Since I’m the one who started this thread, I might as well go first. My personal favorite has to be No Country for Old Men.
Home ›
James Garcia58 › Posts
Posts by James Garcia58
25 posts shown.
So, we’ve officially crossed the ten-year mark of Oscar ceremonies since the turn of the millennium, which got me thinking about which one actually takes the top spot for everyone. I suppose I should have waited for the dust to settle around > before opening this up, but whatever. Here are the winners:
2000. American Beauty (Sam Mendes)
2001. Gladiator (Ridley Scott)
2002. A Beautiful Mind (Ron Howard)
2003. Chicago (Sam Rob Marshall)
2004. The Return of The King (Peter Jackson)
2005. Million Dollar Baby (Clint Eastwood)
2006. Crash (Paul Haggis)
2007. The Departed (Martin Scorsese)
2008. No Country for Old Men (Joel Coen)
2009. Slumdog Millionaire (Danny Boyle)
2000. American Beauty (Sam Mendes)
2001. Gladiator (Ridley Scott)
2002. A Beautiful Mind (Ron Howard)
2003. Chicago (Sam Rob Marshall)
2004. The Return of The King (Peter Jackson)
2005. Million Dollar Baby (Clint Eastwood)
2006. Crash (Paul Haggis)
2007. The Departed (Martin Scorsese)
2008. No Country for Old Men (Joel Coen)
2009. Slumdog Millionaire (Danny Boyle)
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, mostly because the character development is just superior.
Frost/Nixon (the new Ron Howard film)
in Movies ·
So, I finally sat down and watched the movie. Honestly? It was pretty good—solid 7/10.
It did, however, make me rethink my entire perspective on Nixon. In this version, he comes across as a genuinely decent guy in quite a few scenes, which was unexpected.
What really worked for me was the depiction of the "Great Man" archetype. Whether you view that as a positive or a negative thing, the film nails the idea that he is, undeniably, a figure of massive scale. You can see it most clearly during that handshake scene.
My only real gripe is how the film trivializes the whole web of circumstances that led to everything. It almost makes it seem like his downfall boiled down to just one drunken night and a single phone call.
I also had an issue with how they portrayed Nixon at the very end—specifically during that final dialogue and the aftermath. He seems to regret his past actions a bit too much. I got this distinct sense of loneliness from him, as if being loved by the public was the only thing that ever truly mattered to him. He even touches on that concept during their last exchange.
Ultimately, that ending felt a little pathetic, as silly as that might sound for a film of this caliber.
The acting was decent enough, nothing extraordinary. Langella definitely deserved an Oscar nomination, though I don't think he was going anywhere near winning the Oscar itself.
Bottom line: it’s worth a watch. My rating stays at a 7/10, and I have a nagging feeling this might be one of those films that ends up being a total loser at the awards ceremony.
It did, however, make me rethink my entire perspective on Nixon. In this version, he comes across as a genuinely decent guy in quite a few scenes, which was unexpected.
What really worked for me was the depiction of the "Great Man" archetype. Whether you view that as a positive or a negative thing, the film nails the idea that he is, undeniably, a figure of massive scale. You can see it most clearly during that handshake scene.
My only real gripe is how the film trivializes the whole web of circumstances that led to everything. It almost makes it seem like his downfall boiled down to just one drunken night and a single phone call.
I also had an issue with how they portrayed Nixon at the very end—specifically during that final dialogue and the aftermath. He seems to regret his past actions a bit too much. I got this distinct sense of loneliness from him, as if being loved by the public was the only thing that ever truly mattered to him. He even touches on that concept during their last exchange.
Ultimately, that ending felt a little pathetic, as silly as that might sound for a film of this caliber.
The acting was decent enough, nothing extraordinary. Langella definitely deserved an Oscar nomination, though I don't think he was going anywhere near winning the Oscar itself.
Bottom line: it’s worth a watch. My rating stays at a 7/10, and I have a nagging feeling this might be one of those films that ends up being a total loser at the awards ceremony.
Harvey Milk (2008)
in Movies ·
So, I just finished watching Harvey Milk, and honestly, it’s great. I’d give it an 8/10.
The movie is based on true events, which makes the core story interesting enough, though nothing groundbreaking there. What really stands out is the synergy between the writers, the director, and the cinematography.
Building on that is the stellar acting, led primarily by Brilliant Sean Penn, who—in my opinion—never once overacts. It’s actually fascinating to watch how many different types of characters he can portray with such conviction. Josh Brolin is also solid.
First off, despite having a massive cast, the film never loses its way or feels cluttered. I think the credit for that goes directly to the tight collaboration between the director and the screenwriters.
That said, the real highlight is the direction. Some of the directorial choices were genuinely impressive, so I’ll highlight a few.
First, there’s the introduction of Scott. Nothing flashy, but that side profile close-up looked fantastic; they could have leaned into those shots more often, especially when you have actors capable of conveying so much through small details.
Then there are those sweeping pan shots, particularly the one in the tight indoor space during one of Harvey's meetings.
But my favorite technical move happens at Milkov's birthday, where they use a deep focus shot. You see Harvey talking to someone in one frame, then as that conversation wraps up, the camera moves in, a second person enters the shot, and they transition into a new close-up for their dialogue.
SPOILERS
There is one thing I didn't quite catch or notice, so I’d love if someone could clarify.
What was the purpose behind him recording those tapes, and why does he seem so exhausted and drained while doing it?
End spoiler
I should also mention the excellent work by the costume designer and that relatively young screenwriter, even though he was working from a true story.
Anyway, my rating is an 8/10. Personally, I think the film deserves an Academy Award for Best Director and Best Actor; as for the other categories, we can discuss those later.
The movie is based on true events, which makes the core story interesting enough, though nothing groundbreaking there. What really stands out is the synergy between the writers, the director, and the cinematography.
Building on that is the stellar acting, led primarily by Brilliant Sean Penn, who—in my opinion—never once overacts. It’s actually fascinating to watch how many different types of characters he can portray with such conviction. Josh Brolin is also solid.
First off, despite having a massive cast, the film never loses its way or feels cluttered. I think the credit for that goes directly to the tight collaboration between the director and the screenwriters.
That said, the real highlight is the direction. Some of the directorial choices were genuinely impressive, so I’ll highlight a few.
First, there’s the introduction of Scott. Nothing flashy, but that side profile close-up looked fantastic; they could have leaned into those shots more often, especially when you have actors capable of conveying so much through small details.
Then there are those sweeping pan shots, particularly the one in the tight indoor space during one of Harvey's meetings.
But my favorite technical move happens at Milkov's birthday, where they use a deep focus shot. You see Harvey talking to someone in one frame, then as that conversation wraps up, the camera moves in, a second person enters the shot, and they transition into a new close-up for their dialogue.
SPOILERS
There is one thing I didn't quite catch or notice, so I’d love if someone could clarify.
What was the purpose behind him recording those tapes, and why does he seem so exhausted and drained while doing it?
End spoiler
I should also mention the excellent work by the costume designer and that relatively young screenwriter, even though he was working from a true story.
Anyway, my rating is an 8/10. Personally, I think the film deserves an Academy Award for Best Director and Best Actor; as for the other categories, we can discuss those later.