This is the final part of a three part series here at The Rock dedicated to previewing the Best Picture category at the 84th Academy Awards. If you missed Part 1, click here and Part 2, click here. Hope you enjoy!
The Tree of Life:
Well, that was weird.
[media-credit id=163 align=”alignleft” width=”300″][/media-credit]Those were the first words that came to mind after watching The Tree of Life. It was a little hard to digest what I had just seen. I’m still not sure if I’ve figured it out, but I’ll try my hardest to pretend like I know what I’m talking about in regards to this movie.
I can say for certain that this is a beautiful film visually. It is captivating to see the stunning shots director Terrence Malick took, but they are also to a fault. Filming jellyfish in the ocean may be visually appealing, but it’s difficult to see where it fits in with the movie. What is the point of it?
At the same time, that seems to be one of the messages Malick is trying to get across with the film—what is the purpose or reason? The best thing I can say about The Tree of Life is that it made me think. It’s a lot like a painting at an art exhibit. You can come up with 20 different interpretations of what the meaning is and every single one of them could be completely wrong, or all of them are correct. You still don’t know if you like the painting or not, but it does have you thinking about it. That’s pretty much The Tree of Life.
Oscar Chances: Although it is visually remarkable, this isn’t typically the type of movie that wins Best Picture.
I was concerned when I saw that War Horse was two and a half hours long. It’s about a horse. And it’s a really long movie. I mean I couldn’t possibly sit through a movie about a horse that was that long, right?
Wrong. I didn’t think War Horse took that much time at all. As a matter of fact, War Horse seems very re-watchable. As in, if I was to be flipping through channels and I stumbled on it half way through, I would sit there and watch the rest of it. It’s actually very suited for a situation like this. War Horse is really just multiple stories being told that have a common link—the horse. Since that’s the case, the length of the movie didn’t matter.
On a side-note, the original owner’s love for the horse is a little over the top, going on creepy. He’s obsessed with this horse. He talks to it like it’s a person. Not the way you’d talk to a pet dog, the way you would actually talk to a family member or something. I get that he raised it and took care of it, but come on.
Oscar Chances: Spielberg did a great job with this movie and it was shockingly, very entertaining but I don’t think it will pull of a win.
Hugo is Martin Scorsese’s homage to cinema and first attempt at making a family movie. Scorsese does a great job with that first part by giving us a beautifully directed film with a great story. The second part is a little iffy
Parents would probably enjoy this movie but their children could have a different opinion. The movie could be a little too dry for children, leaving the great lessons it teaches lost on them. I even have to admit that there were times when there was a lull in the movie and I found myself a little bored..
That shouldn’t take away from the fact that this really is a fun story to follow. Its also eerily similar to Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close. Both movies are about boys who lose their father. In one, the father leaves his son a key and he needs to find what it opens. In the other, the father leaves behind an “automaton” and he needs to find the key that fits it. As a matter of fact, many of these Oscar films have things in common. Whether it’s plot themes, confusing messages or that Brad Pitt’s in it, the Oscar films all share things in common with one another. That’s probably why they’re all considered Oscar-worthy.
Oscar Chances: Scorsese obviously has a great Oscar history, but that won’t be enough for Hugo to win it all.