Oscar Watch: The 84th Annual Academy Awards

"The Artist" takes the win, and most deservedly in my opinion. I feel, contrary to what the blogosphere seems to think, that this film will be seen in future years as a classic, unlike most of the other nominees for best pic this year.

The big surprises of the night:

- Meryl Streep beat Viola Davis for best actress. Totally didn't see this one coming, because Davis was felt to be as close to sure bet this year, outside of "The Artist" for best pic.

- "Hugo" for visual effects? Seriously, AMPAS? Every single other nominated movie deserved it more than "Hugo," I think. I feel that, to sort of rectify "Hugo" not winning the top awards, they awarded it a plethora of technical awards. ROTPOTA totally deserved this, to me.

- Chris Rock was hilarious! Best laugh of the night.

Not as surprising, but still nice:

- Jean Dujardin for his role as George Valentin. I did not want Clooney to win, but I did want Bichir to win. Dujardin was arguably excellent in the film, and I'm still glad he won.

- "Rango" for best animated pic.... quirky, fun, and overall well done. Next year, though, I really want to see "Brave" and pixar nab the award.

- Plummer for best actor.... oldest actor winner, which is a record, but too much emphasis placed on his age.


Disappointing:

- Billy Crystal. From the blah opening video, to an all-too-brief opening medley, to minimal and usually not so funny jokes throughout the show, I was disappointed with his hosting this time.

- "Hugo" nabbing most of the technical awards. Yes, it was a decent film, but seriously? It wasn't THAT amazing, at least not to me.

And so, another oscars comes and goes. Looking forward to the 85th annual awards.... and perhaps "The Dark Knight Rises" will be up for the top spot, along with "Brave"? I really hope so. I miss some of the past stellar ceremonies, like when "Slumdog Millionaire" won, and "The Return of the King," with Crystal on top game, to me. Let's hope next year's exciting!

Oscar Watch: "The Help"

"The Help"
Directed by: Tate Taylor
Starring: Emma Stone, Viola Davis, Bryce Dallas Howard, Allison Janney, Octavia Spencer
Jessica Chastain
Nominations: Best Picture, Best Actress, Best Supporting Actress (x 2)

I saw "The Help" when it first came out; I think it's the first oscar film I saw before even considering it being on the awards circuit. Overall, it was a good, solid film. The acting was solid and believable, the story relatable and true, and the humor truly funny. Especially the pie. I'm glad the film was nominated, if only because it was the most popular mainstream film among the bunch. A chance at winning? Perhaps, but I still want "The Artist" to top it. I was still nice to see Stone step into a serious role, and also to bring to light this time in history via film.

Oscar Watch: "Beginners"

"Beginners"
Directed by:
Starring: Ewan McGregor, Christopher Plummer
Nominations: Best Supporting Actor

"Beginners" is a story about a father coming out at age 75, and his death, and his son dealing with those events in the context of a new romance with a French girl. Overall, the story is ho-hum, and rather boring. Plummer, nominated for his acting, played the role well, but to me, it wasn't anything spectacular. I didn't feel the pain he likely felt hiding his true identity for so long during his marriage, at least hiding it from his son. I didn't feel much from the film; maybe I was tired, or maybe I just can't relate to it. Either way, it would be nice to see Plummer win just because he's a star from long ago, but the movie itself was barely decent.

Oscar Watch: "Rango"

"Rango"
Directed by: Gore Verbinski
Starring: Johnny Depp, Isla Fisher, Ned Beatty, Alfred Molina, Bill Nighy
Nominations: Best Animated Film

"Rango" is probably one of the quirkiest animated films I've seen to date. It doesn't take a page out of pixar's book and try to replicate the heartfelt story and outright creativity of pixar. Instead, it opts for a more quirky take, focusing on the western genre. Instead of humans, we have lizards, hawks, rattlesnakes, turtles, and more.

The voice acting was superb, especially Rango; I couldn't tell that was Johnny Depp. The animation itself was exquisite on blu-ray; the details evident on Rango's skin, the water, and the desert was just beautiful, and this is likely one of the best blu-ray's I've seen to date.

The film itself was so odd, the dialogue so weirdly interesting. Ned Beatty played the evil turtle, just like he did Lotso in "Toy Story 3." Rattlesnake Jake was also a wonderful character. I liked the whole western tone of the film, and how the society focused on water. Outside of that, there wasn't as much creativity in the world creation as pixar may have, but the strength of the film was that it seemed outside the box. Things Rango would say, silly actions that somehow fit the tone of the film, these are what made this film unique.

It's sad that "Cars 2" wasn't nominated, because it got an unfairly poor critical reception. Still, it will be nice to see "Rango" win this one, if it does.

Oscar Watch: My Picks (2012)

It's almost oscar night, and the buzz online seem to mark it as a boring prognosis, with "The Artist" as the likely frontrunner of frontrunners. Still, I want to see "The Artist" win, because it's a beautifully well-made film, and will sit well for years to come, I feel. Here are my picks for the 84th annual academy awards, both who I want to win and who I think will win. If I say "N/A," it means I didn't see enough of the films in the category to have a personal favorite:

BEST PICTURE
My pick: "The Artist"
Prediction: "The Artist"

BEST DIRECTOR
My pick: Michael Hazanavicius, "The Artist"
Prediction: same

BEST ACTOR
My pick: Demian Bichir, "A Better Life"
Prediction: George Clooney, "The Descendents"

BEST ACTRESS
My pick: Viola Davis, "The Help"
Prediction: same

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
My pick: N/A
Prediction: Christopher Plummer, "Beginners"

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
My pick: Jessica Chastain, "The Help"
Prediction: Octavia Spencer, "The Help"

BEST WRITING (ORIGINAL)
My pick: "Midnight in Paris" - Woody Allen
Prediction: "The Artist" - Michel Hazanavicius

BEST WRITING (ADAPTED)
My pick: "The Ides of March" - George Clooney, Grant Heslov, and Beau Willimon from Farragut North by Beau Willimon

Prediction: "The Descendents" - Alexander Payne, Nat Faxon, and Jim Rash from The Descendants by Kaui Hart Hemmings

BEST ANIMATED FEATURE
My pick: "Rango" – Gore Verbinski
Prediction: "Rango" – Gore Verbinski

BEST FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM
My pick: N/A
Prediction: "A Separation" (Iran) in Persian – Asghar Farhadi

BEST DOCUMENTARY FEATURE
My pick: N/A
Prediction: "Pina" – Wim Wenders and Gian-Piero Ringel

BEST DOCUMENTARY SHORT
My pick: N/A
Prediction: "Saving Face" – Daniel Junge and Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy

BEST LIVE ACTION SHORT
My pick: N/A
Prediction: "Time Freak" – Andrew Bowler and Gigi Causey

BEST ANIMATED SHORT
My pick: "La Luna" – Enrico Casarosa
Prediction: "The Fantastic Flying Books of Mr. Morris Lessmore" – William Joyce and Brandon Oldenburg

BEST ORIGINAL SCORE
My pick: "The Artist" – Ludovic Bource
Prediction: same

BEST ORIGINAL SONG
My pick: "Man or Muppet" from The Muppets – Bret McKenzie
Prediction: same

BEST SOUND EDITING
My pick: "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" – Ren Klyce
Prediction: same

BEST SOUND MIXING
My pick: "Hugo" – Tom Fleischman and John Midgley
Prediction: same

BEST ART DIRECTION
My pick: "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2" – Stuart Craig and Stephanie McMillan

Prediction: "The Artist" – Laurence Bennett and Robert Gould

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY
My pick: "War Horse" – Janusz Kamiński
Prediction: "The Tree of Life" – Emmanuel Lubezki

BEST MAKEUP
My pick: "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2" – Nick Dudman, Amanda Knight, and Lisa Tomblin
Prediction: "Albert Nobbs" – Martial Corneville, Lynn Johnson, and Matthew W. Mungle

BEST COSTUME DESIGN
My pick: "Hugo" – Sandy Powell
Prediction: "The Artist" – Mark Bridges

BEST FILM EDITING
My pick: "The Artist" – Anne-Sophie Bion and Michel Hazanavicius
Prediction: same

BEST VISUAL EFFECTS
My pick: "Rise of the Planet of the Apes" – Joe Letteri, Dan Lemmon, R. Christopher White, and Daniel Barrett
Prediction: same

Oscar's Disconnect

People often talk about the disconnect between oscar's picks and the public's view. A current facebook poll showed people wanted the help to win, but AMPAS seems to be favoring the artist. Why should it be what the public wants? Yes, AMPAS is mostly older white males according to a study. But he academy awards should be about film as art, not mainstream popularity. Should some films (HP7.5, ROTPOTA) be considered within that artistic spectrum? Yes. But regardless, mainstream views shouldn't have to play a role. That's what the MTV movie awards are for.

Oscar Watch: "A Better Life"

"A Better Life"
Directed by Chris Weitz
Starring: Demian Bichir, José Julián
Nominations: Best Actor

"A Better Life" is a film about one immigrant's struggle to make it in America. Demian Bichir played such a believable, heartfelt character, I wanted him to win the oscar just because he had such a hard life. Of course, the character had a hard life, not him necessarily, but it was so believable, I felt he was the character. The movie itself was very well done. The acting was on point, and I really felt sympathetic for these characters. Even Santiago, who stole the truck likely just to help his own family. I see people like this in our clinic often, and this movie gave me a greater appreciation for the hardships they have. On SI we have places where these workers wait to get picked up for a days job. And here I am complaining about my work. I don't realize how blessed I am, with such a good family life and upbringing, never in want of anything really. Such a well made movie that can make one reflect on the plight of these immigrant workers, while simultaneously highlighting the privilege we have of living here, comfortably.

What I Love About Movies

This post at AICN was all about what people love about the movies. I liked the way it was set out, not as an essay, but statements, short thoughts about the moments that make movies special. In the spirit of carrying it forward, here's part of what I love about movies (and TV), and I expect it to be an ongoing list.

Because size matters not.

Because its called a royale with cheese

Because you've got a friend in me.

Because you can boldly go where no man, no one, has gone before.

Because of WALL-E

Because the artist brought back the "magic" of movies

Because of Billy Crystal's opening montages

Because the prequels don't suck

Because of pixar and "toy story 3"

Because I wanna know how he got those scars

Because the scariest film I've seen is "requiem"

Because of shaken, not stirred

Because I drink your milkshake

Because you'll believe a man can fly

Because of allonsy and geronimo

Because of 5/25/77

Because of hakuna matata

Because of my precious

Because you've never had a friend like me

Because of top men.... top men

Because you gotta razzle dazzle em

Because soylent green is people

Because of the statue of liberty and the rise of Caesar

Because the truth is, I am iron man

Because you learn to pick yourself up

Because the force is strong with this one

Because of spider-man's comic book brought to life feeling

Because of the ROTJ feeling

Because of adrian! adrian!

Because of the DVAS

Because the worst virus is an idea

Because Beethoven and violence goes so well with milk

Because this is podracing

Because I'm a very manly muppet

Because life is like a box of chocolates

Because of the red pill and the blue pill

Because of the exorcist

Because Phelps was the bad guy

Because he saw dead people

Because Audrey Hepburn is quite stunning on screen

Because of dip, duck, dive, dodge.... and dodge

Because of those stevie wonders

Because of Rorschach's journal

Because of the lilies of the valley which poisoned Brock

Because of the deadly viper assassination squad

Because it transports you to new worlds, new places, and new adventures

Review: "Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace" in 3D

Almost 13 years after TPM first hit screens, it returns to the big screen, in three dimensions. Revisiting TPM over a decade later is an interesting experience. I've seen it multiple times since it came out, and my views on it have changed over time. When it first came out, there was a lot of disappointment. I was a staunch supporter of the film, likely fanboy-level support. I felt all of people's criticisms, from Jar Jar to the acting, were unfounded. Looking back, I can see why people were upset. Growing up with the OT, and then hyped for the return of SW, you're expecting something superb (or as Jar Jar may say, "bombad"). Instead, they had a more nuanced, political story, where by the end, not much really happens.

As a standalone film, TPM sucks. Which isn't a criticism of the film by any means. Someone who judges TPM as a standalone film should also judge the first 200 pages of "The Girl with the Dragon Tatoo" as a standalone book, the first half of "The Fellowship of the Ring" as a single, unconnected film, and the first third of "Game of Thrones" as a single novel. My point is, you can't judge TPM without seeing the whole tapestry at work. TPM is very much a part of a whole. When ANH came out, it was a standalone film, because the box office would determine plans for a sequel. In ANH, you have a central villain, a huge victory at the end, and things end on a good note. You see a major victory in a grand galactic civil war. In TPM, you see the end of the invasion of a trade organization of a small planet, because they were upset about trade route taxation. A jedi dies, a young kid becomes an padawan, and some dude gets elected chancellor. Overall, not an exciting or particularly meaningful ending by any means.

TPM is a seed-planting movie. The taxation of trade routes? Boring, yes, but even within the film, Qui-Gon questions why the Trade Federation is blockading Naboo of all planets. The key to the film is in the brilliant title. Sidious, seen as a phantom via hologram, but also very much a phantom in the story, working things from behind the scenes, was the star of the film. Yes, we see lots of Anakin and Amidala and Obi-Wan and Jar Jar and Qui-Gon. But the whole film was the start of the plan of Sidious, which would come to fruition in the next two films, with the start of the Clone Wars and the end of the Jedi Order. I read a fantastic review of TPM 3D atIGN, where they mentioned that this is how empires fall: with seemingly dull things like taxing trade routes. Lucas crafted a story not only about the fall of a single person, Anakin Skywalker, but also the fall of a republic. And not through a war, but through corruption and self-decadence. I always loved the analogy of the republic as a tree, seemingly stable and strong on the outside, but rotting away on the inside until it crumbles. TPM is where the tree begins to crumble.

I see why people have certain problems with the film, however. Jar Jar is totally unnecessary in the movie. I agree that he played an important role, but he didn't have to be a bumbling idiot, and we didn't need fecal and flatulance-related humor. The acting and dialogue also was not the strongest. Lloyd was sometimes not fully believable as Anakin, but the dialogue he had to spew out ("now this is podracing") were pretty bad. Lucas is a very good storyteller, but he should leave the writing to someone else.

The aforementioned IGN article states that ANH also had its flaws, and it's true. TPM is just a different type of movie. It's not an overt action film, with clear cut good vs evil, as ANH was. It's a more layered film, with political underpinnings and a whole lot of set-up for what's to come. Seen in that context, TPM is a strong film. TPM, and the PT overall, should not be directly compared to the OT, because it's telling a much grander story. Chronicling the fall of a galactic republic needs to be more nuanced and complicated than detailing the war between two opposing factions, in my opinion. I love SW, and I love the PT and the OT, but people need to see each for what it's purpose is.

Oh, and he 3D was decent. The LFL logo at the start was fantastic, and the opening crawl was nice. Most of the rest was decent, but SW does not need to be seen in 3D to be appreciated. That being said, I hope the rest are released in 3D, if only to see them on the big screen once again. I saw it at Empire 25 with one of my closest friends, who I happened to see it with on opening day, May 19th, 1999. The theater was maybe a third to a half full, but I went to AMC Empire 25, where the have some new ETX thing where the screen is somewhat bigger. It was a nice theater, the sound was fantastic, hearing Williams's music in theaters again was a treat. Seeing SW on the big screen is just a fun experience. Leaving the theater, we saw some fans near the Ripley's Believe It Or Not entrance, dressed as various characters, including a really tall Chewie, a jawa (utini!), TIE pilot, clone trooper, and a handmaiden. It was nice to see a bit of SW on times square. I love SW, and it was a treat to be able to see TPM once again and relive the memories of seeing it nearly 13 years ago.

Oscar Watch: "Midnight in Paris"

"Midnight in Paris"
Directed by: Woody Allen
Starring: Owen Wilson, Rachel McAdams, Marion Cotillard, Kathy Bates
Nominations: best picture, best director, best art direction, best original screenplay

"Midnight in Paris" is an offbeat, inventive romantic comedy which uses the location of Paris in various time periods to tell a story about living in the present, but yearning for the past. Woody Allen incorporates a whole host of famous figures, from Hemingway to Picasso, to help shape and guide his main character, Gil (Wilson), through his trip to Paris with his wife-to-be Inez (McAdams). The film doesn't make logical sense, as Gil travels at midnight daily to 1920s Paris, but it's something that fits with the quirky nature of the film.

The film was shot beautifully, with the various periods of Paris brought to life. I honestly don't know enough about the famous figures portrayed, but they seemed believable. Inez was an annoying character, and I could tell from the start that his mellow nature didn't fit with her. It took him a fling with a 1920s mistress of Picasso, Adrienne (Cotillard) and some critiques of his novel by Gertrude Stein (Bates) to realize not only that, but that she's having an affair with know-it-all Paul, played well by Michael Sheen.

I liked how atypical and creative the film was. Fans of Paris would probably love this film. I think it's deserving of its nominations on the basis of its creativity; unlike the esoteric "Tree of Life," Allen crafted a film using illogical plot devices that somehow worked for his particular story. My favorite aspect was how he feels that 1920s was Paris's golden age, but Adrienne believes it was decades earlier. We are often unimpressed by the present and in awe of the past; we need to open our eyes to the wonders of the age we live in. I'm glad this film was nominated for the top spots. After having seen all the best picture nominated films, however, "The Artist," far and away takes the top spot for me.

Oscar Watch: "Moneyball"

"Moneyball"
Directed by: Bennett Miller
Starring: Brad Pitt, Jonah Hill, Philip Seymour Hoffman
Nominations: Best Picture, Best Actor (Brad Pitt), Best Supporting Actor (Jonah Hill), Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Film Editing, Best Sound Mixing

"Moneyball" is a story about baseball, plain and simple, but there's something deeper to it. It's about overcoming odds, and believing in yourself and your ideas despite seemingly insurmountable odds. The story revolves around Billy Beane (Pitt), a former MLB player who fizzled out early on, and became a scout, and now is the general manager for the Oakland Athletics. After a loss against the Yankees, who earn almost 3 times their annual salary, Beane devises a way to maximize the cost-effectiveness of his team, with the assistance of Peter Brand (Hill), a character created for this story, but inspired by a real person. We see the Oakland A's achieve a record-breaking streak, before losing in one of the division games. I also liked how the film ended; he won by changing the game, but never won that last game (yet).

The acting in this film was solid. Pitt played a very believable role as Beane, and while the role didn't require any great emotional range, you really did feel like you were watching a real behind-the-scenes workings of a team, not Brad Pitt. Jonah Hill was similarly good, but not stellar; I think he got the nomination for playing a character so outside his known goofball roles. Sorkin's back for his second go-round in the adapted screenplay category. I don't think his lines were as poppy as they were in "The Social Network," which still wasn't as catchy as Tarantino's dialogue. Nevertheless, I can't judge the adaptation without having read the source material, but I think the AMPAS likes Sorkin. Editing and sound mixing are also difficult categories for me the judge. The film moved at a good pace, and wasn't every really dragged down, for which the editor deserves credit.

Overall, this was an enjoyable film, if not stellar. One thing to its credit is that, despite all the baseball lingo that was above my head, it didn't really lose audienec members like me, because the story was about more than baseball. Also not quite deserving of a best picture nomination, to me. The academy has been pretty odd this year. There really were some deserving films that did not get recognition, but isn't that always the case? At least "Moneyball" was a quality film, unlike "The Tree of Life" and "Extremely Dangerously Loud and Incredibly Extremely Close" or whatever that nonsense was. Maybe next year, the academy will make things exciting by nomination "Lincoln" and "The Dark Knight Rises."

Oscar Watch: "Tree of Life"

"The Tree of Life"
Directed by: Terrence Malik
Starring: Brad Pitt, Jessica Chastain, Sean Penn
Nominations: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Cinematography

For the best picture category, the AMPAS often chooses varied types of films, from mainstream to arsty to independent, and from varied genres, from animation, sci-fi, westerns, and (rarely) comedy. "The Tree of Life" fits somewhere under artsy/experimental, and it's an odd choice for the academy. I wholly did not enjoy the film at all; it followed the mostly dull life of a child, Jack, growing up in some mid-west state, with a loving mother (Chastain) and a strict but caring father (Pitt). But rather than stick with the story itself, Malik decides to show some admittedly beautiful shots of his interpretation of earth's origins and destruction. And we also saw dinosaurs. If that's not out of context with the film, I'm not sure what is.

The problem with this story is that nothing happens. I am not a big fan of purely experimental, arthouse films. I like films with strong characters and a strong story. Not a film with interesting and weirdly shot scenes (nice cinematography work, perhaps earned its nomination), a rather dull story, and ho-hum characters. The acting here was decent; Pitt was good, as was Chastain. Of note, Chastain was nominated for best supporting actress for her other big film this year, "The Help."Penn mostly rode an elevator before going to a "Lost"-style gathering on a beach at the end.

Overall, I think this film was likely above my head. Because I didn't understand the point of it at all. The AMPAS should've chose something a bit more accessible and meaningful, instead of this artsy nonsense.

Oscar Watch: "War Horse"

"War Horse"
Directed by: Steven Spielberg
Starring: Jeremy Irvine, Emily Watson, Peter Mullan
Nominations: Best Picture, Best Art Direction, Best Cinematography, Best Original Score, Best Sound Editing, Best Mixing

"War Horse" is Spielberg's latest film, opening alongside "The Adventures of Tintin" before his eagerly awaited "Lincoln" next year. It also garnered a good number of Oscar nominations this year. I don't think it's Spielberg's best film by a long shot. With such successes in the war genre ("Saving Private Ryan" and its amazing d-day opening), historical masterpiece ("Schindler's List"), and more, it's hard for him to top himself. This film follows the adventures of a horse, owned and trained by a boy, and eventually sold to a WWI soldier. A series of hand-offs ensue, as he finds himself under care of a farmgirl, some other army hauling weapons, and finally, such in some barb wire.

The historical setting was nice, and the entire costume design, setting, and landscape was beautiful. The cinematography nomination was arguably earned, as the scenes filmed were very nice. The best was the trench battle near the film's end. However, I felt the movie did not have a lot of heart. I know the boy cared about Joey (the horse), but I didn't care about Joey. Nor about the various people the horse encountered in his life. I cared about them a lot more than that kid from "Incredibly Loud and Extremely Close," however, because he was just weird.

Art direction was also arguably deserved, because some of the scenes here were so picturesque and beautiful. The art direction combined with the cinematography made for some truly nice shots here. The film itself, the characters and the story, didn't live up to what I would've expected from Spielberg, though. I think the main reason is because the horse was the main focus; the humans were too brief in screen time to make a lasting impact. And the end was too coincidental and mushy for me.

The music was decent, and it had a John Williams-feel to it, at least the main theme did. Not my favorite work of his, either, and I'm not sure if it deserved a nomination. "Rise of the Planet of the Apes" had a very fitting, nice soundtrack as well, and the often talked about "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" soundtrack was notably missing from Oscar's list. It seems Williams is synonymous with best soundtrack to AMPAS's ears.

Deserving of best sound? It's hard for me to honestly judge this category. But best picture? Definitely not deserved, in my opinion. "Rise of the Planet of the Apes" and "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2" were much stronger films in my opinion. I think Spielberg's name and the historical setting caught AMPAS's eye, not the actual story and characters themselves, which were quite lacking. I'm not expecting this film to take a lot of awards, if any, come oscar night.

Oscar Watch: "Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close"

"Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close"
Directed by: Stephen Daldry
Starring: Tom Hanks, Sandra Bullock, Thomas Horn


The big surprise of the Oscar nominations! This film, not loved by critics, somehow made its way to oscars top spot. And in my opinion, totally undeserving. It's the story of a boy searching for a lock to his key, which he feels was left for him by his late father, well played by Tom Hanks. Throghout his quest, he encounters many people and stories, as well as a long lost relative.

The movie fell because of its main character. The kid was odd in his dealings and mindset. For instance, the first time he encounters Abby Black, he asks himself into her house, and offers her a kiss. Later on, when she offers him a ride, he says he doesn't take rides from strangers. But didn't he ask to kiss a complete stranger in her own house? The movie has things like this that just don't make sense, and take away from the realism of the film.

I didn't even understand the point of his quest. The film started with his dad telling his son about this missing sixth borough of NYC. So, he was inbued with a sense to search for things. But still, that sixth borough quest made no sense, or it was not explained well in the film. I understand that it's a nice mirror to the idea of losing a loved one, but aside from that, it was totally odd and unrealistic.

Why AMPAS chose this film is beyond me. Max von Syndow, as the silent renter turned grandfather, was decent, but nothing special. You know who should've had his spot? Andy Serkis.

Overall, a very subpar film which better not win any of it's award nominations.