But really, you don't HAVE to read the book before listening to these songs, but I encourage you to do so, because it's a fantastic book, one of my favorites! Now, on with the songs. The first song that I love on this soundtrack is "Surprise Yourself" by Jack Garratt. This one has a slow, sweet beginning and then has these arcs where it gets this incredibly hopeful feeling (it's the part where they are oohing), or at least that is what I feel when I listen to it. The second one is the much more emotional one and it's called "Unsteady" by the X Ambassadors (Erich Lee Gravity Remix). I don't remember where exactly it's placed in the movie, but I am 99% positive it's during a part that is ripping your heart out, and that's also what I feel when I listen to this. Why would I listen to this again and again? Sometimes you just need to let out any emotions you have and this song to me (along with the movie and novel) are all perfect for good ole' cathartic cries.
Ok, first things first: if you haven't read Me Before You by Jojo Moyes, go do that now. Next, see the movie - because it's a great adaptation of the novel. Both will make you sob, but still read/watch them. Lastly, listen to some of my favorite songs from this soundtrack - they may also make you cry. I honestly didn't have the intention of watching the movie again for quite awhile, because it packs such an emotional punch, but listening to the soundtrack makes me want to watch the movie again - I'm not sure if I've experienced that very often before. But really, you don't HAVE to read the book before listening to these songs, but I encourage you to do so, because it's a fantastic book, one of my favorites! Now, on with the songs. The first song that I love on this soundtrack is "Surprise Yourself" by Jack Garratt. This one has a slow, sweet beginning and then has these arcs where it gets this incredibly hopeful feeling (it's the part where they are oohing), or at least that is what I feel when I listen to it. The second one is the much more emotional one and it's called "Unsteady" by the X Ambassadors (Erich Lee Gravity Remix). I don't remember where exactly it's placed in the movie, but I am 99% positive it's during a part that is ripping your heart out, and that's also what I feel when I listen to this. Why would I listen to this again and again? Sometimes you just need to let out any emotions you have and this song to me (along with the movie and novel) are all perfect for good ole' cathartic cries. And a bonus! Another song that is not on this soundtrack, but that I am digging lately is "Capsize" by Frenship ft. Emily Warren. No idea how I found it, somewhere on Spotify - I do enjoy their "Discover Weekly" playlist that is curated to my tastes. Anywho, the song is catchy and got a great chorus going on, a good song to drive around to (if I had a car). Listen to it below!
0 Comments
The most recent Oscar Winning movie I watched was the winner for Best Picture in 1987 and it's called The Last Emperor. It is the story of Puyi (played by John Lone) the last emperor of China beginning with his coronation in 1908 at two years old and ending with his imprisonment as a political prisoner and war criminal in the 1950's. Really, it ends with his death but the bulk of this 3 hour film takes place between 1908 and 1950. I knew absolutely nothing about China during this period and especially very little about the political changes that occurred in China during these four decades. Although this movie was very long (about on par for Oscar-award winners), it didn't seem that way. It was a very watchable movie, but also a movie you could easily multi-task during, which is what I did. I thought the movie was very fascinating - full of wealth, privilege, hardships, glamour, political agendas, and more. Puyi as a character (and presumably as a human being) was at times highly unlikable and selfish, which made sense considering his upbringing as being the most important person in China from a very young age. I found the numerous side characters a bit more compelling in terms of the story-line and was most interested to see where they wound up. The acting in the film is not quite superb, but overall, this was a fascinating portrait of a real-life historical figure and a story not often told (especially not in America). I enjoyed it, and although I didn't watch (or know) any of the other films up for the award, I can see why this might have won. 4/5 It's been a little bit since I've written a blog post, and even longer since I've written about a Best Picture Oscar Winner (I'm a little (a LOT) behind), so here goes! I recently watched the Best Picture Winner from 1992, Unforgiven directed by Clint Eastwood, starring Clint Eastwood, Gene Hackman, and Morgan Freeman. It's a western set in a decrepit town (think the towns set up when a gold mine is discovered) where the law enforcement (Sheriff - Gene Hackman) is corrupt. Clint Eastwood's character is an old "retired" gunslinger who gets called for one more job, and he grabs his old friend (Morgan Freeman) to go with him. I haven't watched many westerns before, only the more humorous one with John Wayne called McLintock!, which I loved. But that was more romantic comedy than western, and so maybe I just need to watch a few others. What I can say about this one was that I just didn't care too much about it. It wasn't bad, but wasn't really great either - definitely not something that I think should have won the award. Maybe at some point, I'll read some articles about why the Academy thought it deserved the award, but not right now. I'm feeling too lazy :) 3/5 My latest movie that I watched in my quest to view the Oscar Winners was Mrs. Miniver, a film that won the award for Best Picture in 1943, which I find fascinating. You see, this film is about the first year in the WWII in England -- the story of a British Family during 1939-1940 and their experiences of the war. Some of the experiences extreme and heartbreaking, some still quite mundane. It was a film that I think captured a precise and accurate view of the lives of regular British citizens during this time. The fact that the movie was released in 1942, three years before the war was even finished, makes it even more authentic, if not a bit audacious. Somehow I forget that films were still being made during the years of the war. In fact, the director, William Wyler, was not able to accept his award for Best Director himself because he was off fighting for the Army Air Force overseas. The plot itself is about the Miniver family, with Mrs. Miniver (I don't believe her first name is ever mentioned, strangely) played by Greer Garson (who won Best Actress that year) and her husband, Clem, played by Walter Pidgeon, at the helm. They live somewhere in the English countryside in a small village. In the month preceding Great Britain's entrance into the war, life in the village is quite quaint with the judging of the best rose in the village coming up, the eldest Miniver son, Vin, returning from Oxford and immediately falling in love with the granddaughter of the "matriarch" of the village (aka the richest woman in town), and a local dance/ball. It's a delightful little family comedy until the enemies come knocking at the door (sometimes literally). This felt like a very honest depiction of the lives that some of the British, not just the soldiers but the regular townsfolk, might have led. I thoroughly enjoyed it and would really recommend it! 4.5/5 stars I am super behind on watching one Oscar movie a month, so I believe this review was supposed to come in September...whoops! I'll try to be better about it from here on out. Coming soon will be Mrs. Miniver. But for right now, we're going to talk (briefly) about the winner for Best Picture in 1955, On the Waterfront. This films stars a young Marlon Brando.. I think it's fascinating that he won the Oscar for Best Actor in a Leading Role twice, both movies being about the mob in some form. He won in 1955 for On the Waterfront, which is about his struggles to get out from under and stand up to his union bosses on the waterfront where he worked. It's never explicitly said that they are the Irish mob, but I think it's pretty obvious that they are a faction of the mob in Brooklyn (I think). In 1973 he won the award for being the patriarch of the Italian mob family in The Godfather. Two different mob stories, one Irish and one Italian. I wrote about The Godfather in another blog post, where I made my feelings pretty clear that I thought the movie was "meh". I'm going to go right out and say it that I thought this movie was better than The Godfather. Do I think it was Oscar-worthy? I can't say that I think it was, but I also didn't see the other nominees. Parts of this movie are too dramatic for my taste but I think that is a product of the time it was made and what Hollywood was like then. Additionally it's been something I have been finding in a few of the other films I've been watching for this project. The plot in itself is a pretty solid plot, beginning with Terry Malloy (Brando) taking part in luring a young man who apparently "couldn't keep his mouth shut" into going to the roof where someone in the mob boss Johnny Friendly's crew pushed him off the roof to his death. Terry feels very uncomfortable about this because he didn't know (or think) that they would actually kill him. Oh, how naive he was. It then shows how terrible it is down at the docks (on the waterfront) for these longshoremen since Johnny Friendly is running their union. Some men try to fight back with the help and guidance of a local priest, but then Friendly's men just pick them off one-by-one. It gets to feel like there's no way out of this. A love interest pops up for Terry in the form of the deceased man's sister. AWKWARD. The romance I had a bit of a problem with come the ending because they were wham-bam in love within a few short days, if weeks. Not believable to me. What was believable is that she'd be attracted to him, because I was shocked at how attractive a young Marlon Brando is in this film. Having only seen him in The Godfather, it was unexpected. The ending was the too dramatic bit of this movie, but I guess it made sense? I don't know. I don't want to give anything away, really. On the whole, I think I'd recommend it. 3.5/5 stars My most recent foray into the world of Best Picture Oscar Winners, was the 1950 film, All About Eve starring Bette Davis and Anne Baxter. It won the award for Best Picture in 1951, Best Director, and Best Actor in a Supporting Role for George Sanders. This was a movie that I had heard the title before, but never really knew what it was about. The synopsis for it is as follows: Margo Channing (Bette Davis) is the queen of the theater in New York, and no one idolizes her more than Eve Harrington (Anne Baxter), a sweet widow from Wisconsin. When Eve finally gets to meet Margo, she charms her into allowing Eve to be her personal assistant. As Eve spends more time with Margo, she tries to learn all she can from this outstanding actress so that Eve can be a star herself. Sweet Eve then turns into a devious fame-hungry woman, or was she one all along? I thought this film was compelling enough. I don't think it was outstanding, but I did like it. I thought the acting was great, especially from Bette Davis (sidenote: does anyone know if it's BettY Davis, or Bette alla Bette Midler?). It was a bit over-the-top, but she was playing an actress-she had to be dramatic, right? I enjoyed the behind-the-scenes lives of the famous from this time period of 1950; it was lavish and dramatic, but I think a little more human than what I would expect from a behind-the-scenes today. The film was a tad long. Not surprising though, because it's practically a requirement of nominees to be long, but this film didn't need the extra 15-20 minutes over two hours. The ending was quite good, if a bit chilling. I would recommend this movie because I think as far as movies from this "classics-era" go, it's done well and would still appeal to people of the modern era who maybe have never watched a classic film. Overall Rating: 3.5/5 This is going to be a pretty short review because it's mostly going to be me saying how much I loved and needed this movie. It was HYSTERICAL! Mae Whitman is fantastic, and Robbie Amell is yummy. I'm not even going to give you a synopsis, because if you look at the cover and think about the title (DUFF stands for Designated Ugly Fat Friend), it's likely you can already figure out the synopsis. But that's ok, because it's still awesome! My friend Caren and I were impatiently waiting for my name to SLOWLY move up the wait-list at the library for The DUFF to be ready for me, and as soon as it was we had a movie night complete with chips and dip and m&m's (peanut butter, of course). The reason I was so excited for this movie was because I really did enjoy the book by Kody Keplinger--I thought it was funny, raw, yet heartwarming, and let's just say that I felt I could relate to her in some ways. Plus, it's no secret that I love reading teen novels and still occasionally love watching teen movies and this one was no different. If in the late 1990's/early 2000's like me, you loved movies like She's All That, Can't Hardly Wait, She's the Man (still my all-time fave), Mean Girls, Bring it On, and more, then this movie is for you. That is, if you STILL enjoying watching snarky teen movies with attractive lead males, this movie is for you. Despite the movie being completely different than the book was, it strangely didn't bother me in the least. I still loved it and am seriously considering purchasing it so that it can be a great feel-good go-to movie. 5/5 stars, obvi. Ya'll know I am on a mission to watch an Oscar Best Picture Winner each month (and not doing real great with it), so I thought I'd view the winner of this year's Academy Awards AND all of the nominees as well to see if I believe the Academy was correct. So about six months after the announcement of the winner for Best Picture in 2014, I've finally watched all of the Best Picture nominees, and I wholeheartedly disagree with the Academy on this one. Now, I don't profess to be an actual movie critic, and there are certainly "bad" movies out there that I love, and "classic/amazing" movies that I loathe. But the fact that the winner of this year's Best Picture award was my least favorite out of them all, is quite interesting. Without further ado, here are my own rankings out of 5 stars for each of the Best Picture Nominees for the 2014 Academy Awards: 1. Theory of Everything: Rating 4.5/5. Will this be a movie that I will watch over and over? Probably not. Is any Oscar movie one you watch over and over? Seldom. But was this an excellent story with outstanding acting? In my opinion, yes. It was charming, yet sad, and done very well. 2. Selma: Rating 4.25/5. When I first heard this was to be a movie, I was very excited as I have been on service trips to Selma twice, and really enjoyed my time there and learning about the civil rights history. But as it got closer, and the film was released, I was less excited and didn't have super high expectations because I just thought that the movie would try and coast on the subject matter, and not actually be a good movie. Thankfully, I was wrong. This movie was done extremely well and I was very happy with how it all came together. Powerful and moving. 3. Whiplash: Rating 4/5. This was the movie I saw most recently (as in last week), and I had mediocre expectations for it. I'm a fan of Miles Teller and I love music, so I thought it sounded interesting, but I wasn't quite sure how it would be as a full movie. There were certainly slower points, and a few WTF moments, but overall I thought it was fantastic in seeing the drive of one musician and the help and hindrance of one teacher. 4. Boyhood: Rating 4/5. This was quite the long movie, and quite the cinematic feat in that it was filmed over 12 years and for that I agree wholeheartedly that it should have been nominated. And I may even think it should have won. Considering it's long and just the story of a boy's life (and his family), it still kept me engaged and it ended up being a really great movie. 5. Imitation Game: Rating 3.75/5. This one I had high hopes for because of the story-line and let's be honest, because of Benedict Cumberbatch. The story of Alan Turing is a compelling one and very fascinating, but the movie was just a movie. It wasn't bad by any means whatsoever, but it also wasn't necessarily Best Picture nominee-worthy, in my opinion.
6. Grand Budapest Hotel: Rating 3.75/5. Hahahaha why was this movie nominated for Best Picture? I enjoyed it quite a bit, and it was crazy-silly, but who really thought it would win? 7. American Sniper: Rating 3.5/5. When I first heard of the movie, I wasn't too excited for it. Then I heard from so many friends and family that they loved it, so I adjusted my expectations to quite high. Well, it just made it so that I was disappointed. This movie was mostly just "ok" for me. 8. Birdman: Rating 2.5/5. This movie was just WTF the whole time, but not in a great way at all. I admired the way in which it was filmed (technically speaking), but that's about it. I think I didn't actually finish the last 15 minutes because I was watching it in pieces, and I just didn't care. There you have it. These are my opinions, and I am fairly sure that there will be people who disagree with me, but I'm okay with that. Maybe for the next year's nominees, I can watch them earlier than six months past the award show ;) I'm just going to write a short review of this 1945 Oscar-winning movie because I'm short on time and there isn't a whole lot that occurs in the film to really garner that much of a review. Nonetheless, let's talk a little bit about how daring of a movie The Lost Weekend was. This film, starring Ray Miland and Jane Wyman, is all about a would-be writer named Don Birnam, who is an alcoholic, and has been for years. The plot of this story takes us through one long weekend where Don goes on a bender. It balances between the present state of his bender, and flashbacks to better and worse times. It is a harrowing portrayal of what imbibing in alcohol too much can do to a person, and it was (probably) the first film of it's kind to bring alcoholism and it's effects into the limelight. The film was done really quite well, it was just a tad-bit too long for me and so because there isn't much driving plot, one gets a little bored and lost. Overall, I can see how this won the award for Best Picture in 1945, and also how it received so much criticism. A moving film. 3.5/5 stars. I decided to go back to the beginning for my next film on my quest. All the way to the first film to win an Oscar for Best Pictures in 1927/28: Wings. Now, I love old movies--especially the ones of the "golden era" in the 30's and 40's. Some of my favorite actors of all-time are Jimmy Stewart and Cary Grant. So, I naturally thought that Wings would be similar to those movies. And to a point it certainly was similar, except for one minor (OK, major) detail: it's a silent film. I don't know how I overlooked that. Now, I have nothing against silent films, and in fact I had never seen a silent film before--so I was interested. It just wasn't what I was prepared for. I also thought it was only a 1.5 hour movie when it was actually a 2.5 hour movie. I had planned on multi-tasking while watching the movie, but that was thrown out the window when I realized that with the silent film I'd have to really pay attention. Not only is there no sound (obviously), but there is narration and dialogue on the screen as well, and to understand what is going on-it's necessary to actually WATCH the movie. Huh, imagine that. So, a little more involved than I was planning for my Friday night, but oh well. I resigned myself to just curling up on the couch with the kitty I was cat-sitting and just viewed the film. I actually did enjoy it for the most part. I enjoyed it in the sense that it was a novel and new experience to me. It certainly wasn't for the acting and only slightly for the story-but really it's an experience watching a silent film. The DVD had a soundtrack--meaning orchestral background music, and I assume this was art of the original film, but I don't know for sure. The film itself is about mainly two young men (David and Jack), pining over the same woman, who enlist in the military in 1917 to go fight the Germans in The Great War as fighter pilots (duh...WINGS) and it's mostly about their friendship while fighting together. Meanwhile, the other side of the story is about Mary, who has loved Jack all of her life. She enlists to volunteer overseas helping with nursing, transportation, and other duties. The story is a bit of a romantic comedy in parts as well, and to me that was the best part. You see, most of the "old movies" I love are the romantic comedy types like Christmas in Conneciticut, You Can't Take It With You, and The Philadelphia Story, so this was the section of the movie I enjoyed the most. I normally love war movies as well, but the fighting scenes just weren't that exciting or nerve-wracking unfortunately. The movie does have a bit of a sad ending, but I won't tell you what it is :) I have a few things to remark on besides the plot. One is the atrocious acting of one of the leads, Richard Arlen (David). After further reading, I understand that films back in the silent era relied quite heavily on the looks of the actor/actress as opposed to real acting ability. Richard Arlen was very much one of those people (although I didn't think he was THAT handsome). He apparently ran his motorcycle into Paramount Pictures, broke his leg, and then once the studio got a good look at him and, offered him a job. Yep, that's right. Oh well, it almost made the movie even more enjoyable because it was hilarious how bad some parts of it were. The other two leads, Charles Rodgers (Jack), and Clara Bow (Mary), were pretty good though. A second thing to comment on is that the DVD cover misleads you into thinking that Gary Cooper, another one of the great (and FINE) actors of the day, is a main character, when in fact he is on screen for less than five minutes. Apparently this was in his very early days, but only a year or two later HE was starring and David Arlen was rightfully (he really was terrible) a guest star. All in all, it was a pretty decent film and an interesting experience. I'd give it a 3.25/5. |
Welcome!Hi all! My name is Laura and I decided to start a blog about the things I am most passionate about, namely: Food, traveling, reading, watching TV and movies, and listening to music. I'm a Midwesterner living in Nashville, and I am a librarian. Categories
All
|