Oz: The Great and Powerful - Review

For about five or six years, I had been hearing rumors of a new film based on L. Frank Baum's legendary Oz series. The best known incarnation of the books is undoubtedly The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, best remembered more for the classic 1939 MGM film adaptation, The Wizard of Oz, starring Judy Garland. An endearing classic for the ages, the film's legendary status among film-goers and the fantasy genre remains unparalleled. So when the rumors came about that Oz would once again return to the big screen, many wondered exactly in what form. Some said it was a remake of the 1939 movie (to which many, myself included, knew would be a terrible idea), others said it was a spin-off, while some were sure it would be a film adaptation of the Broadway musical, Wicked. A Wicked adaptation seemed the most likely, as the play had a long and successful run thanks in part to an enthusiastic fan-base  It was eventually announced that the project would be a prequel distributed by Disney and directed by... Sam Raimi??? While it's true that Sam Raimi proved himself as a reliable director for big budget blockbusters after his work on the Spider-Man trilogy, he's still probably best known, among his main fan-base anyways (myself included), for his horror films like the Evil Dead trilogy. With all that said, is this return to Oz (hey, that's another Oz movie) worth the trip to the theater or will it leave you saying, "There's no place like home"?

The film opens with a travelling circus in 1905 Kansas where we are introduced to the small-time stage magician, Oscar "Oz" Diggs (James Franco). Oz is hardly an ideal citizen... in fact he's a selfish, swindling, and womanizing con artist who could care less about anyone other than himself. His life suddenly takes a dramatic turn, when aboard a hot air balloon, he is whisked away by a tornado to the magical land of Oz. Soon after arriving, he meets Theodora the Good Witch (Mila Kunis), who tells him of an alleged prophecy that told of a man who would fall from the sky and rescue the citizens of Oz from the Wicked Witch... an evil being bent on controlling the land. Soon afterwords, he is introduced to another two witches, Evanora (Rachel Weisz) and Glinda (Michelle Williams) all whom relay the prophecy. When Oz discovers that killing the Wicked Witch would entail a mountain of gold plus the kingdom's throne, he immediately accepts the offer. Soon after beginning his mission, Oz comes to realize that not all is as seen, and that some of the witches may be scheming against them. With the kingdom's fate in his hands, Oz must learn to be a better man in order to save the land and become the great and powerful Wizard of Oz.

As I mentioned before, Sam Raimi seemed like an odd choice to direct a big budget family flick. The director of The Evil Dead... not exactly the usual choice for a whimsical fantasy flick (by Disney nonetheless). The more I thought about it though, the more I realized just how he might actually work. First off, what makes Raimi such an enjoyable filmmaker, is his child-like enthusiasm for the medium. On top of having a strong ability to direct action scenes as well as a good eye for visuals, he approaches every movie with passion and gusto (with the exception of Spider-Man 3, though that was mainly due to executive meddling), resulting in some very memorable works. Most of his trademarks are present here in Oz, from ghastly looking monsters, his crazy POV camera shots, and even a Bruce Campbell cameo (because movies today need more Bruce Campbell). Unfortunately, given the setting of the film, Raimi's Oldsmobile does not make an appearance. Even with the limits of a family flick, the film is so quintessentially Raimi, that the plot is basically Army of Darkness set in the land of Oz. Not joking, it features a man who falls from the sky out of his own world into an unfamiliar locale, is presumed to be a prophetic savior of sorts, accidentally creates/awakens a great evil, and ultimately ends up leading an the good citizens of Oz in a battle against the evil forces. The overall plot might ring a little TOO similar to Army of Darkness at times, but it didn't bother me too much because AoD is an awesome movie and this film features enough little twists and unique touches to keep it interesting. There are some memorable scenes, a few nice little shout outs to the classic 1939 movie, and like I said... a Bruce Campbell cameo. Honestly though, Bruce Campbell automatically makes any movie like 10 times more awesome. There aren't any huge surprises or shocks but overall the story works.

The acting is a bit of a mixed bag, but I can honestly say there were no truly awful performances. James Franco reunites with Raimi for the first time since Spidey 3 as the "Great and Powerful Oz." Franco is a good enough actor, though at times his age (or at least his youthful appearance) is a bit distracting. His acting is decent enough I suppose, but certainly nothing special. I remember hearing that Hugh Jackman and Christoph Waltz were both considered for the part, and they probably would been better cast. Rachel Weisz does a suitable job as Evanora the Witch, though I think her character was supposed to have a big surprise reveal that I saw coming as soon as she appeared. Mila Kunis is probably the most disappointing as she often comes off as a little too awkward and stale to make much of an impression. In her first couple of scenes, she just looks too uncomfortable and confused to convey her character adequately, and while she improves a bit later on in the flick, I won't deny that I expected more. Michelle Williams also appears as Glinda the Good Witch, and while this isn't one of the Oscar nominee's better roles, I have no real issues with her. Zach Braff has his moments voicing a "good" flying monkey named Finley while the young actress Joey King makes a strong impression voicing a girl made out of China glass (appropriately named China Girl). While this isn't exactly a mind-blowing cast, I doubt many will have any major problems with these actors.

A lot of the flick's hype was based on the re-appearance of the infamous Wicked Witch of the West, one of cinema's all time greatest villains. Margaret Hamilton's performance in the 1939 film is so iconic that there was no chance in hell anyone was going to top it... or even equal it really. Because of this, it's not really fair to compare the two films. To reveal the actress who does eventually become the Wicked Witch would be a spoiler, but I will say that she does... okay. Maybe it was the raised expectations or the inevitable comparisons to the 1939 movie but while I won't say I was bummed about her role here, I will say I was hoping for a bit more. I guess in the long run, Sam Raimi seemed like the ideal director to resurrect this character. I mean, the guy has been responsible for some kick-ass witch characters in the past. Many of his previous villains have even taken inspiration from the Wicked Witch (the possessed girlfriend in Evil Dead II, the witch in Army of Darkness, the Gypsy in Drag Me to Hell, even the Green Goblin in the first Spider-Man). Maybe I just went in expecting too much... though I can say that it was cool to see the Wicked Witch return in all her cackling glory, and while she isn't as memorable as before, she still makes a suitable villain.

The final thing to mention is the film's visual aesthetic... and this is where the film truly succeeds. This version of Oz takes many cues and inspiration from the 1939 movie, but it's very much it's own creation as well. As expected, there's a lot of cgi, not all of which admittedly looks perfect, but it's nonetheless creative and often well-rendered. The cgi used to create the China Girl in particular is some of the better animation I've seen in recent memory. None of the effects come off as overbearing and most generally seemed to compliment the story as needed. The 3D effects are some of the best seen in some time. It's not Avatar but they do their job much better than many films. One nice touch was how, in a tribute to the original movie, the Kansas scenes are shown in black and white and in a 4:3 aspect ration... that was clever. The finale in particular is one of the most memorable segments. This is the point where Raimi goes gung-ho with his "Raimi-isms" and manages to show off some of his best talents and memorable images. There are also some solid make up effects and the well-made costumes you would expect to find in high concept fantasy movies like this. It's a little too early in the year to say for sure, but I would not be surprised to see this movie included on the Oscar ballot for best visual effects. We shall find that out next year. Overall, it's a very nice looking movie. If visuals are your thing, I can assume that you will leave happy.

I was worried that this movie would end up becoming like Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland... i.e. a nice looking but otherwise awful movie (btw, I REALLY hate that movie). Fortunately, that's not the case here. Oz is an imperfect but creatively realized and very entertaining family film and a worthy entry to the Oz films. It's nothing remarkable, but if you're looking for an enjoyable movie that both adults and kids will like, this is a good option. Check it out!

My Score: 3.5 out of 5!

Silver Linings Playbook - Review

Every so often, a decent or otherwise good film makes it's way into theaters, and for some reason, seems to take the world by storm. Silver Linings Playbook is one of those movies, a hit of the film festivals, showered with awards, praised by the critics, and embraced by audiences as a new classic... yeah, I'm wondering if I watched the same movie as everyone else. Wait wait wait! Don't freak out, let me make one thing clear... I liked Silver Linings Playbook, I just didn't quite love it. The film is good and has some really strong qualities, I'm not denying that, but the numerous flaws are what's keeping me from understanding just why it's being touted as some kind of new masterpiece. Is it because of the subject matter, or maybe that it features Bradley Cooper broadening his acting ability, or is it because Jennifer Lawrence is kind of a big deal right now? It's hard to say exactly where the hype lies, but either way Silver Linings Playbook has received quite the response. What works and what doesn't? Let's take a look...

Silver Linings Playbook opens with Pat Solitano (Bradley Cooper), being released from a mental institution after an 8 month stint. Pat was diagnosed with bi-polar disorder after witnessing his wife having an affair, an event which triggered a mental episode where he nearly beat his wife's lover to death. He is released into the care of his parents, Pat Sr (Robert De Niro) and Delores (Jacki Weaver), where he begins a long journey of piecing his life back together and hopefully reconciling with his wife (who, after the assault, placed a restraining order against Pat). Soon after arriving home, Pat is introduced to Tiffany Maxwell (Jennifer Lawrence), a recently widowed woman with issues of her own. Despite some initial hostility between the two, both Pat and Tiffany form a love/hate friendship as they help each other work through their issues, accomplish each other's respective goals, and find the silver lining in their unfortunate circumstances.

David O'Russell (the film's director) is a very talented filmmaker, let's get the out there right now. I've also heard he's kind of a maniac, but I'm not going to worry about that right now. Though he hasn't made a movie that I've quite fallen in love with yet, his work in films like Three Kings (quite good), I Heart Huckabees (took some time to appreciate this one, but I do admire it), and The Fighter (also quite good) has been impressive. Silver Linings Playbook actually reminded me a bit of The Fighter. Both films were family-based dramas that dealt with themes of bonding over sports (be it football or boxing) and health-related issues (drug addiction in the case of The Fighter and mental illness in the case of Silver Linings Playbook). It was through Russell's slick direction and the subtleties of the script that elevated The Fighter from being just another inner city boxer turned champion fighter flick (like all of the Rocky imitators). Silver Linings Playbook tries to recapture the success of that technique... albeit with mixed though still overall positive results. The cast is game, there are some truly compelling scenes, and the subject matter is worthy. That said, by the time the third act roles around, it looses a bit of it's edge and falls victim to one too many predictable and formulaic beats.

Let's start where most of the film's shining attributes abide... the cast! Bradley Cooper has been mainly regarded, up until this point, as a comedic actor with well-received roles in films like The Hangover and Wedding Crashers. His non-comedic movies have been at best average (I'm being nice), though often not the fault of Cooper. His role as Pat finally gives him a chance to showcase his true skill, both through comedic and dramatic means. He gets a few hearty laughs over the course of the film and sells every one of his heavier scenes... that's talent right there. The most talked about performance, however, is probably Jennifer Lawrence as Tiffany. With her Oscar victory for this role, she has officially crossed the line of promising up-and-comer, to full blown superstar. Make no mistake, she is damn good in this role, taking what could have been a fairly one note character and making it into something very impressive. Most of the film's best moments come from Lawrence, and it's clear that she is one hell of an actress who deserves the success that has come to her. Both Cooper and Lawrence have a great chemistry, and ultimately contribute to most of the film's success.

The supporting cast has received some attention as well. Robert De Niro is always a welcome presence to any movie, whether it be a drama, comedy, action, or horror flick... he's just one of those actors who can play anything. While his part of Pat Sr isn't one of his most memorable roles (though that's hardly a criticism when your filmography consists of Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, Cape Fear, The Godfather Part II, etc.), De Niro does a good job playing the"bad ass with a heart of gold" kind of parts. He's funny, he's intense, he's dramatic, he's likable, he's De Niro... what more can I say? Australian actress Jacki Weaver is great as Pat's mom Delores, in a more understated but still impressive performance. She's quite convincing as the torn but loving mother caught in the middle of this madness and who wants nothing more than to see both her husband and son both be happy with their issues resolved. Her role in this isn't quite as impressive as her previously Oscar nominated performance in the underrated 2009 flick, Animal Kingdom, but it works. I also have to give a shout out to Chris Tucker, who up until now, has always been one of the most annoying comedic actors to walk the Earth, actually give a more grounded and surprisingly heartfelt performance as Danny, Pat's buddy from the mental hospital. Overall, this was a very well assembled cast, and without them, the movie wouldn't have been nearly as effective.

Now we come to the story... and this is where I'm most divided. The individual parts are all solid, and the seeds planted could have amounted into a new classic. The idea is good, the characters are mostly well developed, and family drama is genuine. The first two-thirds of the film are quite good, with little to no flaws. There are some very funny scenes that managed to get a few decent laughs out of me, and when it came to the heavier scenes, yeah I got legitimately invested in those too. The two tones were well-balanced, it was both funny and dramatic in equal parts with neither feeling forced. Once the final third rolled around... eesh, this is where I'm torn. I can't really discuss it without spoiling parts of the ending, so I'm going to put a spoiler warning up.

SPOILER WARNING!!! I AM REVEALING PARTS OF THE FILM'S ENDING!!! SKIP TO THE LAST PARAGRAPH IF YOU DON'T WANT ANYTHING REVEALED!!!

Okay, so film ends with some of the most cliched and predictable story elements I have ever seen.
Up until the third act, most of the movie avoided a lot of the typical romcom formula. Even though I had a hunch it might end copping out, I held out hope that it would not... I was wrong. It ends with Pat's consensual break up with his wife so that he and Tiffany could be together. After Pat Sr gives his son the obligatory "go get her" speech, Pat chases down Tiffany, they reveal their love for each other, the kiss, blah blah blah, happily ever after. It's not just the ending either, by the time the third act rolled around, it was completely obvious that the movie was going to resort to the typical Hollywood formula. This wouldn't bother me too much, except for the fact that the movie had so much going for it. Once again though, we get the typical Hollywood message that the cure for mental illness is to hook up with an equally messed up, though still conventionally attractive, partner. Kind of a letdown, not gonna lie.

SPOILERS END HERE!!!

And there is Silver Linings Playbook. Despite my gripes and complaints, I will say that the movie is worth seeing. Up until the end, most of it works quite well, and while I do think the movie, as a whole, is a bit overrated, it's definitely not bad. If you haven't seen it yet, check it out.

My Score: 3.5 out of 5!

My Thoughts on the 2013 Oscars

I really need to post these blog entries when they're still relevant. Even though it's been only a week since the 85th Academy Awards, that seems like forever in the world of newsworthy gossip and current events. So despite the fact that every surprise, moment, and controversy from last week's Oscars is pretty much yesterday's news, there's still plenty on my mind about the ceremony and I feel compelled to share it. So... here are my thoughts on this year's Academy Awards.

The Host :)
Seth Macfarlane, I must admit, was a very surprising choice to host the ceremony. I'll admit that while I'm not a "fan" of his per se, I do think that the guy has some natural comedic ability. That said, I consider him to be one of the most hit-and-miss comedians (or comedic performers, whatever he is) working today. His stuff is either laugh out loud hilarious or painstakingly unfunny. Family Guy (used to love it, now I hate it), American Dad (used to hate it, now I kind of like it), and his feature film Ted (has some really funny scenes but was overall average) have shown that despite some real talent, the quality of his material is inconsistent. His hosting duties this year for the Oscars too have received very mixed results, some loving him some hating him. Personally... I'm in the pro-Seth camp. Considering how lackluster the Oscar hosts have been the last few years, the fact that Seth's schtick actually got a few solid laughs has to count for something. Did all of his jokes work? No, there were more than a few that fell flat... but there were also plenty that worked. His material was a little more edgy that Oscar usually presented, but I have a feeling that's what they were going for. I never thought he crossed a line or went unnecessarily offensive. Was he an excellent host? No, I wouldn't say that, but he was a good one that made for an entertaining night. For that, I give him a pass.

A Few Good Surprises :)
One of my major gripes about the last few awards ceremonies is that there was a real lack of suspense or surprises when it came to the award choices. Typically, there was only one or two films that had any real prestige with Academy vying for most of the major awards, with the other nominations basically hiding in their shadows. Last year it was The Artist (good but fairly overrated) and the year before it was The King's Speech (better and slightly less overrated than The Artist). This year, there was a good variety of films and nominations, and while not every pick was particularly surprising (Argo was expected to take Best Picture, Daniel Day Lewis got his expected third award, and Life of Pi swept a good chunk of the tech categories), there were some legitimately surprising calls that I did not see coming. The two biggest surprise, for me at least, were Ang Lee winning Best Director and Christoph Waltz winning Supporting Actor for Life of Pi and Django Unchained respectively. With Ben Affleck failing to receive a director nod, it seemed like Spielberg was up for a third Oscar of his own, but instead Ang Lee received his second statue the flawed but still impressive Life of Pi. As for the Best Supporting Actor category... while that category was arguably the hardest to predict, it still seemed like a two-way race between Robert De Niro and Tommy Lee Jones. In fact, Waltz seemed like the least likely candidate since he was the most recent nominee to claim the award (in 2010 for Inglorious Basterds... another Tarantino film). Can't say I have a problem with Waltz pulling a surprise victory... dude's a great actor and Django was an awesome movie.

Variety of Films Received Awards :)
The only thing more boring than a ceremony with no surprises is one where only one film sweeps all the major awards and leaves it's competition in the dust. It's one thing if the film in question is truly as good as claimed, though that's pretty rare. 2012 saw a lot of good movies, but no real huge masterpieces (maybe time will tell, who knows?) and as a result, most of those said good movies received some sort of honors. Argo took Best Picture, Life of Pi got Best Director, Lincoln for Best Actor, Silver Linings Playbook for Best Actress, Django Unchained for Supporting Actor, and Anne Hathaway for Les Misérables... been a while since it's worked out like that. It was also nice to see Django pick up a screenplay win, Skyfall for best song and a tie for sound editing (another surprise I forgot to mention), and Amour for the Foreign Language category. Would have liked to see Zero Dark Thirty take a few more but overall I have no major complaints.

The Best Picture Nominees

Here's the point where I give a rundown of all the Best Picture nominees and briefly share my thoughts on each of them. So... let's get too it.

Amour
Director Michael Haneke's French-language drama, Amour, kind of snuck up on audiences when it appeared on the ballot. The movie itself is good... really good actually. Haneke's subtle hand as a director benefits this drama immensely, elevating what could have been an uninspired melodrama into a beautifully tragic character-drama reminiscent of the works of filmmaking legend, Ingmar Bergman. It may drag a bit at times, but the perfect performances of it's two leads, the always interesting story, and sheer artistic vision make this a worthy entry of the Best Picture lineup. It was nice to see it receive Best Foreign Film too.

Argo
The winning movie! I'll talk more about this one below.

Beasts of the Southern Wild
This was the year's true outcast nominee, not only sneaking onto Best Picture's lineup but also scoring a Best Director nomination for Benh Zeitlin. Most of the film's hype and discussion has centered less on the film itself and more around it's young star, Quvenzhané Wallis, becoming the youngest Best Lead Actress nominee at age 9. I liked Seth Macfarlane's little quip in his introduction, "So you got nominated for an Oscar... something a 9-year-old could do." The movie itself is... quite good overall. The premise is interesting, Wallis is a natural talent, and the movie has some legitimately intriguing moments. It comes off as a tab bit pretentious at times, but fortunately not too often. If you haven't seen this one yet... I say check it out.

Django Unchained
Hell Yeah! I already wrote a full review for Tarantino's epic tribute to spaghetti westerns/ condemnation of racism, so I won't dwell too much on it here. I will say, however, that Django Unchained is another outstanding flick courtesy of a man who seems like he can do no wrong in the realm of filmmaking. An ambitious concept, incredible script, spot-on cast, over-the-top violence, and buckets of blood make this my favorite movie of the year. I knew it wasn't going to win Best Picture (though that would had been awesome), but the nomination still makes me happy.

Les Misérables
Also reviewed this one in more detail already, so this will be just another brief summary. The long awaited film adaptation of one of broadway's longest running musicals (which itself is based on a book by Victor Hugo) is ambitious, grand, and... quite awkward. It benefits from some enjoyable songs plus strong performances from Hugh Jackman and Anne Hathaway but is held back by some questionable direction from Tom Hooper. The sets look decent enough but the odd camerawork and editing left me a bit puzzled, not to mention that the abstract and theatrical style of the play doesn't translate as well on screen as opposed to the stage. Oh and as for Russell Crowe... dude's a great actor, but he's no singer.

Life of Pi
I'd like to point out that I actually adapted Life of Pi to film before Ang Lee. When I was a college freshman back in 2006, myself and a few of my classmates made a short film based on Yann Martel's novel for our English Class. Granted our 5-minute film, complete with cheap costumes, flat acting, and cheesy green screen effects didn't have the same flair or stylistic edge as Ang Lee's, but since we made ours first, I think the studio should be paying us a royalty for this movie. Okay, joking aside, both the book and the movie for Life of Pi are quite interesting. Like Lord of the Rings and Watchmen, Life of Pi was once considered an un-filmmable novel (I don't believe in such a thing personally) brought to life in great looking form from the accomplished Ang Lee. His ambitious direction, the great cinematography, stellar production design, and neat looking effects (that tiger looked pretty rad) amount to a good, at times even great, movie held back somewhat by an overly quirky and slightly pretentious narrative. The general idea of Pi being stranded on a lifeboat with a tiger for company is interesting, but the thought of it being used as a religious allegory doesn't work as well as it thinks it does. The underlying message is ultimately, believe in religion because it's more fun and interesting that way. That's a worthy effort, but it isn't a very provocative or compelling sentiment really isn't it? Still, that shouldn't dissuade anyone from seeing Life of Pi. If nothing else, the film is one hell of a visual experience and a frequent feast for the eyes. For that alone, it's worth checking out.

Lincoln
This one originally seemed like the most likely film to take home the Best Picture statue, but after the Best Director controversy, Argo became the favorite (and of course winner). Lincoln was one of my favorite films this year, partially for the usual reasons (great actors, great director, good historical subject matter, etc.) but also because of the underlying themes and messages in it's screenplay. Less of a awards bait historical biopic, Lincoln is more of a political thriller with compelling subtext regarding the good and dark side of the political system... ultimately saying that sometimes the only way to get your point across is to play dirty. Lincoln's efforts to abolish slavery, utilizing everything from double dealing and bribing, certainly raise some interesting questions of ethics. Ultimately, it portrays Abraham Lincoln as a hero, who knew that the only way to end the heinous institution of slavery was to break some of the rules. For all of those reasons, Lincoln is a damn good movie.

Silver Linings Playbook
Here's one that sure struck a chord with critics and audiences. I'll write a full review for it soon, but in short, I think this dramedy is good but not great. It takes some worthy subject matter in the context of mental illness and makes a strong effort to provide an accurate and emotional depiction of the subject... it partially succeeds. The film strongly benefits from the excellent cast, four of whom came away with mostly well-deserved awards nominations (and one win for Jennifer Lawrence). Unfortunately the story, for all of it's good intentions fell victim to overdone cliches and a formulaic ending that I saw coming from a mile away. While it means well, it's neither a particularly enlightened or engaging study on either family values or mental illness... mainly just telling familiar stories that have been done before, and often better. Still, it's not a bad movie at all. Like I said, the cast is great, the movie has some really emotional (and funny) scenes, and it tries hard, but it's just too uninspired and passé to be anything truly memorable.

Zero Dark Thirty
Now we come to my second favorite film of 2012. I was on the fence about this one throughout the film's production, but upon seeing it, I can happily say that Zero Dark Thirty is one of the most compelling, suspenseful, and dynamic movies to come around in years. The dramatized retelling of America's decade-long manhunt for Osama Bin Laden features a dramatic and often depressing story fully realized by Mark Boal's great screenplay, Kathryn Bigelow's subtle hand as a director, and Jessica Chastain's intense performance. It's not always a particularly easy movie to watch, but the sheer power of it's storytelling (and controversy for that matter) makes it a dynamic and risky film that's worthy of all it's nominations.

The Best Picture Winner: Argo :)

In the last couple of years, the films that ended up being named Best Picture were mostly good but fairly uninspired choices. Honestly, how many are honestly still watching The Artist or The King's Speech? Neither of those movies were bad, just kind of safe, predictable, or uninspired. Argo isn't exactly a groundbreaking film but it's definitely one of the better choices in recent years. I've taken a bit of flack for not including Argo in my Top 10 of 2012 list, and I'll admit that this was the one I felt the worst about leaving off... so consider it my 11th favorite movie of 2012. The premise is great, the real life implications are interesting, the finale is suspenseful as all gets out, Alan Arkin and John Goodman are as entertaining as always, and Ben Affleck's steady hand as a director holds the film together. Ultimately, though, I wasn't quite blown away by it like many were. While none of the acting was bad, some of the cast lacked a bit of energy and at times the dragged because of it, though Arkin and Goodman were the exceptions, every time they were on screen the movie was great. Also, while the real life premise was a great idea on which to base a movie, it fudged one too many historical facts for the sake of drama while immensely downplaying the role the Canadians played in the mission. Still, the movie is well made and overall consistently entertaining. I don't quite see this one becoming a classic down the road but I can honestly say it's a more worthy addition to the Best Picture lineup in recent years. I would have preferred to see Django Unchained, Zero Dark Thirty, or Lincoln take the prize, but I have no real complaints.

Overall
This year's Oscars, I have to say, were a notable improvement from the last few ceremonies. Overall, I'm happy with them. Seth Macfarlane wasn't perfect, but I enjoyed his stint as host, the awards given out were varied and mostly well earned, and the event had some memorable moments and surprises. Always love the Oscars, can't wait until next year.