Handicapping the Oscars
2003 was a pretty weak year overall for movies. Of the five nominees for Best Picture the only one I walked out of thinking “Oscar nominee” was The Return of the King. Even more disturbing is that I don’t have a list of under appreciated movies I would replace the nominees with. The only movie that leaps to mind is City of God (to replace Seabiscuit), but even City of God, while an excellent movie, did not scream “Oscar”. There were some excellent documentaries, Fog of War and Capturing the Friedmans (also, the excellent, Spellbound, though technically a 2002 movie, mostly played in 2003), but documentaries cannot a year in movies. Granted I have not seen American Splendor or The Triplets of Belleville, which some have raved about, but there is no question that 2003 was a weak year.
Without further ado … [u][/u]
Best Picture
For Best Picture, I think The Return of the King will win and should win, see comments on the movies below (in order of rank).
The Return of the King (ROTK): (****)
Of the three Lord of the Rings movies, I thought Fellowship of the Ring was by far the best and ROTK second best. Further, the extended editions of both Fellowship and the Two Towers were superior to the theatrical renditions and I am certain it will be the same for ROTK (it was pretty obvious at times where scenes were chopped or cut). Also, ROTK seemed a little long (or perhaps drawn out) at times, even for a devoted Tolkienite like myself, though think the extended version will, counter intuitively, diminish this effect as the story is smoothed out. All that being said, ROTK was a visual tour-de-force and a true epic. While I don’t think ROTK standing alone is a clear Oscar winner in any given year (though against this years competition it is), the three movies together (which really are “one” movie, just as the book was) will go down as one of the most impressive accomplishments in movie history and The Lord of the Rings in toto absolutely deserves a best picture victory. Also, ROTK blows away previous Oscar winning war like epics like Gladiator and Braveheart.
Lost in Translation: (***)
I found Lost in Translation to be a good to very good movie. I did not think it was a clear cut Oscar nominee when I saw it, but I am not disappointed that it garnered a nomination compared to what else was 2003 had to offer. However, I have to disagree with those who found this to be a transcendent film. It was original and interesting and demonstrated that Sophie Coppola has great potential, but ultimately is not that sophisticated or daring. Hopefully, we’ll look back on this movie some day as one of Coppola’s early works that showed the promise of future greatness.
Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World (***)
This is another movie that I did not think was clear cut Oscar material, but I am not disappointed it has been nominated. The movie was very well done, did not over dramatize the combat scenes and, from all accounts, was very accurate in historical detail. It also was a little slow at times and the characters were not particularly memorable, which prevents it from making a serious run at ROTK. However, I do hope that they make more in this series.
Mystic River (**˝)
Mystic River is a decent to good movie. It is not an Oscar caliber movie. There is nothing “wrong” with the movie, but it did not do anything original, had a fairly generic story line (as in we’ve seen all this stuff before) and the twist ending was not particularly satisfying. The acting performances were good (not great), but were not enough to justify the critical acclaim this movie has received. To compare it to 21 Grams – which was also an ok movie carried by a very strong cast with very strong performances – 21 Grams had a more original and more interesting story. In addition to City of God, I would swap Mystic River with 21 Grams, Bad Santa and Elf – even though I don’t think any of those were Oscar worthy either.
Seabiscuit (**˝)
Again, Seabiscuit is a good to decent movie, but is absolutely not an Oscar caliber movie. First, the movie did not even scratch the surface of the book, which was much better (a must read). Perhaps it is unfair to compare the movie to its source, but I did not like the creative choices made. The movie emphasized the human characters and stories too much and did not place enough emphasis on the horse and the amazing effect the Biscuit had on the country – which is what the book focuses on. Seabiscuit’s owner, trainer and jockey were minor celebrities in their time, but only because Seabiscuit was a major celebrity. The movie short changed Seabiscuit’s story to make a more generic human interest story. Blah!
Best Director
Same list as Best Picture, with the substitution of Fernando Meirelles for City of God instead of Seabiscuit (which should have been swapped in Best Picture as well). This category is a no brainer. Adapting The Lord of the Rings as impressively as Peter Jackson did is one of the more impressive feats in movie making history. While Best Picture can be argued about, I think Jackson clearly deserved best director for Fellowship and ROTK and arguably the Two Towers as well. None of the other nominated movies this year come close to having the challenges that Jackson had to overcome.
Adapted Screenplay
Nominees, American Splendor, City of God, Return of the King, Mystic River and Seabiscuit. I did not see American Splendor, but this one is a no brainer as well. ROTK by a mile. If you don’t believe me, read the book – then try to think about making it into a movie.
Best Actor
I did not see House of Sand and Fog or Cold Mountain, so I cannot comment on Kingsley or Law, but all indications are that this is a three horse race between Johnny Depp (Pirates of the Caribbean), Bill Murray (Lost in Translation) and Sean Penn (Mystic River), with Penn as the slight favorite. Again, I don’t see what was so special about Mystic River. All of the acting performances were impressive, but I did not find Sean Penn’s performance earth shattering in any way. Similarly, while Johnny Depp was good, as always, he often plays this somewhat quirky character and his I don’t think his pirate performance was Oscar worthy. I would give the Oscar to Bill Murray. One could easily sub in any number of actors to Sean Penn’s role in Mystic River and, while that perhaps cannot be said for Depp’s role, Pirates would have rolled along just fine with a less stellar performance. However, Lost in Translation would have fallen flat on its face without a great performance from Murray and I cannot think of another actor to easily substitute for him.
Beyond the above categories, I either did not see enough of the movies nominated, or don’t enough technical knowledge (or don’t care enough) to comment on. Please comment on where you agree and, more importantly, disagree.
Read Less...
