Should have won the Oscar
919434
It is clear that this song should have won the Oscar for the Best Song in a Motion Picture for 2013 instead of that "Let It Go" mess from "Frozen". This is excellent song writing and it is uplifting to boot.
1702160
Sometimes a really good story comes along that is made into a movie by whatever means those things come about.  This one is one of those.  It is history, it is factual, it is well presented, and it is well acted by all.  I really enjoyed it.  I hope our young people can watch it and see that it represnets a time period they did not witness but only heard about.  Its only nomination for an Oscar was for its music.  What a shame, I would put it in the category "Best Picture".  Sometimes I do not understand Hollywood and the image it seems to want to portay.
1827413
Michelle Pfeiffer, that white gold, should have won an academy award for her performance! She is brilliant in this role! The storyline is a bit far fetch but worth watching.
2697899
I know I'm not the only one who is thinking this, but this movie has been seriously overrated by the critics. Don't get me wrong. The movie was entertaining and it kept my attention. I'm just not convinced that its the ground breaking movie that the critics have been trying to make it out to be.

I've seen this type of movie many times before. A happy family is living the good life. The "parents", although different in personality and ambition, are a functional and happily married couple. They have two really good kids who seem to be happy. The wrinkle(there is always a wrinkle) is that the two children are byproducts of artificial insemination.  Yes, their parents are two gay women. Twenty years ago, a movie such as this may have been a seminal movie that was capable of inciting vigorous debate about a controversial social issue, like the criticism of Murphy Brown did in the 80's after Dan Quayle criticized her show because it focused on single motherhood. The problem with this movie is that its general plot is not all that new. This type of movie has been done before, and it has been done a lot better. Maybe the circumstances of the characters have changed, but the alternative circumstances of characters did not add to the originality of the film.

The principle players in the film are all proficient in their roles; however, I cannot honestly say that anyone really stood out in this film. And yet Mark Ruffalo and Annette Benning receive Oscar nominations for their performances. They have both been in movies in which they have performed better. Julianne Moore is good, but she hardly stood out. And the kids were the kids. Perfectly serviceable, but again not great. So I fail to see what is so good about this movie.

Also, I would think that if you were a gay woman you might be somewhat offended by this film. Julianne Moore is in a committed relationship with another woman for years, and then all of sudden a male paramour suddenly enters  her life and she forgets that she is a lesbian and starts to have sex with the male. This was an unbelievable plot twist.

So, see the movie on Blue Ray or DVD if you want to. Like I've  said before you won't be bored. Just don't expect to have your mind blown.
2679150
I saw Crash last evening at a free screening at my local public library. The event was previously scheduled as part of the ongoing observance of Black History Month (yes, they admitted the official month is already over), long before it won the Best Picture Oscar.

As other reviewers have observed, it's impossible in the current climate to talk only about this film, and not make comparisons.

The craftsmanship (including the acting) in making this film is first-rate, and this is part of what gives it so much impact. And I believe we all have a moral duty to look at things that discomfort and disturb us. There can even be a subtle epicurean pleasure in doing so. Crash draws you in, makes you think, and leaves an enduring impression. These are the hallmarks of an excellent film, for me.

At the same time, the film is extremely bleak. It offers scant hope, and almost no sympathetic characters. Even that subtle epicurean pleasure I spoke of was missing for me, and that's why I deny it the fifth star.

There are a few things that bother me (aside from the film's message that we are enmeshed in a web of bigotry and violence).

The film hangs together only because a matrix of not-truly-believable coincidences. The attempts at closure near the end also are not truly believable for me. And there are events in the film (I won't say which, for those who have yet to see it) that wrench the emotions yet fail to carry through to the outcome we know would ensue in real life. These Hollywood touches don't ring true. All the same, I acknowledge that this is a motion picture, a work of fiction, and not a documentary. And to be fair, not everything in Brokeback Mountain rang completely true for me, either.

Of the five Best Picture nominees, I have seen only Crash and Brokeback Mountain. My girlfriend has seen the others, so I know of them, though only second-hand. Having admitted that, I'm puzzled why the Academy members chose this film not only over Brokeback Mountain, but the other nominees.

My suspicion -- and it cannot be more than this -- is that Crash portrays the reality that Academy members *fear* exists outside the walls of their compounds. If this is the case, then not the film itself, but the Academy's anointing of it, would represent a kind of subtle racism.

I might be wrong, but if I am right, this too should be faced and acknowledged.

Crash is a quality film. Was it the Best Picture of the year? I don't know...maybe yes, maybe no.
2917607
This was the cutest family movie I've seen in a long time.  It was much better than Big Fish, which came highly recommended to me by one of my co-workers. Michael Caine, Robert Duvall, Haley Joel Osment (looking scared to death), and Kyra Sedgwick are all fantastic.  Even Josh Lucas' extended cameo as the adult Walter is a sublime performance.  After watching the deleted and alternate scenes on the flipside of the DVD, I have come to the conclusion that Mr. McCanlies should go back into the editing room and come out with a "director's cut" that splices together the alternate endings.  Since this has been out a while, I don't feel bad about giving away spoilers.  The theatrical ending shows adult Walter meeting the Sheik's grandson at the uncles' farm after they die in a freak airplane accident.  The alternate ending shows the funeral and we get to meet Walter's wife and kids;  the funeral is interrupted by an appearance of the sheik himself.  What would've been cool would have been to combine these two endings, Walter gets to give his eloquent eulogy, and then the sheik's grandson arrives in the helicopter and sends the funeral attendees scattering for cover.  I thought it would have been an interesting take for the grandson's son to meet Walter's 2 boys, and the end the movie with them going off to play after the ceremony and sort of wrapping up the storylines.  This would've probably added close to 15 minutes to a 105 minute movie, and family movies tend to run fairly short (I guess the powers that be feel that kids can only pay attention up to 90 minutes or so).  I don't think this would be the case here as the movie draws you into the story so compellingly that you wouldn't know the time had passed. And if you don't warm to this story, I think you better go to the Wizard and ask for a heart.  Docked one star for the alternate ending.
101734
It's a nice little film, but it could have been much better.  Innocent, soft-spoken, small town twink moves to The Big City (L.A.) with little in the way of possessions but big dreams of success and love.  He becomes torn between a jaded, wealthy chicken hawk and a city twink of modest means who truly loves hiim.  The story is as old as gay fiction itself, yet it had the potential to work.  But the story turns out to be both hard to believe and predictable.  How many teenagers in L.A. are able to find a wealthy, compassionate employer days after arriving from home?  How likely is it that the boy in question would find someone who truly loves him only a day after he arrived in town?  The title character is too good to be true, more of a gay fantasy figure than someone you'd meet in real life.  Yet, in spite of plot holes you could drive a truck through, you'll have no trouble guessing what will happen next.  And there's never any doubt about how the romantic triangle would turn out.  Also, the film features poor lighting and shaky camerawork, which strains the eyes.  And some of the sex scenes are so voyeristic, they're creepy.

In fairness, there are some pleasures for the viewer.  Corey Spears is so adorable, you can't help but cheer him on.  His looks are handsome yet a little goofy, and he conveys a combinaiton of winsomeness, sensuality, and awkwardness that's irresistable.  Though he was 25 y/o during the filming, he's completely convincing as a naive teenager.  Josh Jacobson is worthwhile as the edgy buddy who loves Jared, and he's since gone on to some success in film and television.  There are also some good scenes.  The opening scene where Jared arrives in Hollywood and stares in awe at the new surroundings is completely believeable.  There's a scene between Jared and Matthew, who just wants him as a sex toy, in which Matthew talks of his mother who gave him everything but herself during his childhood.  It gives the character some depth rather than making him a two-diminsional creep.  And the kind elderly woman who takes Jared under her wing admitting she wished she had been a better mother to her son, who has grown up to be shallow and incapable of love.  There are lines and scenes which ring so true.  But there aren't enough of them.
95558
What can you say? Just the best. Judy SHOULD have won the Oscar.
4763398
My wife & I enjoyed the movie. It was entertaining and had some great performances, especially Alan Arkin and John Goodman. It is a nice white hat/black hat movie about a significant actual even., I feel the movie was nor really deserving of the Oscar. Lincoln was a far better film.
4948255
It's just such a great movie and play. This should have been oscar nominated for film, writing, music and acting.
424847
My wife and I watched the brilliant and utterly unconventional "Beasts" the night before the Academy Awards show, which put both the triviality of most entertainment and the promise of movies in just the right perspective. It is a perfect mind-cleanser for the craven artificiality of everyday media, from animated features to "reality" shows to thrillers and of course the evening news. It's a simple story: a little girl, her father woefully unprepared to care for her, and their neighbors locked in a brutal struggle to survive on the wrong side of a levee of the Mississippi in Louisiana. They live in desperate poverty within sight of the high-tech world of comfort and sophistication that you and I live in. The script does not manipulate, the actors do not strut and posture: how amazing is that? Yet the conclusion is unavoidable that our affluence cares for their state in no meaningful way.

From the first scene I was riveted to my seat with interest in the lives of people who ask nothing more than the dignity to be left alone. The girl cries out for security and comfort her father can't give her, but manages to find self-expression and delight in horrifying conditions. Her father is consumed by putting food on the table to the exclusion of almost all sentiment, but clings desperately to his will to live and scant memories of joy.

Yes, this is what life without education and opportunity looks like, and we should do better. And if we do it will be because the hunger to exist, to love, and to feel is ineradicable.
396686
The movie based on a true story was an excellent find. I realize that many that gave a bad review don't know it is based on a real man's life but the fact is; many things unpleasant happen in life. In the case of Sam Childers; the man wasn't a saint by any stretch of the imagination. This isn't a movie for bible thumping morons that can't handle sex or violence or gawd forbid; their hero to be less than perfect; because he surely isn't.
But the story is heartfelt and the acting well done. I would have given it five stars if the story would have been a bit better produced. I give Butler five stars for jumping into the acting of a born again Christian with serious issues and thought it was well played by him. I also wish they had fleshed out the characters of his wife and daughter more. It would have been more appealing to the masses I think. Still it's very much worth watching with a great message for anyone that takes the time to.
Do not recommend this for younger kids; too much realism for many pre teens either.
3750668
This is a beautifully designed movie, from the scenery and costumes to the telling of this heart breaking story.  I have talked to some friends who had seen this film saying they thought the nudity and violence seemed unessasary.  I disagree, I believe that this was part of the abuse that needed to be expressed to understand the situation of African Americans at that time.  Very moving and will remain with you after you view this movie.  Definatley earned the Oscar.
2934743
no question, these 2 deserve the oscar for this movie, what a story. great great great!!!!! this isn't a rental, this is a must buy!

i would give it 6 stars.
697089
The Pianist is a good film, but not great.  I don't understand why this was such a big winner at the Oscars!  (Even though Chicago took home double as many Awards, with 6)
First- I don't think Adrien Brody deserved the Best Actor Award.  Did anyone even see Nick Cage in Adaptation!?  He was so excellent.  The only reason why he didn't win was becasue that movie had an off-beat type of brilliance.
Second- Why in the world did Roman Polanski win?  In a way I am glad the Martian Scorsese didn't win because I believe he'll be back in the upcoming years with an even better film that will sweep the awards, including Best Director.  But, what about Rob Marshall?  Chicago would have been nothing without him!  Rob had the great idea for the musical numbers being metaphors and daydreams in Roxie's head.  Plus, Marshall choreographed all the numbers!  That is amazing dedication.  Plus the editing was smooth and well done.  I just didn't sense that Polanski had the same pashion.
Thirdly- Charlie Kauffman had the Oscar stolen from him for best screenplay: adapted material.  Every scene and line in Adaptation shines with creative characters and brilliant words.  Actually, the movie's main showcase is the writting, because it is SO GOOD!  I have NO idea why the pianist won, and if you see Adaptation, you'll be wondering too.
That being said, I thought that The Pianist was definetly one of the better films over the past year.  I think everybody knows that this is nowhere near Schindler's List.  But, then again, what film about this subject matter is?  Not a bad effort at all.  But, not worthy of all the praise.
1365436
Jude Law is excellent in this film, and Nicole Kidman is good also.  But they just do not click together.  Their "passionate" scenes feel staged, and they are both such good actors, that most of the time it goes unnoticed.  Rene Zellweger finally got her Oscar, having been passed over two years in a row for "Bridget Jone's Diary" and "Chicago."  She lost the Oscar for "Chicago" to Nicole Kidman who won for "The Hours."  To me, it seemed like sweet revenge to upstage a rival in every scene she has in this film.  There is one other thing that recommends this film, and that is its splendid cinematography.  Otherwise, the plotting feels very similar to another of Director Anthony Minghella's films, "The English Patient," only this story is set during the Civil War.  Also, there are some obvious plot devices that had me shaking my head.  One I remember is when Jude Law and Philip Seymor Hoffman are making their way through the wilderness when they just happen across a large, two-handled saw.  Hmmmmm, I wonder if this item will come into play in a future scene?  I didn't have to wait very long.  There is also an over-abundance of nudity.  Being a guy, this is a rare thing for me to complain about, but it just feels gratuitous here;  like it's used more for shock-value than for any specific reason.  Overall, this really isn't a bad film at all.  Rene Zellweger shines, as does the cinematography, but all else is merely professional or sadly forgettable.  Thank you.
3648654
1970 was a VERY strange year for handing out the Oscars for 1969's Best.  Who knows, it may take a lot of decades for the BIGGEST blunders in Hollywood's history to "sink in."  But Liza Minnelli's Very First Oscar nomination for her Very First Starring Role (in "The Sterile Cuckoo") should have become her Very First Oscar .... because it was just as well-deserved as it would be a couple of years later when what should have been her SECOND Oscar was awarded to her for "Cabaret."  Certainly different types of movies and a different style of performance, but with Liza displaying the same brilliance, the same raw emotion and depth of character interpretation and understanding, in BOTH spectacular roles.  And that miscarriage of justice was carried even further when they gave the Academy Award to Maggie Smith, of ALL the other nominees, for delivering her polished but repetitious British "schtick" in "The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie."  Liza Minnelli had been electrifying in every twist and nuance she delivered in her portrayal .... Maggie Smith had been .... Maggie Smith.
However '70 was the very same year they gave an Oscar to John Wayne for "True Grit" (or more accurately because he was dying of cancer.)  If ever an actor deserved an Oscar for his impressive BODY of work, it was the Duke.  But to honor him for that one forgettable film while DIShonoring the truly gifted acting of Dustin Hoffman and Jon Voight in the Best Picture of the Year, "Midnight Cowboy" .... or once again ignoring Richard Burton (that year for "Anne of a Thousand Days") .... is just unethical.
But those are just my opening arguments!  Wait till I do battle with a MOVIE Academy Award being given to a Broadway star bringing her nightly stage show to a movie set (think, perhaps, of Judy Holiday in "Born Yesterday") instead of great movie stars in the MOVIE roles of their lifetimes (and you can give a thought to TWO of them .... Bette Davis in "All About Eve" or Gloria Swanson in "Sunset Boulevard.")  I'll even be a little bit nasty about poor Shirley Booth, never meant for the movies, reprising her Broadway role for the screen in "Come Back, Little Sheba."  (Or don't.) While that year Barbara Stanwyck in "Titanic" and Jane Wyman in "So Big" gave much better MOVIE performances (but neither was even NOMINATED for Oscar!)  Just ... not ... fair.