becomes all the more impressive. Also, if you're not one to think of Timberlake as a serious actor, prepare to be proved wrong. As the super cool Sean Parker, he shows how awesome the world of nerdy computer logistics can be starting with the simple suggestion of one billion dollars.

When one of my favourite directors is behind a film, you can be assured that it'll be a damn good movie. So from the man who made Fight Club and Se7en, what can we expect? Something excellent. That's what. David Fincher provides another excellent film and his most contemporary to date. Before he's dabbled in horror, (Se7en) Dark comedy and thriller (Fight Club) and psychological thriller (the Game) but yet here we are with the always exciting concept of... The Internet! But seriously, this character drama is truly brilliant and it's probably likely to be down to David Fincher's perfectionism. The opening scene alone took 99 takes. Fincher certainly deserves an Oscar. Maybe not for this film but it's now a famous quote that, 'the right people win Oscars for the wrong films.' If Fight Club and Se7en didn't win, surely it's about time Fincher was recognised. We don't want another Stanley Kubrick or Alfred Hitchcock do we?

At Harvard, even the writing paper is glass.

The techno score may not be for all but it suits the technological subject matter that the whole movie is based around. But being modern and techno it may not appeal to a lot of Oscar voters out there but the mixing is excellent. (Oscar perhaps?) The cinematography is good but I wouldn't say it's to the standard of, Inception, Kings Speech or True Grit (Review coming soon) so probably not likely to get the Oscar there. The editing, however is a different matter. As already mentioned, the film easily blends from one time zone to another. Often it manages it perfectly within a conversation. My vote is certainly between The Kings Speech and this for the editing Oscar. The editing Oscar is a famous sign of a best picture winner... Coincidence?

A really excellent film. Funny, emotional and exciting. The characters are compelling and the dialogue is pacy. It has everything a Best Picture winner needs: brains, strong characters, emotion, humour and, of course, an I-can -overcome-all-obstacles story - though not a traditional one. It's such a difficult year to pick a winner. Predictions coming soon. But for the meantime, see this.

Best bit? The sarcasm. The movie drips sarcasm. See below for David Fincher's favourite example.

Gretchen: 18,000 dollars?
Eduardo Saverin: Yes.
Gretchen: In addition to the $1,000 you'd already put up?
Eduardo Saverin: Yes.
Gretchen: A total of $19,000 now?
Eduardo Saverin: Yes.
Mark Zuckerberg: Hang on. [Mark sarcastically adds up the 2 amounts on his notepad]
Mark Zuckerberg: I'm just checking your math on that. Yes, I got the same thing.

Friday, 4 February 2011

An Oscar Nominated Boxing Movie? Finally, Something New!

It's nice to see that the well trodden path of the award winning boxing movie is not putting off screenwriters. Raging Bull, Rocky and Million Dollar Baby are all brilliant examples of how boxing movies can be done but what is new out there? The Fighter has decided to take on the subject matter by using a true story. And it does well.

The true story of two brothers, Micky Ward (Mark Wahlberg) and his older sibling, Dicky Eklund, (Christian Bale) in their quest to train Micky into a champion boxer. But it is not an easy path. With Micky falling in love with Charlene (Amy Adams) and Dicky's drug addiction putting him in jail, the family and training system fall apart. When an offer comes for Micky to start with a new manager at the cost of leaving his family behind at training, he takes it. The family don't take this well and a feud starts betwwen them and the new training team.

The ol' 'Look Over There' technique still worked.

The movie is fairly straight forward and a rather common premise. But it brings something new to the table. The characters. A family focused training team with strong tempered mother, Alice, (Melissa Leo) managing operations and extravagent, crack addicted Dicky trains Micky. With such strong representations of the characters, the story really comes alive. Dark, gritty, emotional and every now and then, very funny. With three acting nominations, you can see that the Academy enjoyed it. Best Supporting Actor and two nominations for Best Supporting Actress. With both Leo and Adams up for the acting gong, we can see there may be a bit of friendly competition coming up. In fairness, I think they may well be each other's biggest threat. (But I haven't seen True Grit so I won't make any final predictions yet.) Adams is brilliant as the tough but loving Charlene. She shows true caring for Micky but also true contempt for the rest of the family. Leo is stunning as the controlling, domineering mother. She, like Charlene, knows what she wants and she will put up a damn good fight to get it. Every emotion pours through both actresses: Love, fear, anger, joy, you name it, they do it. Both brilliant performances. If I had to decide who to give the Oscar to, I'd have to say Melissa Leo. She just has something that Adams lacks. The conviction.

The brilliant female performances aren't the only talking point. Our two lead males both throw in award worthy performances. Sadly, Wahlberg didn't get an Oscar nod, though he probably does deserve one. Unfortunately for him, he was the calm, collected character next to the larger than life Dicky. While he did a fantastic job, the Acadamy often overlook these perormances for the more enthusiastic and 'difficult' characters. He played the role brilliantly and that's what truely matters. Christian Bale, however, did cast Wahlberg's performance into a slight shadow. Throughout the film you notic how consistant he is and then at the end, we are greeted with a short clip of the real Dicky and Micky and we realise how spot on Bale was. Certainly worthy of the nomination, equally worthy of the gong.

Wanna reason to watch the movie ladies? There you go.

There are flashes of brilliance elsewhere. Out of no where came a brilliant little montage which was shot so well and also excellently edited. It took me by surprise. Also, the fights, shot with a really good representation of a sports show camera, are very well pieced together and again are filmed with brilliant camera work. It helps make the film real. And the direction is wonderful. Everything goes so well. Certainly not enough to get David O. Russell the Oscar I'd say. But it is very well done.

Overall a good movie. Definately worth a watch. You may laugh, you may cry but whatever you do, you will get attached to the movie. I would recommend it.

Best Bit? Some may say Amy Adams in just underwear, but I'll go with the uplifting montage of fights.

Tuesday, 1 February 2011

Th......Ugh.... Th.....The...Aghhh.... Oh I'll Just Get On With It.

With the Oscars only a month away, I've taken it upon myself to see and review each of the nominations for best picture. We've managed to make it through three now: Black Swan, Inception and Toy Story 3. Only seven more to go.... Wait... Make that six. Here we go with best picture review number four.

T-t-t-the K-k-k-k-king's Sp-sp-spe-speech. With Twelve Oscar nominations, it looks like the one to watch. But why? It's just Colin Firth learning to speak properly, right? Well let's dive a little deeper. Albert Frederick Arthur George aka King George VI aka Bertie, (Colin Firth) starts the movie as the humble Duke Of York, stammering into a microphone in front of a crowd of hundreds. Doctors are called but nothing seems to be working to cure the Prince's stammer. But there is hope when Her Royal Highness The Duchess Of York, aka The Queen Mother to be, (Helena Bonham Carter) is recommend a speech therapist, Lionel Logue. (Geoffrey Rush) After persuasion and deal making, Albert begins to see Logue. Insisting that the 'King to be' calls him Lionel and not 'Doctor,' Logue begins to attempt his unusual techniques on Albert. Insisting that the Australian born therapist calls him Sir and not 'Bertie,' Albert seems to disagree with these methods. As well as trying to adjust his stammer, Albert's family seems to be crumbling around him. His father (Michael Gambon) is falling ill, his brother (Guy Pierce) is running amok with his mistress in America and Bertie just wishes that someone else will become heir to the throne after his brother, King Edward VII; he wasn't called the reluctant king for nothing.

The King was terrified when the steering wheel came off his car.

A wonderfully witty, funny and often emotional piece of cinema. What should be a horribly boring and tedious period drama is given new life through wonderful writing, acting and underlying plots. It should be made clear that the film is more of a story of what happened in King George VI's life during that period of time rather than just him fighting his stammer. Focusing now on three of it's Oscar nominations: Best Actor, Best Supporting Actor and Best Supporting Actress.

Firstly, our leading actor, Colin Firth. He gives one hell of a dedicated performance. He switches from clever and funny to full of rage so well and so effectively. He portrays King George's anger issues in a strong but yet sympathetic way. Every emotion is felt in the cinema seats and I doubt every eye stayed dry when he begins crying like a child. Of course, the real King George cried like a child; it said so in his diary. Oh, plus he does this thing called stammering like he actually does it in real life. I guess that's important in the movie. A performance that'll really tug your heartstrings. Do I think he's got the Oscar? Honestly, yes. Yes I do.
Next, our supporting actor, Geoffrey Rush. Lionel Logue, in the hands of rush, provides the majority of laughs. From plain funny jokes to visual humour and when paired with the two royalties, the three of them can be hilarious together. However, like the King, Logue has an emotional side. Unlike his short tempered counterpart, Logue is calm, soft and gentle but can clearly be moved by what the King says and does. In his achievements, his anger and also his failings or simply his story. Some really wonderful acting which creates some of the most uplifting moments in film this year. Do I think he's got the Oscar? Hard to say. It'll be a fight (no pun intended) between him and Christian Bale. I think he has a good chance, but if the Golden Globes are anything to go by, it'll be really close.
And finally, Helena Bonham Carter. One of my favourite actresses. As the reassuring wife of our protagonist, she is not only sensitive to him but also very quick and witty in conversations with doctors and Logue. Along with Rush, she provides a lot of laughs but, like the other two lead performers, she has an emotional side on her two. See the conversation with Albert when he finds out he'll be king. Do I think she's got the Oscar? As much as I wish that she would get it, I don't think she will. It's a very strong category with all four other nominees being great performers and Her Highness may have to cross her fingers and hope for a stroke of luck.

The latest rendition of The Sound Of Music was very low budget

The film oozes with brilliance; that's why it's been nominated for so many technical Oscars. The score represents the atmosphere perfectly. Will it get the Oscar? Ho hum. Score's are often overlooked by the normal viewer and I think this is the strongest nominee in the category. The camera work is stunning. Occasionally, a single camera shot said everything or the shot was just beautiful or even that panoramic lens showed you that little more and gave a bit of extra perspective. Oscar worthy? Certainly but I'm afraid I believe that Inceptions bagged this one... The spinning corridor, the wide shot of the falling van or even Cobb's view in the fortress when disaster strikes, brilliant. But in terms of editing, I think The Kings Speech has this one. Zooming into a wall and then retreating to reveal a different scenes in the same place is one example of the comedy and effect that the editing has on the movie.

Down to the last Oscar nominations that I'll discuss; directing and writing. A lot of the humour is down to a very well written script. A lot of the emotion is down to a very well written script. A lot of the catharsis is... Oh you get the point. The script is damn good. Will it get the Oscar? It's a tough category. It has a shot but it'll be close. And finally, the directing. Tom Hooper does a brilliant job. In case you haven't realised yet, the film is pretty awesome. And let's be honest, a best director award is almost a best picture award. (Okay not quite but you get me.) It means you can make movies the best essentially. Take all the aspects and put them together better than anyone else. Control them. Personally, I think Tom Hooper was fantastic and has a good shot for the Oscar. Bare in mind that I haven't seen True Grit yet, I bet that it'll be close between Hooper and Aronofsky.

Twelve Oscars and five star reviews all around, take my word, it's a good movie. Go see it if for some reason you haven't yet. You won't regret it. It's not the most exciting of films but it draws you in and is in no way boring. Unless you only watch films that have naked girls and explosions or scary movies, you should enjoy this one. Hell, even if those are the only movies you watch, there's a good chance you'll enjoy this movie. Very good.

Best bit? The uplifting climax? The coronation training? I'm going to go with the bit that stood out most for me: the vocal training montage. Funny, brilliantly shot and edited and also touching and uplifting.
P.S. Sorry for the really long review. Had a lot to write.