Best of the Best Picture Nominees for 2007

As I said in my earlier review, Atonement is not a perfect movie. In fact, I'll go out on a limb here by stating there wasn't anything close to a perfect movie released in 2007. Atonement would not have been my first choice for a Best Picture nomination either. However, the film has some very accomplished things in it. Namely, one of those things is the acting from such stars as James McAvoy, and Keira Knightley. The two stars bring a vibrant and palpable chemistry to their short-lived and very passionate romance.

The film is based on the 2001 novel, Atonement by British author Ian McEwan. It's regarded as one of McEwan's best works. Atonement was added to the Time magazine All-Time 100 Greatest Novels list. Even, The Observer called it one of the 100 best novels written. Certainly, Atonement is one of the most celebrated and honored novels of recent years.

When McAvoy's Robbie Turner tries to confess his love for Knightley's Cecilia Tallis, you believe his sincerity. Knightley's Cecilia is equally effective when she grabs him, wraps her arms and around him for one very lustful, and sensual love scene in the library. This is quicky cut short when Cecilia's nosey sister, the 13-year-old Briony (Saoirse Ronan) walks in on the lovers.

The novel, Atonement is complex, told from several points of view and divided into four different parts. The first part is from the 13-year-old Briony's perspective. The second; from Robbie Turner and Cecilia's perspectives. The older, wiser Briony is the principal character in part three. Then the novel ends with the perspective of Briony as a woman in her 70s.

The film tries to capture these four parts. It is divided into four parts. But those parts aren't clearly shown. Everything almost becomes incoherent by the time the third act is going. Atonement, the movie seems to miss a few steps along the way. Perhaps Atonement should've been longer and therefore, it could've gotten into more detail to better serve the story's ultimate intentions. As it is, the film is successful in a lot of ways. With so many lesser nominees in 2007, the Academy will be hard pressed not to pick Atonement for Best Picture at the award ceremony this year.

Juno

My second choice for Best Picture. This one makes the most sense of all. But the Academy might not see it that way. Juno is ultimately a teenie-bopper movie. A rather serious teenie-bopper movie at that. It's not too cute and it's not too profound.

Juno MacGuff (Ellen Page) is not your typical teenage girl. She's her own person and proud of it. We're first introduced to this colorful, mature young woman upon the discovery of her pregnancy. Juno is walking to the local convenient store with a jug of OJ in her hand.

The beginning of the movie opens in an unusual way, recreating Juno and everything else around her in a sort of cartoon. The rest of the movie is told by Juno and follows Juno as she tries to deal with the responsibilities of growing up so fast. As she says, Juno is dealing with stuff that goes way beyond her "level of maturity". She's quick and clever. This doesn't stop her from being the biggest smart-ass in the room, making jokes like the ultimate class clown.

Strangely enough, this is primary where the movie starts and ends. Juno is the character and the film itself. Everyone else, including the baby seems to blend into the background. This begs the question: Why nominate this kind of a movie? I mean Forrest Gump may have been about Forrest Gump, but everyone around him certainly were their own characters, contributing equally to the overall movie-going experience. But I just can't resist the charm of Juno MacGuff.

Michael Clayton

I wrote a review of Michael Clayton a while back. I tried to describe all of the twists and turns in this very complicated, almost imbalanced picture. But as I look back on the movie-going experience, I realize how strangely profound it was to watch. Michael Clayton is not a perfect movie. Is it a great movie? I guess that depends on what you consider a great movie. But the point of this retrospective analysis is to figure out whether it should get Best Picture of the year.

Michael Clayton was written and directed by The Bourne Identity's Tony Gilroy. His talents are clearly seen on screen. But the story development of Michael Clayton may not be to everyone's liking. It's like putting together a jigsaw puzzle with missing pieces. Unlike Juno, this movie is about Michael Clayton but we get to know and partly understand all of the other characters around him.

The fixer, Michael Clayton (George Clooney) is trying to solve a mystery. It's not the typical murder mystery, but it's a mystery about conspiracy and betrayal. There's something wrong inside the very law firm he works for. It's not his job to seek it out, but Michael feels like he must anyway. Does he? You'll have to see the movie. Will anyone be murdered? Again, check out Michael Clayton for yourself and find out.

But my biggest complaint is that those twists and turns cloud the story so badly that every part of story, every intriguing character we've been introduced to is forgotten by the end of the movie. No one and no one thing can stand out against the complexities of Gilroy's story. However, given all of the weaknesses in its contenders, I definitely think Michael Clayton deserves a shot at the gold.

The other nominees

There Will Be Blood and No Country for Old Men were two movies I wish I could figure out. Whether this reaction was intended by the filmakers, Paul W. Anderson or Ethan and Joel Coen, I have no idea. Both movies take audiences down terrible roads. Both movies have so many inconsistencies in story and character, you have no idea what kind of a movie you're watching, from one minute to the next. I pride myself on being a pretty clever movie buff, but both There Will Be Blood and No Country for Old Men left me feeling sick. I wanted a great movie. At times, I could've sworn I was watching a great movie. But then, there were other times while I was watching this "compelling" and "great" films when I felt lost and disappointed.

If this period is a reflection of any other period in the history of film, it would be the late 50s to early 70s. Those were the years when films were changing a great deal, both in the storytelling department and the character department. We went from a Golden Age to the modern age of cinema in just over a decade. If There Will Be Blood and No Country for Old Men influences a new modern age, I worry a great deal about the future or survival of film.