Longtime readers may remember that I like seeing all the Oscar nominated films-- in a perfect world, I would see all the films nominated for the major awards. But that's not gonna happen this year (by a long shot) so I will just be content that I've seen all five of the Best Picture nominees. I'm a little surprised that I managed it, quite frankly.

So now that I've seen them all, what do I think of them? Glad I asked.

A Beautiful Mind --

I think this movie could have been wonderful in the hands of a different director. I hate to say it, but Ron Howard's films are sort of milquetoasty. If he would just let them be dark and bold and daring once in a while, they could be great. All the elements are there, too. A Beautiful Mind has amazing acting, a good story and interesting questions of genius and madness at its center. But the movie skirts around it in favor of dialogue like "maybe what's real is in your heart" and "love fixes everything, even serious mental disorders" or whatever the hell.

Ultimately in this film, the moment never feels quite real. Even if I didn't know that the details of Nash's life had been somewhat whitewashed, I would have guessed it. Nobody's life follows such a paint-by-numbers script of teary-eyed speeches and well-plotted story arc. I compare it to something like Fargo, which I knew was a fictional story, but which I bought anyway. I bought it because it was grounded in reality in a way that this film is not.

Jennifer Connelly is pretty great, though. So are Christopher Plummer and Paul Bettany and my beloved Ed Harris. And Russell Crowe does an amazing job, as always. My money's on Denzel, though, even without seeing Training Day, only because Denzel is a genius, Denzel is overdue, black actors in general are long overdue (where is Morgan Freeman's Oscar, exactly?) and Russell Crowe always wins the year AFTER he delivers his best performances. (The Insider is far superior to Gladiator in many, many ways, and Crowe's performance is more subtle and more award-worthy.)

To sum up, I enjoyed this movie. I appreciated it. I did not love it.

Gosford Park--

A lot of great stuff in this one, but its flaw is its typical Altman unwieldyness. Too many characters dilute the impact of individuals-- the ensemble is overcrowded. It took me half the film to figure out who was who, and I kept wanting to yell at Altman to slow down. Man, take a breath! But I had it all sorted out at the end, and the ins and outs of the life below stairs is really fascinating. It makes me want to re-watch Sense & Sensibility and invent elaborate backstory for Thomas and Betsy.

Anyway, as for the barrage of characters, I appreciate being overestimated rather than underestimated as a viewer. I don't want to be spoon-fed exposition or anything. But I compare it to something like Four Weddings and a Funeral or State and Main, the two best ensemble movies that come to mind. The characters in those films are drawn clearly and vividly without the use of Basil Exposition, and I think Gosford suffers in the comparison.

In The Bedroom--

Excellent performances, interesting direction, weak pacing. I like Marisa Tomei in this film; unlike my sister, I can see why she was nominated. And Tom Wilkinson I just adore-- he's sixty years old and yet there's something sexy about him. God, what a great actor. And I guess Sissy Spacek is good, but I want to pinch her irritating little ski-jump nose every time I see her. It's distracting.

I just keep thinking of the slow, slow, slow third act. I'm all for a movie unfolding and taking its time and whatnot, but it just killed me. I appreciate the moments of genuine honesty in this movie-- moments that I bought as "real," actually. Spacek's character talking about Wilkinson's vicarious hot piece of ass, for instance. The conversation between Wilkinson and Tomei in the grocery store. The major plot development, which was pleasantly unpredictable.

And I also appreciated the smart decision of having the episodes of violence happen offscreen. Yes, this is a solid movie. I don't know why I don't feel more enthusiastic about it.

Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring--

I love Peter Jackson, and I did love this movie, but is it a Best Picture contender? I don't think so. It really feels like part one of a longer story, and I think parts two and three are going to resonate more. It is a movie about visual thrills and exposition, and it's good, no doubt about it. But it doesn't add up to more than the sum of its parts. It's a prologue.

And the book is better.

Moulin Rouge--

Some of my friends loved this movie. I did not. It was interesting, sure, but come on, that plot! That awful, hackneyed plot. A case could be made that "the ingenue coughs once and now we know she is sentenced to die in the arms of her lover" plot was on purpose. Meant ironically, as an excuse to turn the cliché inside out with crazy singing and dancing and visual spectacle.

I confess, my main problem is that I just hate Nicole Kidman in this film. I have a lot of respect for what she did in To Die For, but ultimately she just annoys me, and her performance in this film annoys me so much that I can't overlook it.

I was thinking about my taste in movies and awards and so on, and I realized that I prefer one element in a Best Picture film: innovation. If a film isn't innovative in some way, I'm probably going to think it doesn't deserve the award.

I am still bitter about the fact that Pulp Fiction lost because it was so innovative (in American cinema at least) in terms of its playing with its own timeline. Memento is probably the great-grandchild of Pulp Fiction, except that it takes it to the next level. (Which is why Memento should be the actual Best Picture winner this year.)

Take last year for instance. Gladiator was totally overrated. Traffic is innovative. Each storyline has a different palette, the performances are great, the direction is incredible, the script is interesting and thought provoking... it's a movie that I've watched over and over again; it really stands the test of repeat viewing. Gladiator? Enjoyable fluff with lots of pretty Roman scenery chewed by Joaquin Phoenix.

It's some weird form of idealism, I think, to say that a Best Picture winner should be a film that makes a contribution. But what else makes a film great? There are lots of films that are well acted and well written. But few films really change the landscape of film, and those are the ones that I think we should recognize.

As for this year, I think A Beautiful Mind will win. It's the kind of "triumph of the human spirit" crap that the Academy usually goes for. It's the safe choice. As for what should win? I don't know. If I go on my own criteria, the most innovative film of the bunch is probably Moulin Rouge, and I do respect Baz Luhrmann for his special brand of insanity. But I just can't get past the Kidman factor. So no. In the Bedroom is good, but it didn't stick in my head. It didn't resonate enough, I guess. Gosford Park is messy but interesting, with solid performances across the board. And Altman is an innovative director, that's for sure. Lord of the Rings is pure epic and spectacle, but ultimately more setup for the next film than anything else.

So I guess I'd give it to Gosford Park, but I really don't look at that film and think, "Yes! Best Picture!" Sigh. Maybe I should say Moulin Rouge. I like it less, but it's probably more deserving. Oh, Memento. Hedwig. Ghost World. The Royal Tenenbaums. Films I loved and could endorse wholeheartedly. Where are you this year?

"They fit over the PENIS during SEX, which I might have some day! It's possible! That's right. SEX! And these CONDOMS will help lower the risk of disease and pregnancy, which might result if SEMEN is deposited into MY VAGINA!!!"