#both scenes are from batman annual 25 | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

stxleslyds · 4 years

Text

MY REVIEW OF UNDER THE RED HOOD!

EDIT: This is Tati from the present, Hello! I am writing this little message right now to let you know that I am rebloging this post because I recently re-read it and I wanted to make it “better”, this was my second review that I had ever made and I am quite fond of it but it needed to be brushed up and made easier to read. Now, let me be honest, I am not an excellent writer so there are probably some mistakes here still but I like it even more now, so yeah, that’s all I had to say!

~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~

This review is here not only because I love that book but because Geoff Johns and Scott Lobdell’s characterization of Jason and Red Hood gives me nightmares and it’s just annoying.

First let me set the scene, here we go!

Jason’s death was confirmed in book three of four in the Death in the Family event back in December, 1988 (Batman #428). But he is officially brought back sixteen years and two months after his death in the iconic Batman: Under the (Red) Hood event (Batman #635-641, #645-650, Annual #25)

This particular event is just wonderful, I love this for many reasons some of which I will probably talk about in this post but it has impacted me so much that if anyone asks me what Batman story I would recommend it would be this one.

Now just a heads up, I always felt impartial to Batman as a hero but around three years ago I started borderline hating the guy and now I just can’t stand him half of the time, and I blame it on his overuse and the god complex that some writers can’t seem to write him without. So, I don’t really recommend UtRH in a good light when talking about the Bat himself. It’s all about my boy, Jason Todd.

UtRH is just amazing at showing these two character’s motivations and how they seem to think that their ways of handling crime are the best way. But it also shows us so many aspects of how Jason’s death impacted both Jason and Bruce.

Let’s start the review!

UtRH starts with a look into the future, a fight between Batman and a mysterious man in a red helmet that seems to not be an easy opponent for the Bat and it also looks like these two have been going at it for a while but just as we arrive we see that it may be over in the Bat’s favor but in that exact moment the red helmeted man unmasks Batman! Seemingly not shocked that Bruce Wayne is the Bat the mysterious man decides that he will show his face too...but all we get to see is Bruce’s face of shock and then.... we are thrown back at what we come to believe is the real beginning of the story.

Probably you can’t tell, but to me this is an amazing start to a story, you have the Bat who is sold as an excellent fighter struggling in a fight but when it seems that he is going to win something major happens... the mysterious man unmasks a legendary hero and doesn’t make a fuss about it and then he manages to shock the Bat by showing his face (which is not shown to the reader), I just think its genius, it sets up this new guy as an incredibly good and interesting character.

So now we find ourselves thrown back 5 weeks in the past and we come in contact with a meeting with some very shady people that don’t really know who put together the whole thing and while they try to rationalize it a round of shots hits the table they are sitting around.

Here is where we see this leather-jacket-wearing dude, holding an AK-47 while posing for the Google earth cameras, telling those people that he reunited them and that he is hot shit. He is there to make a deal; the dramatic queen wants to run the underworld of Gotham and not only is he offering protection against the Black Mask but against the Bat too.

Well, needless to say, those guys aren’t necessarily buying what he is selling so that my friends takes us to an iconic moment, this dude proceeds to throw a duffel bag with the heads of these people’s lieutenants and to finish it off he just shots another round to make the message clear...I mean talk about dramatic entrances!

Please don’t worry I didn’t forget about the most important part of this whole entrance...we were just introduced to this man who means business and wants to rule Gotham’s underworld and manage its drug trade and it’s all very swell but the truly important thing is what he says next:

“You stay away from kids and school yards. NO dealing to children, got it? If you do, you are DEAD.”

That’s a powerful message and this is just me speculating but if he has to make that specification clear...it leads me to think that kids are people that he wants to protect and no matter how much money they could bring to the business he wants them out of the equation, also the price for breaking that rule is death…. So yeah, is he truly a villain or...?

Now after all of this we jump to Black Mask receiving information of a new player in the game and he doesn’t seem like he cares, to him it’s just a newbie trying to mess around on a street level so he moves on with his business of recruiting Mr. Freeze for an undisclosed job. On the other hand, we are shown Batman crying over the fact that Oracle isn’t working with him anymore and then teaming up with Nightwing (that is wearing a knee brace and probably shouldn’t be out doing extreme parkour with his furry dad but hey, what do I know?)

We see Freeze trying on some new clothes and then we are back again with Black Mask, here, for the very first time we hear the new player’s name...Red Hood.

Following Batman and Nightwing we find them intercepting a shipment that appears to have a bunch of gadgets from several villains and among them there was a bomb, it explodes (detonated by the Red Hood) and from then on, the fun begins...the Bat and Nightwing go on pursuit and we get to see what the Bat thinks about Hood. He thinks that he is very well trained, agile and unpredictable, he also has an overall sense of familiarity coming from Hood but he ends up saying that it’s nothing they haven’t seen before, what he doesn’t expect is having been led to a trap which is, Amazo, yay! (Amazo was the cargo that Mask was waiting for).

Amazo is taken down with a little bit of struggle but he eventually is thrown to Gotham harbor and we are informed in another panel by Mask that Amazo wasn’t supposed to be activated so we can safely assume that it was Hood the one who did it. Mask is pissed that the Bat broke his toy and is going to be more pissed off when he answers a call from a certain red helmeted man...

Hood informs Mask that he took one of the crates from the shipment and that it might be one of the most valuable ones, our boy stole a crate with at least one hundred pounds of kryptonite...yeah no big deal.

Here I will make a stop to tell you that we know that this Red Hood is extremely tactical, he has a plan within a plan that takes down several players, he is confident in what he is doing and is certainly not afraid to get his hands dirty. He is a worthy opponent to Black Mask, Nightwing and Batman. We are just starting to know him but he is already great and it only gets better.

As we enter chapter three of the story we see Hood asking for 50 million dollars from Black Bask for the kryptonite that he stole from Black Mask (say that again), to everyone’s surprise Mask “agrees” to give him the money easily... well, not really, Mask is going to send Freeze to kill Hood and get that (quite honestly) unnecessary amount of kryptonite back.

Hood obviously knew that he wasn’t going to get whatever money he negotiated but he also wasn’t quite ready to take on Freeze but he did his best. When Freeze is the last one standing Batman shows up and a kinda lame fight ensues...Freeze leaves and Hood says that he really doesn’t care about the kryptonite, all he wants is the “lay of the land” and then leaves.

If you are wondering where Hood went, well…he went to an abandoned funhouse to terrorize the Joker! Yes people, it’s confirmed, Hood is a good boy! Go get him Hood I am rooting for you!

IT IS CROWBAR TIME! (And this time in reverse)

In the start of chapter four Hood is blowing up yet another truck full of weapons belonging to Mask.

Elsewhere Batman is bothering Zatanna about one of Ra’s Al Ghoul’s (sealed) Lazarus pits. Asking if the pit can raise the dead and being his natural rude self. Because he doesn’t get the information that he needs and goes to Jason Blood who tells him that if he wants to know about people who came back from the dead he might as well talk to Green Arrow but his chat with him doesn’t lead anywhere so that’s that.

Onyx is introduced to us as a vigilante accepted by the Bat (you know, because of that thing where other vigilantes can only do their thing in Gotham if the Bat lets them because he is the high king or something) and when she comes across some dealers she finds out they work for the Red Hood and given that he is an unknown player she relieves the information to B who acts like an ass because he thought she had seen Hood and that she compromised one of his informants…now here is the thing, why does B act like everyone has mind reading abilities? How on earth would she have known that he had an informant and that the Red Hood wasn’t news to him...I am sorry dude but you are a shitty person of the highest quality

Anyway, Onyx is actually doing her work watching shady men talk about if they will or not join the Red Hood, one of them says something like “I won’t join that psycho because he decapitated some of my men” (good men, he specified) but Onyx isn’t alone, Hood makes it known by telling her that those men were selling drugs to twelve-year-old’s (remember kids are protected by Hood, you absolutely do not involve them and if you do...well, congrats, you are dead)

At this point we are in chapter six of the story and another character trait is revealed to us from Red Hood, he is meticulous in the way he works. He knows almost everyone involved in the drug trade, what they did and are doing, the relationships they hold with Mask or whoever their boss is. The information he gathers lets him know if the people will stick to his rules and can also use the information he has against them. So, he is extremely dangerous, we have to imagine that if he is that thorough with street level baddies what kind of knowledge does he have on people like Batman...well, spoiler alert, he knows everything and he will use it and has been using it since he first saw him.

While Onyx and Hood are on their way to take down those men Batman is in Metropolis asking Superman about his death and how he managed to come back to life.

Onyx soon understands what “taking down” truly means when it comes to Hood...they manage to get out of the warehouse just for him to grab a gun and shoot everyone on sight, which doesn’t sit well with Onyx so she tells him that, to which Hood has something to say just before he stabs her:

“Welcome to earth, baby! These dead sacks of meat on the floor made their living by beating, raping and devouring. Fear isn’t the answer.”

And I want to put as much importance into this as I did to the whole “keep kids away from this business” because it’s really important in what’s to come and the way Hood thinks is the better way to battle crime in Gotham.

That sentence alone tells us what kind of people Hood takes down, he plays judge, jury and executioner, he chooses who he kills and who is worth leaving alive if their crimes aren’t the ones that he decided must be paid with death. But it goes beyond that, he brings the fear factor… we know how batman works, he relies in criminals fearing him and the fact that they will be beaten and sent to jail or Arkham (if they are mad enough).

Here is what I believe is the fundamental difference between the fear factor used by those two, on the Bat’s side, the fear is left in the people he attacks but in Hood’s side, the fear is left in those who find the bodies.

After Hood stabs Onyx he decides to stay and chat, he tells her that he stabbed her in the shoulder because he knows it hurts and because (look at this smartass) he saw that she was “favoring one side” so he deduced that she had had an injury and teases her about maybe coming back to crime fighting a bit early...if you don’t think that’s cocky enough he then makes a comment about how the angle of the knife will make it harder for her to pull it out so, there you go, the man is well trained and knows what he is doing.

After that we get another piece of information about Hood and it’s actually given to us and Onyx by Hood himself, he says “I am no one’s son”.

Hood also shows us another character trait of his...he is a little shit. And very good at it. After he stabs Onyx “choice time” comes, basically he gives her two (three) options either he takes out the blade and she runs or he pulls the blade down from her shoulder to her hip and she bleeds out. He also says that she could maybe join him, which is revealed quite quickly to be a joke and then proceeds to take the blade out and covering the wound with a “high-end field dressing for the modern soldier. It adheres as well as closes the wound with an antibacterial adhesive agent...stops the bleeding cold”.

I wrote the whole thing word for word because I think it’s important for us to see that he saved her life, and he also didn’t let her choose he just did it, let’s think about this, Hood shows up to that meeting not expecting to see Onyx there and instead of losing his cool he just talks to her about the men, invites her to fight (his way but she didn’t know that) they make their escape and after the men are all killed by Hood she is furious so he, rather violently, completely immobilizes her so he can tell her what’s on his mind and then he gives her choices but here is what I really think...she never had choices because she is not his target, she doesn’t fit among the people that he thinks must be put down, so stabbing her came hand in hand with saving her.

Saving her just to ask her if she will “get up, fight and stop him” because he is still a cocky bastard...but surprise! Batman showed up to the party!

Hood isn’t too shaken up, in fact he uses the opportunity to make a show of his knowledge of the Bat’s thinking and his gadgets...he flatters the fact that he didn’t even hear him land and starts explaining to Onyx how the plane works, it can be stealthy or it can destroy your eardrums, then the chase ensues, B actually makes Hood fall at some point but it really doesn’t bother him, he continues to “flatter” the Bat’s technique, training and gadgets (all to fight the “malignant scum that ravage this city” Hood says) but ultimately tells him that he also has toys (that apparently he intercepted from Kord industries).

The chase turns into a fight in a rooftop, and yes my friends, this is the fight from the beginning of the story, the “you show me your face and I show you mine” fight.

Hood wants Batman to ask himself what has he done, and this I suppose is in reference to what he has done to deserve Hood coming after him. To which the Bat offers nothing but accuses Hood of being a murderer to which he answers with “No. I’ve killed, not murdered”

That confuses me, so first I will tell you what I found about the difference between killing and murdering somebody. A human kills another when it’s without intent or an accident, on the other hand when a human murders another it’s done with intent. About intent I found the following: “A person intends a consequence when they 1) foresee that it will happen if their given series of acts or omissions continue, and 2) desire it to happen.”

I don’t really know if Winick or the editors mixed the concepts of the two or if there is more to it. I honestly cannot wrap my head around it. It really doesn’t fit with what he has been saying, like the no dealing drugs to kids because if they do they will pay with their lives.

Anyway, my confusion is not what matters here, what matters is that we have arrived to the moment in which Red Hood will reveal to Batman his identity yay!

It’s Jason! Jason Todd is back from the grave!

It takes a bit of time for Bruce to come to terms with the reality of things but Jason assures him that he is who he says he is, he even suggests that Bruce has known his identity for a while and that it has been brewing in his head since Clayface.

I know, there are some things that need to be cleared up, the UtRH story is set in issues #635 (February, 2005) to #650 (April, 2006) but in a previous story (Batman: Hush) that ran from issues #608 to #619 “Jason” or better said Clayface disguised as an adult version of Jason had a fight with Batman where some old wounds were opened, this happened in issue #618 (October, 2003).

As far as we know that Jason wasn’t real and that was that, in fact we didn’t get the real events up until Red Hood: The Lost Days, a miniseries that came out in 2010, in the last issue it’s explained to us that by the time of Batman: Hush’s events Jason was already in Gotham and he was giving Hush information to mess with the Bat, and that’s all the information I have right there.

Back again to the story, Batman wants to know how Jason came back to life and he responds that he doesn’t know and doesn’t care, but he does give blood, tissue and fingerprints to Bruce so he can do some tests in the cave to prove that it’s really him, Bruce is once again being difficult saying that it still won’t make him believe but Jason knows better and tells him so.

He also says that it doesn’t matter what he is now, what matters is what Bruce is and what Jason will become. And Jason will become the kind of man Bruce would have been had he killed the Joker.

This whole conversation is very informative; Jason tells Bruce that he knows how to help Gotham because he understands the city more than Bruce. And in order to do that he will kill the Joker and those who deserve to die. This obviously doesn’t sit well with Bruce but Jason doesn’t really care what he thinks so he creates a distraction so he can leave B alone to marinate his thoughts.

It’s here at the end of chapter seven that I am going to cut the first part of the review before too long becomes way too long, so, see you in the second part!

The second part is linked here!

#red hood #jason todd #batman #under the red hood #utrh #comics #comic review #nightwing #dick grayson #gotham

31 notes · View notes

imaginariumpod · 5 years

Text

Bright Star : The visualisation of tenderness

This movie is one that I constantly revisit, the beauty and softness of it is something I want to carry with me. The soft colors, the delicateness of the moments that we see, and yet a story that moves hearts. This is the sort of stories I want to be able to tell and this is why I really wanted to write about this film.

I am just going to preface this article by saying that BRIGHT STAR (2009) directed by Jane Campion is one of my all time favorite movies and that I am going to be extremely biased in this article. Now, that this is out of the way, let’s move on to the article. Bright Star is a movie about the love story between John Keats and Fanny Brawne. But ultimately, it is a story about yearning, poetry and loss, at its core, it’s a story about love. Every shot of this movie encapsulates the tenderness and kindness which drives the story and Jane Campion’s directing. This movie is a highly romanticized version of John Keats’ life that centers Fanny and John’s romantic relationship and not necessarily on Keats’ career as a future legendary poet. The angle she chose to tell this story is a very soft and kind one, that is very empathetic toward both its main characters.

I’m going to start by placing the movie in its cultural context as well as in the cinematic industry that was prevailing in 2009 and still is today. Jane Campion is one of my favorite female directors and one I would qualify as an Auteur. Unfortunately, the cinema industry being as it is, I feel like so few women have the standing in the industry as artists that a lot of men have. Not to turn this into an interlude on the inherent inequality of the cinema world at large, but it’s easy to think of male directors that have a certain aesthetic and a recognizable way of making their movies. I’m thinking of Wes Anderson, Martin Scorsese, Quentin Tarantino, Guillermo Del Toro etc etc. For better or for worse, those cineasts are known for a certain style of works that is attributed to them . Female cineasts who get to be artists for more mainstream are very few in between, Jane Campion is one of them, but I could also name Anna Biller, Agnès Varda and Greta Gerwig. Women work at all scales of the industry and yet it feels their work is not valued enough for varied reasons. The industry doesn’t want to take A Risk (™) on a female cineast the way they do with male movie makers. The industry still has so much progress to do when it comes to centering stories made by people that aren’t straight cis white men, the films being produced for a mainstream audience are still majorly directed, produced and written by white men. You only have to see the recent award shows where the best directors nominees were all white men, despite women and people of color presenting amazing work constantly. Representation is important in what you see in the movies, non-white actors and stories featuring marginalized people, but what is also truly important as well, and I feel isn’t talked as much in the broader discourse about this subject, is how it’s important to have diversity behind the camera as well, whether it’s the director, writer, producer, crew, etc. I think we can safely say that progress was indeed made since 2009, but a female filmmaker being celebrated is still so rare to this day that i feel it’s important to remark on.

Jane Campion was still a celebrated filmmaker, despite having taken a hiatus from the film industry, and Bright Star (2009) did very well. The movie received many awards and nominations in such prestigious institutions such as Cannes or the British Independant Film Awards. Campion describes the film as more intimate than the previous ones she had made and in this regard, she is right. The way the film is shot and directed brings you closer to the characters and the story. The intimacy and the tenderness is almost overwhelming at times, she uses shots that are both very close and very near to give you a close sense of nearness and intimacy and to convey the emotions the characters are feeling, but also Campion uses a lot of very ethereal and shot. Hands brushing, butterflies flying around while one is lying on the grass, make this movie a literal visualization of soft romantic yearning.

One of the most important things to me in this movie, is how kind the narrative is toward Fanny Brawne. History hasn’t been kind to her, especially when we know that historians in general (ad im talking precisely white male cis straight historians who have been the ones to mainly write our History) have created the narrative that she was a despicable person, that she was a frivolous woman who didn't deserve to be in the vicinity of their favorite poet, simply on account of her being a woman who was more interested in clothes than rhymes and verses. and maybe she was, but on all accounts, John Keats was terribly in love with her, and she was equally in love with him. I just want to preface this by saying I would die for keats, I adoooore his poems and his writing and I have his complete works on my bedside table at this very moment.. I feel like its a very special kind of misogyny (or a very mundane one, now that I think about it) where the simple feminine presence of Fanny brawne near John Keats somehow tarnished him. The fact that she loved feminine things was a flaw that she needed to overcome for most male historians, they thought her futile and shallow, simply for the fact that she was a woman who was interested in clothes and delicate pretty things.

But more than that, she was also a skilled seamstress, she made her own clothing and was delightfully creative and hardworking, and the way Campion frames the craft of Fanny in the movie shows how valuable she thinks this skill is. Garment making is a really complex craft that requires skill and time and hardwork and to this day still isn’t valued the way it should be. So it should be no surprise that history, mostly written by male white cis historians, remembers Fanny Brawne as a vapid shallow woman who only cares about clothes. We can see that the character of Charles Brown, who will later be introduced as one close friend of Keats, is a bit of a placeholder for this sort of perspective. He constantly tries to thwart Keats and Brawne’s budding romantic relationship because he doesn’t think Keats should bother with such frivolous affairs. The movie is incredibly kind and tender in the way it showcases how craft, any craft, whether it be sewing or writing poetry, is work and a labour of love, and does not diminish the value of either to the advantage of the other.

John Keats is ofc a central part of this story. Ben Whishaw succeeds perfectly in bringing the tragic poet to life. Whishaw is perfect to play a poet who is about to die of consumption, he’s just very tragic that way. His delivery is perfect and he is the perfect casting for John Keats. (If you have the time, this reading of La belle dame sans mercI by Ben Whishaw is so delicate, beautiful and legit brings tears to my eyes ) I’m sure most of you know the story of Keats, but it’s still very tragic to think about : a poor and unsuccessful poet who died incredibly young and who never got to truly see how impactful his art would be in the future. Keats is still remembered today, but he never got the chance to enjoy the success his poetry had, years after his death. He never got to marry the woman he wanted to marry because he didn’t have the means to do it. He created beauty from his words and then died alone in Italy at just 25 years old. It never truly hit me before this year, when I did my annual rewatch of the movie, how young Keats truly was, being now 24 years old at the time of writing this article, it truly was a life that has been cut too short.

The directing of Jane Campion is very deliberate, and i think there’s a vision to this movie that is incredibly powerful and obvious. The movie’s pace is very slow, but I think sometimes we need media that just takes the time to slow down and to just enjoy the scene enfolding in front of us. I’m thinking about some scenes where you can only see Keats sitting on a chair outside. He is writing. The wind is moving through the leaves, the birds are singing in the distance, and Keats is writing. A lot of people would say that the scene is useless when it comes to moving the plot forward, and I guess i would agree, strictly speaking, that it doesn’t do much in terms of moving the plot forward, but it does set the atmosphere wonderfully. You can feel the calmness and the ethereal feeling of Keats’ poetry. Campion scatters moments like these throughout the movie, where she takes the time to slow down and get lost in the moment. It’s something that i particularly adore in media, as life constantly feels like it’s getting away from me, it reminds me to slow down and take the time to breathe.

The delicate colors of the cinematography are another aspect that I think really brings such a soft and tender dimension to the movie. The director of photography for this specific movie is Greig Fraser who also did the cinematography for such movies as Rogue One, Vice, as well Batman film starring Robert Pattinson but we aren’t talking about that atm. The colors that have been used throughout the film are very soft and soothing. Soft pinks and soft greens, as well as deep rich hues of blues and browns. There’s a haziness to this movie that very much feels like being thrown into a poem.

This wouldn't be an article written by me if there wasn't any mention of the costume design. The costume design in this movie is being taken care of by Janet Patterson, who had worked previously on other Campion’s movies (Portrait of a Lady, The Piano). The work she does here is marvelous. She manages to create such a beautiful wardrobe for each of the characters. From the colorful dresses of Fanny Brawne to the outfits of the last extra, everything is carefully thought of, and the attention to detail really stands out when you look at the clothing, from the historical research to how well the costumes fit within the realm of the BRIGHT STAR cinematic universe. John Keats’ outfits, in particular, were particularly delightful, he,s always clad in deep blues and clothes that seem worn and comfortable. Something about these darker blues just seem so melancholic compared to the rest of the costumes, especially in contrast with Fanny Brawne’s brighter dresses.

The last thing I will touch upon is the tenderness of the story in itself, despite how sadly it ends. The love story between John Keats and Fanny Brawne unfolds slowly, and then all at once. Despite all of what they go through, the love and the care they give each other is tremendous. And the times they have to be apart, you feel the yearning and longing for the other as if enveloping the scene. Having to wait for another letter, having to acknowledge that they can’t be together is heartbreaking, especially as Keats is desperately trying to do right by Fanny. They want to get married, but Keats is an unsuccessful poet who is in debt, and Fanny is from an upper middle class family and won’t be allowed to marry beneath her rank. I feel like it’s such a mundane story and yet, it feels world shattering to them, especially the last moments they share when Keats becomes ill and he has to leave for Italy to rest and try to get better, but they both know that it’s probably the last time they’ll see each other breaks me. The tenderness in each movement and each conversation they had was tinged by the heavy weight of saying goodbye one last time.

And then. The letter arrives. With the news of Keats’ death. And his fiancée cuts her hair, dons a black dress. And mourns him.

#bright star #my article #ben whishaw #bright star 2009

46 notes · View notes

batbros-before-hoes · 7 years

Text

Over the Edge

Summary: Tim Drake’s S/O (a superhero) gets pushed off the roof of Wayne Tower.

Pairing: Reader x Tim Drake/Red Robin

Warning: ANGST, death.

Author’s note: Does anyone remember the episode “Over the Edge” from The New Batman Adventures? *whispers* Because I kind of stole a page from their book, Shushhh.

Tagging: @keepjasontoddsafe @memento-scribet @crazyfangirl1810

Wayne Tower, 12:15 AM.

Time had stopped. Every passing second felt like an eternity. Your body was entirely paralyzed and your mind was completely stunned. Your hair was flowing through the air, however, you didn’t feel a damn thing. Despite your body falling at an increasing speed, you felt as though gravity had slowed down. The fall from the top of Wayne Tower was dreadful. You saw Tim plunge from the top of the 1,000 feet tall building attempting to save you. But he was too late. You were falling too quickly for him to catch up.

Wayne Manor, 7:35 PM.

“[Y/N], you look lovely!” Said Tim blissfully.

You were wearing your brand new scarlet red sweat heart neckline open back silk dress with a slit from your hip bone all the way down to the ground covering your stunning high heels. The gorgeous dress you were wearing hugged all your curves in the right places. Your outfit was complete with a lovely set of gold jewelry. Rings, bracelets and a necklace. The whole nine yards. Earlier that day in anticipation for the annual Wayne Enterprise Charity Gala, you had even gotten a manicure along with a fresh haircut and color.

“Tim, take a picture, it’ll last longer” You teased.

“My love, you know how the press is. This isn’t your first rodeo, [Y/N]. The media will be all over you this evening. They will literally take hundreds of photos. Why would I need to take a picture?” asked your boyfriend.

“As you wish, Tim. But I’m warning you, I’ll be changing out of this in a few hours. I’m not missing out on patrol for a fancy Wayne banquet.” You replied.

“If I may, Miss. [Y/L/N], I would love a picture of you and Master Drake for my personal album.” Interjected Alfred.

“Yes, of course, Alfred.” You replied kindly, before glancing at Tim, “Come closer!” you ordered nodding our head.

With his camera in and, Alfred took the picture, “On the count of three say cheese. One, two, three!”

CLICK! *Flash*

Batcave, 11:45 PM.

Tim’s eyes suddenly grew wide open as he pushed himself away from his desk, dumbfounded.

“[Y/S/N]! It’s a trap! Fallback!” Tim ordered you over the comlink in an alarmed state.

“Red Robin, what are you talking ab- “

“[Y/S/N]!” exclaimed Tim already on his bike.

Tim arrived at the top of Wayne Tower in record time. But he still wasn’t fast enough. When Red Robin swung the staircase door to the roof open he saw Scarecrow push you over the edge of the tower. Normally, falling off a building wouldn’t faze you since shooting a grappling hook was child’s play to you. However, this time, Tim knew that something felt was different. You were distraught because scarecrow had exposed you to his fear toxin inhibiting you from saving yourself.

“[Y/S/N]!]” Yelled, Tim, in agony.

In the blink of an eye, Tim knocked out cold the enemy. Without any hesitation, Red Robin leaped off the building attempting to catch you.

Wayne Tower, 1:25 AM.

The air was cold and reeked of dirty chemical plants. The sky was jet black. Think black clouds draped over the city hiding the stars and the moon. Instead, red and blue lights accompanied by blinding flashes illuminated the streets of Gotham. Sirens, cops, forensic teams and journalist could be heard from afar.

Wayne Manor, 1:25 AM.

“Breaking news.” *theme song*

“Good evening Gotham, I’m Vicki Vale reporting from Gotham news! We’re here live at the scene in front of Wayne Enterprises where the young [Y/S/N]’s body has been found. According to the GCPD, the vigilante known as [Y/S/N] has tragically been murdered by none other than Dr. Jonathan Crane otherwise known as The Scarecrow. According to our sources, the man escaped Arkham Asylum yesterday evening at around 11 PM. Stay tuned, after the break we shall reveal the true identity of the [Y/S/N]!] *theme song*

Batcave, 2 days later.

A loud ear-piercing shout echoed throughout the cave prompting the many bats to fly around vigorously squealing.

“Tim!” Called Bruce urgently.

From the second floor of the Mansion, Tim came rushing down to the cave almost matching the speedster’s pace.

“She’s waking up!” Remarked Tim in a semi-excited semi-relieved tone.

“Wha-what happened!?” You inquired anxiously sitting up in a single swift motion from the hospital bed located in the batcave with your eyes as wide as a football. Your body was trembling in terror and you were covered in sweat, “Did I get hit by an eighteen-wheeler?” you continued while rubbing your temple.

“No, but you did, however, get knocked out by The Scarecrow’s newest concoction of fear toxin and almost plunged to your death.” Explained Tim.

“You gave us quite a scare Miss. [Y/L/N].” Interposed Alfred.

“Thankfully, Red Robin was there to catch you and stop the madman.” Added Bruce.

“How about we give Master Drake and Miss. [Y/L/N] some privacy? I’m certain they both have a lot to discuss. In addition, Miss. [Y/L/N] needs to rest if she’s going to fully recover.” Suggested Alfred before exiting the cave alongside Bruce.

96 notes · View notes

ryanjdonovan · 5 years

Text

Donovan's Oscar Prognostication 2020

Pablo Picasso said, "The purpose of art is washing the dust of daily life off our souls." I'm sure all of this year's Academy Award nominees believe he was talking about them specifically. The same cannot be said, however, of this excruciatingly long and dull article. It'll put that dust right back all over your soul. So sit back, relax, pop some trucker pills, and prepared to be bored stiff with my 21st annual Oscar predictions.

BEST PICTURE:

SHOULD WIN: 1917 WILL WIN: 1917 GLORIOUSLY OMITTED: Downton Abbey INGLORIOUSLY SNUBBED: Knives Out

In a year when all the acting races were decided before New Year's, the Best Picture category may have one of the few chances for a surprise. At least three movies (or five, depending on who you ask) have a shot to win: 1917, Parasite, and Once Upon A Time… In Hollywood (plus The Irishman and Joker). But if you like to bet, the odds of 1917 taking the big prize are getting better by the day. It was in good position already, but its recent Producers Guild victory (which foretold somewhat-surprising Best Picture winners Green Book and The Shape Of Water) puts it over the top. 1917's chances are further buoyed by the preferential voting system in this category, which favors movies that are universally liked over movies that are loved by some and disliked by others. (This is how many pundits explain Green Book's surprise victory last year, which nobody seemed ecstatic about. And if you want to know the details on how the voting system works, buy me a beer sometime and I'll bore you to tears.) Oh, and 1917 may also win because it's an absolute masterpiece. So then, why might it lose? History, for one: No movie has ever won this award without having at least an acting OR editing nomination -- and 1917 has neither. Secondly, critic reviews like the one from the New Yorker: "1917, a film of patriotic bombast, has an imagination-free script filled with melodramatic coincidences that trivialize the life-and-death action by reducing it to sentiment." Wow, I bet he's a lot of fun at parties. And finally, the reason I've been hearing most often: It's a simple story of good old-fashioned bravery and triumph of the will, and in these sardonic times, people don't wanna hear that rah-rah sh#t. But ultimately, you can likely count on optimism prevailing and carrying the film to victory.

So if 1917 doesn't win, what will? Well, what kind of person are you? The cynics are picking Parasite (and I'm a cynic, so it's weird that I'm not picking it). If you want to feel like you are personally responsible for every socioeconomic injustice on the planet and at least partly accountable for several socially-motivated murders in South Korea, then this is the movie for you. The obstacles for it to overcome to win Best Picture are tough: No foreign-language film has ever won (remember Roma last year?); voters will rationalize that it's assured to take home at least one trophy anyway, for Best International Film; and the same voters that are passionate about Parasite are also passionate about Once Upon A Time, so the vote will get split. But on the other hand, in its favor: Parasite is a huge international box-office success, which Roma was not; it isn't facing the "Netflix backlash" that we all underestimated last year (i.e., "streaming movies are TV movies and TV movies shouldn’t win Oscars"); the Academy has reportedly increased its international membership to 20%; and finally, movie people friggin' LOVE it. The industry, especially actors (the largest group of voters), love the movie, love the cast, love the director. They made a movie that makes everyone feel horrified and confused and upset and exasperated, and people go bananas for them at every award ceremony. The movie has captured something unique in the zeitgeist, and that's a factor that makes things almost impossible to predict. (As for me, I liked it, but I don't know what the hell it's about or what it means. More on that later.)

The West Coasters, the hippies, and the delusional are picking Once Upon A Time… In Hollywood. But wait, what about the modern film snobs? (Hey, I'm one of those too. Very weird.) They're Quentin Tarantino's bread and butter -- aren't they picking it too? Well, they're split (and very conflicted), because they've found Parasite, which has the same kind of edge and wit that Tarantino provides, but with much more incisiveness. They quite frankly don't know what to do. Here's a hint: Whichever film the snobs say they're picking, they're lying, and are actually picking the other one. The big backers for Once Upon A Time will be the old-school, long-time, insider-y insiders. Hollywood incarnate. The Hollywood that loves to reward itself. I mean, "Hollywood" is literally in the title of the movie. In theory, that should take it far with voters. But in the end, the rollicking, intoxicating, revisionist fairy tale will probably fall just short. It's clear the actors' support of Once Upon A Time is getting funneled toward Brad Pitt. Ultimately, that means it won't be #1 on enough ballots to win Best Picture.

The old school film buffs are picking The Irishman. If you don't think any good movies have been made in the last 25 years, then this is your movie. I was as excited as anyone when this came out, and really want to love it, but it's… in a word, underwhelming. As a theater purist, I can't believe I'm saying this, but: I should have watched it on Netflix on my TV. I proudly bought tickets for a film festival screening, before they announced the run time. Three-and-a-half hours is just a long damn time (without an intermission -- what happened to those??) to sit in an uncomfortable theater. It's a marathon, literally -- many people can run 26.2 miles in less time. At home, I could have taken a break, hydrated, stretched, changed compression socks, etc. It also looks like it was filmed for TV viewing, not cinema screens, despite the staggering budget and Martin Scorsese's assertions to the contrary. The de-aging of Robert De Niro, blown up on a big screen, looks downright silly: He has the shape and movement of a very old man, with patchy, digitally smoothed areas around his eyes and black shoe polish in his hair; and the fake blue eyes just look creepy. And the scenes where the actors are obviously green-screened onto a location background are jarring and look cheap. The net effect of all that is that it distracted me enough to take me out of the movie. Honestly, on Netflix, I think I would have enjoyed and appreciated it more, and could have gotten absorbed into the story.

And like everyone anticipating The Irishman, I was salivating about finally getting the Pacino/De Niro pairing that the world has been wishing for since 1974 (not counting two scenes in Heat), and it's… sort of satisfying, I guess? (But wait… can't Disney get the Russo Brothers to make a new Godfather trilogy, where Pacino and De Niro both appear as badass Force ghosts? I'm just saying, let's not dismiss the idea out of hand until we've seen a treatment.) More than definitive opinions on The Irishman, I'm left with what-ifs: What if the movie had been made 20 years ago? What if the script had been tightened up? What if the digital effects looked good? What if John Cazale was still alive and made an appearance? What if I could have paused the movie for 60 damn seconds to make a Pop-Tart? It could have been the greatest movie of all time.

The genre fanatics and fanboys/girls (other than the Marvel acolytes) are picking Joker. It's not the obvious choice, but having the most overall nominations automatically puts Joker in the Best Picture race. It doesn't pose a realistic threat to win, but the sheer popularity of it will garner some votes. Did the world really need yet another movie about the Joker and the death of Bruce Wayne's parents? Probably not. (With Jared Leto, definitely not.) The world didn't ask for it, but we got it anyway, and it turned out to be pretty incredible. And from the least likely source: Todd Phillips, the middle-to-low-brow filmmaker behind broad comedies like Old School (one of my all-time favorites) and The Hangover. And Phillips took the most obvious but least likely approach: to tell it as an serious, realistic, dramatic origin story of a man, comprehensible but not sympathetic, unable to fit in anywhere and disturbed beyond his breaking point, set in a superpower-less world, without even a mention of Batman. The Dark Knight this ain't. I'm completely on board, but have some issues with the third act; and beyond that, I can't even formulate an opinion about the confounding yet entrancing ending. Weirdly, the film doesn't quite deliver the promise of the trailer, which is a shame. I'm not giving my Best Picture vote to Joker, but I would probably vote for the trailer for Best Short Film.

The East Coast literati are picking Marriage Story. Both Marriage Story and The Irishman are long shots, but being Netflix films makes their odds even longer. The streamer tried more a palatable release strategy than it had for Roma; it gave these films month-long theatrical runs before putting them online. But we know from experience that the Academy is wary of crowning a Netflix film as Best Picture. Marriage Story is a fantastic, brainy, wrenching film, to be sure (sprinkled with lighter notes of life's absurd realities to keep the weight of it bearable), but I have a big issue with it: believability. Not that the couple is getting divorced, but that Scarlett Johansson would marry that clown Adam Driver to begin with.

And don't get me started with the kid in Marriage Story. I'm still waiting for the movie that shows a home that looks like children actually live there. If you've ever been to planet Earth, you know that homes with kids look like they've been taken over by raccoons… who are hoarders… with unlimited access to Amazon Prime. If movies were realistic, you wouldn't be able to see counter tops, rugs, tops of dining room tables, or clear paths to children's closets. The homes would basically all look like Grey Gardens. Where are the stalagmites of spilled cereal calcified to the floor? Where are the brand new books that already look like they've been attacked by hyenas? Where are the single, unmatched socks tossed in every conceivable location except a hamper? Where is the rotten food buried under piles of Legos? Where are the magic marker doodles on the screen of the iPad? Where is the foul diaper stench that is obvious to everyone except the parents? Where is the tinkle sprayed everywhere EXCEPT the inside of the toilet? Where is the pacifier stuck in the chandelier? Where are the footprints on the INSIDE of the roof of the car? Where are the crumpled up art projects from school that nobody gives a damn about? If most families' homes were ransacked by the Home Alone robbers, the parents literally wouldn't notice the difference.

And come to think of it… what kind of kid doesn't bite, scratch, talk back, throw food, scream for no reason, call anyone an a-hole, melt down over Minecraft, or tell his parents in a sweet voice, "You're not on the Naughty List… because you're on the Stupid List"? This boy in Marriage Story never even once tells his mom or dad that they are ruining his life (even though they kind of are). So, is there anything in the movie I could relate to? Well, maybe arguing with your child about Halloween costumes? I mean, you come up with an amazing group Halloween costume, and you've gotten explicit agreement from your children, and then the kids change their minds the day before and refuse to participate and want to wear something dumb instead and totally ruin the whole thing, ruin the whole holiday, hell, ruin the whole year. WHY CAN'T YOU JUST STICK TO MY AMAZING PLAN?? Nope, nothing I can relate to.

As for the remaining nominees… The book clubs are picking Little Women. The comedy fans and Hitler impersonators are picking Jojo Rabbit. Gearheads (especially Ferrari Club members that don't own Ferraris) are picking Ford V Ferrari. None stand a chance in this category.

Everybody else is picking 1917. Here are my estimations for each of the contenders winning Best Picture: 1917 - 60%, Parasite - 25%, Once Upon A Time - 11%, Irishman - 2%, Joker - 2%. Bet on it.

BEST ACTOR:

SHOULD WIN: Joaquin Phoenix (Joker) WILL WIN: Joaquin Phoenix (Joker) GLORIOUSLY OMITTED: Robert De Niro (The Irishman) INGLORIOUSLY SNUBBED: George MacKay (1917)

I'm sorry, I need to get this out of the way right off the bat: Adam Driver is a total waste of time, in Marriage Story or anything else.

Joaquin Phoenix is going to win the Oscar, and I couldn't be more conflicted. His support is strong with the Academy, but it's not without some trepidation. From a career perspective, he makes a lot of sense for voters: With his fourth nomination (plus a couple of narrow misses), people feel he's due; it's one of Phoenix's most transformative and immersive roles; with the boffo box office and impact on popular culture (and potential sequels), it will remain in the consciousness for years; Leonardo DiCaprio already has an Oscar; and the other nominees are de facto also-rans. As much as it pains me to say it, Phoenix deserves it. With films like this, Walk The Line, and Her, I begrudgingly admit that he can be, on occasion, phenomenal; and other times, he makes I'm Still Here. As for his secretive process for the Joker, he dropped a big hint when he said, "My significant other right now is myself, which is what happens when you suffer from multiple personality disorder and self-obsession." That would do it.

And of course, there is the inevitable Heath Ledger vs. Joaquin Phoenix debate, which will annoyingly factor into voting. When Phoenix matches Ledger with an Oscar victory, what happens to the argument? It's an unsolvable puzzle that the Joker himself would love. Here's the real question: What if their situations were reversed? If Phoenix's performance was first and had died right after, while Ledger's portrayal came along 10 years later and he was still living? It's easy: Phoenix's performance would be considered superior, hands down. And I'm not so sure Ledger would have won the Oscar. (Cue the readership rage.)

It's a meme come true! The internet got its wish when Jonathan Pryce was cast as his papal doppelganger, Pope Francis, in The Two Popes. (Look up the comparisons from when Francis was elected in 2013.) He's the least likely nominee to win, but I was close to choosing him as my personal pick. He's mesmerizing as a soft-spoken yet opinionated cardinal (not yet the pope) at odds with Anthony Hopkins' Pope Benedict XVI, in the days leading up to Benedict's resignation. He's a man dealing with internal and external crises of character and church, but to his credit, Pryce does not externalize it into an emotional performance. It's measured, and funny, and feels real. (The Welshman's Argentinian accent, however, is… rough. And while he tried to learn some Spanish for the role, most of his Spanish dialogue was dubbed by a native speaker, and it's glaringly obvious.) After spending most of his career playing a slight variation on the same meek everyman (which made him the least-threatening Bond villain of all time), his roles recently have been the best, juiciest, and most versatile of his career. (By the way, how did I miss the fact that Phoenix played Jesus Christ in a movie in 2018? Get these Best Actor nominees together, and the casting for the inevitable Two Popes sequel is already done.)

Pryce and Antonio Banderas are two of the nicest surprises of the awards season. They're both a couple of prolific, reliable vets who have never really been Oscar-fare guys, and aren't exactly drawing the attention they once were. It's really refreshing to see them both get some career-validating recognition with their first nominations. Heading into nomination day, I assumed only one (or neither) would get nominated, so I was thrilled to see them both chosen over more conventional (and more decorated) nominees. (And, it freed up my Snubbed award.) Banderas's character in Pain And Glory is an understated, nuanced performance, as his recent Spanish roles tend to be, but not typical compared to the more bombastic roles we're used to seeing him play in the U.S. It's perfect for the film, itself an introspective, personal story from Pedro Almodóvar, uncharacteristically simpler than the films he's most known for. Decades after he should have racked up all the awards for the brilliant Desperado, Banderas is finally going to the Oscars. And Antonio… bring your guitar.

I'm getting soft. I'm becoming numb to my dislike of Leonardo DiCaprio. He almost doesn't single-handedly ruin movies for me anymore. He's been in enough great movies (and actually been decent in a few of them), that I hardly even roll my eyes in annoyance at the mere sight of him at this point. Case in point: Once Upon A Time... In Hollywood. He's there. He's fine. He has two commendable scenes, and several other dynamic ones with the rest of the cast. That's it. The movie is good, but I can't help but feel it would be better with someone else. (Ditto Brad Pitt.)

As blasphemous as it sounds, I'm going to say it: I think Robert De Niro needs to hang it up. It's almost getting too painful to watch. Between The Irishman and Joker, he managed to sweep my Gloriously Omitted awards this year, which is no easy feat. He just looks so inert in damn near every scene in The Irishman. He's misguidedly supposed to play a much younger man through most of the movie, and you want to picture Johnny Boy or Jake La Motta or even Jimmy Conway, but instead you're seeing… Abe Vigoda. I’m putting him in the same Time To Retire category as Harrison Ford (I mean, in his upcoming movie The Call Of The Wild, it looks like the only co-star they could get for Ford is a badly-CGI'd dog). I would have also put Nick Nolte in this category, but he's redeemed himself with The Mandalorian. I have spoken.

There are a lot of actors in the running for my Snubbed pick this year: Eddie Murphy in Dolemite Is My Name, Roman Griffin Davis in Jojo Rabbit, Himesh Patel in Yesterday, Paul Walter Hauser in Richard Jewell. But ultimately, I'm going with George MacKay in 1917. For all the talk of technical and directorial accomplishments, MacKay carries the film on his shoulders. The movie simply doesn't work if he's not fantastic.

BEST ACTRESS:

SHOULD WIN: Renée Zellweger (Judy) WILL WIN: Renée Zellweger (Judy) GLORIOUSLY OMITTED: Taylor Swift (Cats) INGLORIOUSLY SNUBBED: Awkwafina (The Farewell)

Somewhere over the rainbow, Judy Davis is unimpressed… but Renée Zellweger is going to skip away with the Oscar for Judy. Every so often, a role comes along where the performer is so spot-on that they win the Oscar based on the movie's preview alone, before the movie even comes out, months before award season (like Daniel Day-Lewis in Lincoln, Helen Mirren in The Queen, Mo'Nique in Precious, Gary Oldman in Darkest Hour, or Jamie Foxx in Ray). When the Judy trailer debuted, everyone who matters (myself included) watched her clang-clang-clang with tipsy grandeur in a gilded pantsuit and half-inch eyelashes -- the Judy-est damned Judy Garland you ever saw -- and instantly said, "Yep, that's it." Throw in the fact that it's an emotional story about a beloved and tragic Hollywood icon, plus Zellweger's overexaggerated-yet-oddly-appealing comeback narrative, and the race was over before it began. The real question is whether it will break the record for Most Oscar Votes Submitted By People Who Didn't Even Watch The Movie. (The current record-holder is Meryl Streep in The Iron Lady.) In fact, I think the only Academy member who's actually watched the film is Liza Minnelli.

The only contender here that's going to pull any votes from Zellweger is Charlize Theron, for her universally lauded role in the divisively polarizing film Bombshell. Theron is riding a late-breaking wave of acclaim, has consistently matched Zellweger nomination-for-nomination, and has many critics trumpeting this as her best work. Further helping her cause, Zellweger already has an Oscar (for Cold Mountain), so she's not getting any lifetime-achievement votes. If Theron herself had not already won (for Monster), she might actually be in the running. But let's face it, even in her best hair and heels, Megyn Kelly just isn't going to compete with Judy Garland, whether it's on the screen, in a drag show, or at the Oscars.

It's almost a shame that Zellweger has been such a wire-to-wire favorite, because Scarlett Johansson is absolutely remarkable in Marriage Story. If I had a seat in the Academy, I would know that intellectually I needed to vote for Zellweger… but I would probably vote for Johansson anyway. I've never seen her so grounded, endearing, and, frankly, repellent. Her task is daunting: Beyond playing a woman slowly being torn apart at the seams during a divorce, she has to be flawed, supportive, tough, loving, conniving, sympathetic, perplexed, hurt, supportive, lovely, guarded, longing, angry, nurturing, vicious, unglamorous… and most of all, able to elicit empathy from the audience -- all without smiling, AND with shorter hair than Adam Driver. Johansson has long been considered a talented and strong screen presence, but as recently as Avengers last summer, nobody was touting her as an Oscar-caliber actress. And of course, now she has not one but two nominations (with her supporting turn in Jojo Rabbit). It's a nice payoff on the promise we saw early in her adult career, before the rom-coms and superhero flicks, boasting films like Ghost World, Lost In Translation, and Girl With A Pearl Earring. So, she won't win here, but there's always next year… Is it too much to hope that her upcoming Black Widow origin story, besides ass-kicking and acrobatics, includes a messy divorce, a nasty custody battle, World War II drama, and maybe even an imaginary Nazi?

I was glad to see Cynthia Erivo nominated for her titular role in Harriet, but I honestly thought she'd be more of a threat here. When this project about legendary heroine Harriet Tubman was announced, starring a Broadway headliner, it figured to be a favorite for Best Picture and a shoo-in for Best Actress. I penciled her in for my Nomination Locks immediately. The film debuted to strong buzz, but as the season went on, and other films and performances dominated the scene, the buzz quieted. The film missed out on most accolades, and while Erivo managed some key nominations, she missed out on a few others, casting her Oscar nomination in doubt. A lesser prognosticator may have been surprised when her name was called on Nomination Morn, but I never wavered. Am I just as confident that she will prevail at the ceremony? Well… If she does in fact win (for Actress or Original Song), the erstwhile Color Purple star will make some interesting history: the youngest person to achieve an EGOT (Emmy, Grammy, Oscar, Tony), and in the shortest amount of time (five years). And if she doesn't win, is it too soon to hope for another Harriet Tubman movie, based on the 30 Rock episode, directed by Tracy Morgan, starring a completely crazy Octavia Spencer?

Probably the least surprising name in the mix this year (or any year) is the one almost no Americans can pronounce: Saoirse Ronan. With her fourth nomination at the ripe old age of 25, we can pretty much count on an awards contender (or a Timothée Chalamet collaboration, or both) pretty much every year for the foreseeable future. Her nomination for Little Women seemed inevitable, even when she missed out on a Screen Actors Guild nod. This isn't her year, but when she hits nomination number five, it's going to start getting really hard not to give it to her… at the washed-up lifetime-achievement age of, you know, 26.

Awkwafina is my clear pick for Ingloriously Snubbed this year, for her surprising, powerful, and grounded turn in The Farewell. Other welcome inclusions would have been Lupita Nyong'o in Us, Alfre Woodard in Clemency, and Ana de Armas in Knives Out.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR:

SHOULD WIN: Anthony Hopkins (The Two Popes) WILL WIN: Brad Pitt (Once Upon A Time... In Hollywood) GLORIOUSLY OMITTED: Robert De Niro (Joker) INGLORIOUSLY SNUBBED: Willem Dafoe (The Lighthouse)

Well, my #AnybodyButBrad campaign is not going well. This is a category of absolute legends, and Brad Pitt is who we're picking?? It's frankly insulting. And you people (yes, you all!) are enabling this. I'm sorry, smiling is not acting. He had two good (okay, fantastic) scenes in Once Upon A Time... In Hollywood. But that was all. And we can agree, he's been a lot better in a lot of other movies. Part of the push is that he's the only nominee who hasn't won an Oscar for acting, so… we should reward him for being the least talented actor in the group? (By the way, he actually does have an Oscar, for producing 12 Years A Slave; but let's be honest, all he probably did was lend his name to secure meetings and woo financiers.) It's clear to me now that everyone is insane except me. You can make any argument you want for Once Upon A Time, but for me it comes down to this: I don't want to live in a world where Brad Pitt can beat up Bruce Lee.

The statistics and history with this group of nominated actors are fascinating (to me, but probably nobody else). The group (Tom Hanks, Anthony Hopkins, Al Pacino, Joe Pesci, Pitt) collectively boasts 30 nominations and six wins. Aside from Pitt, the last time any of these heavyweights was nominated was 2001, and the last victory was Hanks in Forrest Gump a quarter of a century ago. (As I'm typing this, I’m painfully realizing that some younger readers have probably never heard of these actors.) Pacino achieved his ninth nomination this year (his first in 27 years), putting him in third place for most male acting nominations; only Jack Nicholson (12) and Laurence Olivier (10) scored more. And if he wins, he'll have won in both Lead and Supporting Actor categories, joining a short list of nobodies with names like Lemmon, Washington, Hackman, and De Niro. (And it's worth nothing, lest any of these young whippersnappers get too impressed with their haul of nominations, that 87-year-old composer John Williams has almost double the nominations that the group has combined, having notched his 52nd nomination -- the most for any living person -- for scoring the latest Star Wars movie.)

I'm casting my dissenting vote for Anthony Hopkins, the longest odds to actually win. We take his thespian prowess for granted, and as a result I think we forget how amazing he actually is. In The Two Popes, as Pope Benedict XVI, he's unequivocally at the top of his game. His accent is iffy, but his characterization and physicality are remarkable. And his papal odd-couple pairing with Jonathan Pryce is a match made in… well, you know. Their scenes together are absolutely electric, especially their initial sit-down scene in the garden. Ostensibly, it's just two old men talking, but really, it's so much more; we SEE them quarrelling, debating, poking, out-witting, insulting, joking, and one-upping, but we FEEL them jousting, swiping, dancing, circling, assessing, piercing, and wounding. It's an exhausting prize fight, and they literally never touch. Maybe it's because he knows he has no shot at winning, but Hopkins isn't exactly wooing voters by demystifying his acting technique: "I don't research. It wasn’t difficult for me to play old because I am old. Acting for me has become dead easy. It’s not brain surgery." Tips from the master.

My favorite nomination here belongs to Joe Pesci for The Irishman. Considering he came out of a 20-year retirement to do the film, and totally nails the character, it's a wonderful capper to his career. It's intriguing to look back at his career with some perspective. He became kind of ubiquitous for being Joe Pesci (or for the public's perception of Joe Pesci), but he was actually in a remarkably small number of movies. And despite his career not taking off until he was in his late 40s, he became one of the most impressive actors of his generation. Even if you discount Raging Bull in 1981, he had an astonishing run of movies from 1989 to 1995, which included: Lethal Weapon 2, Goodfellas, Home Alone, JFK, My Cousin Vinny, A Bronx Tale, and Casino. He literally made a classic every year. And Goodfellas and Home Alone, two of the most iconic films of all time, were released a mere month apart in 1990. Then, only nine years into his hot streak, after Lethal Weapon 4 in 1998, he retired. (Though honestly, EVERYONE involved in Lethal Weapon 4 probably should have retired.) It's nice to see him one more time, reunited with a legendary director, putting a new twist on the old Joe. The things you do for money (and Scorsese).

Al Pacino is nominated for playing Jimmy Hoffa in The Irishman, and for being Al Pacino. I wouldn't pick him to win, but I’m on board with the nomination. Given his age, he should be playing Hoffa's father, but at least he, unlike Robert De Niro, looks like he's having fun in the movie. For my money, Nicholson was more convincing in looks and demeanor in his (nomination-less) portrayal of the legendary teamster boss in the 1992 film Hoffa, but Pacino makes up for it in charisma. Though I suppose it could have used at least one "Hoo-AAAAH!"

Tom Hanks is back in the mix for A Beautiful Day In The Neighborhood, now that he only portrays real-life celebrities in movies. After playing Captain Sully and Walt Disney, I guess the only sunnier and squeakier role left was Mr. Rogers. I realize he's getting loads of acclaim for this part, but I have a hard time buying him in these non-fiction roles. He's become a person so famous for disappearing into characters that he can no longer disappear into the character of a famous person. I don’t know who he can possibly play after this; unless they make a movie about Tom Hanks, he might be forced to retire.

I'm sorry, how is Willem Dafoe not winning his first Oscar for his totally bonkers role in The Lighthouse? How is he not even nominated? He's crazy, the premise is crazy, the camerawork is crazy, the, uh, mermaid parts are crazy, the whole movie's crazy, you're crazy, I'm crazy, the entire world is crazy. A couple other roles I was cheering for (which were a lot less likely, but not much less crazy): Wesley Snipes for Dolemite Is My Name and Ray Liotta for Marriage Story. Both of them were borderline certifiable, and pretty much exactly how I would hope they would be in real life.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS:

SHOULD WIN: Kathy Bates (Richard Jewell) WILL WIN: Laura Dern (Marriage Story) GLORIOUSLY OMITTED: Anna Paquin (The Irishman) INGLORIOUSLY SNUBBED: Jennifer Lopez (Hustlers)

After sweeping the awards circuit, it's clear that Laura Dern will win by a landslide for her role in Marriage Story… but I'm still trying to figure out exactly why. There's no denying she's great -- it's a fun, sharp, duplicitous turn. Her character is a viper in stilettos, and she leans into it. But she just seemed like Laura Dern, if Laura Dern had a penchant for using legal jargon, manipulating old men, and putting the screws to soon-to-be-unmarried fathers. Basically, divorce lawyer Laura Dern looks and sounds a lot like talk-show guest Laura Dern. In her defense, I will say she complemented the other actors, and led a cast of spectacularly over-the-top supporting players, including Julie Hagerty, Merritt Wever, Alan Alda, Martha Kelly, and Ray Liotta. It helps that she's on a hot streak of prestige TV shows, Little Women, an upcoming return to the Jurassic Park franchise, and of course, Star Wars (I still don't understand why a droid couldn't have piloted her suicide mission; I mean, C-3PO was standing right there until he quietly backed away, but whatever). The only Oscar justification I've heard from insiders is, "It's her time." Compelling. But I guess this year that's good enough.

Why not Kathy Bates, for her role in Richard Jewell? It's possibly her best deep-south, wigged-out, overprotective mama bear role since The Waterboy. On second thought… can we just give her an honorary Oscar for The Waterboy?

While I’m stumping for Scarlett Johansson in Marriage Story, I'm not quite as high on her nomination for Jojo Rabbit. It's a refreshing characterization to be sure, veering opposite the obvious saccharine choices she could have made for the role, portraying a mother trying to raise her son and make some sense (and jokes) out of life in wartime Nazi Germany. However, I can confidently say that her nomination is more for the pivotal impact her character has on the movie, rather than the performance itself. But all things considered, with two nominations, the highest grossing movie of all time, a Captain Marvel cameo, a trailer for her own superhero movie, and (yet another) engagement, she's had quite a year.

I thought Margot Robbie might have a tough time scoring a nomination this year; it seemed like strong campaigns for Bombshell and Once Upon A Time... In Hollywood might cannibalize each other and cancel each other out. (She actually managed to score BAFTA nominations for both, but Oscar rules preclude actors from being nominated multiple times in the same category.) The meatier role in Bombshell won out, but any role would lose to Dern overall.

You had to figure someone from the supporting cast of Little Women would get a nomination here, whether it was Florence Pugh, Emma Watson, or Meryl What's-her-face. Meryl never stood a chance.

The person I would probably vote for is the one person everyone expected to be here and is also the one person who isn't here. I am personally bummed for Jennifer Lopez. I think it's easy to forget what a fantastic, dynamic actress Lopez was, early in her career, before J.Lo and Jenny From The Block and celebrity marriages and pop-stardom and brutal rom-coms and Super Bowl halftime shows and all the Razzies (so many Razzie nominations - 10 of them!). Back in films like Selena and Out Of Sight, she was the real deal. And even through the Razzie years, she has always been a smart actress with abundant charisma. So a nomination for Hustlers would have been nice validation for a long, productive, far-from-dull (and far-from-over) career. And, by the way, she's outstanding in the film. It's exactly the right role (acting and producing) at the right time in her career (and it also helps that she's effectively ageless). The film was a bit of a gamble: a "gangster" film about female strippers that has more in common with Goodfellas than Showgirls. The film basically dares audiences to root for the "bad guys" when they are women, and dares critics to praise a movie as "cool" when it's driven by women committing crimes and manipulating people. (A quick scan of the 'greatest films of all time' reminds us that we've been doing both for men for a century.) And of course, the gamble paid off in spades. A nomination would have been icing on the cake. My gut tells me conspiracy… How many of her exes are voting members of the Academy, anyway? (Looking at you, Ben.)

Honorable mentions for the Snubbed Choice: Annette Bening for The Report and Lily James for Yesterday. I really thought Bening would challenge for the prize, which would have been her (overdue) first, but her campaign never really caught on. And James de-glammed (slightly) to play the heart (to Himesh Patel's soul) in the Beatles love letter.

BEST DIRECTOR:

SHOULD WIN: Sam Mendes (1917) WILL WIN: Sam Mendes (1917) GLORIOUSLY OMITTED: Tom Hooper (Cats) INGLORIOUSLY SNUBBED: Rian Johnson (Knives Out)

This category could be ripe for an upset… by pretty much anyone. All indictors point to Sam Mendes being a lock for 1917: He won the Director's Guild Award (the most accurate predictor of any award in any category), he also won all the other lead-up awards, and everyone pretty much agrees his film was the most technically challenging of the bunch. And I've got to say, the praise is warranted. It's an emotional, visceral, non-stop assault, in the best possible way. Of course, much of the credit goes to cinematographer Roger Deakins. But Mendes's meticulous planning of every single camera move and unbroken continuity thrusts the viewer, almost unwillingly, into the dizzying melee, physically and mentally. The Oscar is rightfully his. But still, there is some doubt. He's already got an Oscar (for American Beauty), and this is only his second directing nomination. Given the company in this category, is it right that he go two-for-two? Is he as great as Martin Scorsese or as influential as Quentin Tarantino? And he's only directed eight feature-length films in his entire career, so isn't he just plain lazy? On top of all that, he got to direct the James Bond films that Tarantino always wanted to. I mean, is any of that fair?

I think Bong Joon Ho stands the best chance of pulling off an upset, especially if there's a Picture/Director split. He was a long-shot early in the race, but he's quickly gaining ground, and there's an X-factor here that can't be quantified: He seems to have tapped into something that people keep talking about (the film shot up IMDB's all-time Top Rated Movies list almost instantly), his film is becoming more of a global phenomenon by the day, he and his cast have charmed at all the festivals and award shows, and people in the industry are flat-out rooting for him. And while Mendes, Tarantino, and Martin Scorsese already have Oscars, he's a first-time nominee who has been adored by critics for years (I mean, who doesn't love a good sledgehammer-shattering-a-frozen-arm scene?). But the big thing that will thwart his bid is the splitting of the "cool" vote: Many of the people that want to vote for Bong also want to vote for….

…Quentin Tarantino, who also has a real shot with Once Upon A Time... In Hollywood, and it has more to do with legacy than his film. He has two Oscars, but they're both for screenwriting (and he may have a third before the night is over); he does not have a statuette for directing. The big question in everyone's mind is: Will history look favorably on the Academy if Tarantino -- thought by many to be one of the most influential (if not one of the flat-out greatest) directors of his generation -- never wins a Best Director Oscar? Tarantino has shrewdly said that he's only planning to make one more movie before he retires (and it may be a Star Trek flick). To voters, that means: The clock is ticking, and this might be the last chance to bestow the honor. While I don't think that sentiment will carry a victory, it will undoubtedly be a factor. For my personal choice, as is often the case, this comes down to Who Do I Think DESERVES To Win vs. Who Do I WANT To Win? No question, I think Mendes deserves to win… buuuuut, I'm rooting for Tarantino. If he had simply won for Pulp Fiction (which will likely hold up as his most revered film 50 years from now), we wouldn't be in this mess.

You also can't quite count out Martin Scorsese, for The Irishman. His ninth Best Director nomination pushes him past Billy Wilder for second-most all time (William Wyler leads with 12). A win would be shocking, but then again, if you took a poll of cinephiles and asked who is more deserving of two career Oscars, Scorsese or Mendes, the vote would probably be unanimous for Scorsese. Early on, it looked like the race was his to lose, when his film debuted for a short theatrical run, and critics and devotees rhapsodized about a definitive masterwork (well, those who stayed awake, anyway). But once the film hit the masses on Netflix, and every-day account leeches were less enthusiastic, Scorsese slipped back into the middle of the pack.

I can't help but wonder, will Scorsese's "controversial" comments about superhero movies not being cinema cost him votes? I mean, people really freaked out about that, and both the internet and legitimate Hollywood players clapped back loudly. Give me a break. I don't necessarily agree with him, but let the man talk. He was off-handedly asked his opinion about Marvel movies in an interview (along with a lot of other topics), and he simply replied. And people went bananas. It's not like he's out on Twitter trolling people or inserting his opinion where it's not invited. He is unquestionably one of the greatest filmmakers of all time, and also one of the greatest film historians of all time. I'd be willing to say that no single person on the planet knows cinema better than he does, and perhaps nobody alive has left a bigger imprint on cinema than he has. I think the man has earned the right to have an opinion on the subject. If Scorsese wants to tell me that home videos of my kids on my phone lack substance, stakes, and three-dimensional characters, I'd say he's well within his right. So before writing an aggrieved blog post attacking him, I would think twice about whether I was even qualified to make the argument. (But since I'm ALSO one of the preeminent minds on cinema, I am certainly qualified to shout my opinion and slam anyone I want online. Oh, hey, look, I just wrote an article doing exactly that.)

And as far-fetched as it seems, Todd Phillips is also in the mix, for Joker. The film surprisingly has the most nominations, with 11. That momentum often carries over into unexpected categories. I never really thought of Phillips as a visual storyteller or a master of tone, but with Joker he's a revelation. In a year where the Joker is the hero, I guess anything is possible.

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY:

SHOULD WIN: Rian Johnson (Knives Out) WILL WIN: Quentin Tarantino (Once Upon A Time... In Hollywood) GLORIOUSLY OMITTED: Julian Fellowes (Downton Abbey) INGLORIOUSLY SNUBBED: M. Night Shyamalan (Glass)

Might we see a tie for Original Screenplay? It looks like a dead heat between Quentin Tarantino (Once Upon A Time... In Hollywood) and Bong Joon Ho and Jin Won Han (Parasite). And we don't have the benefit of the Writers Guild Award to tip us off: Parasite won the trophy, but Tarantino famously does not belong to the WGA, and therefore is not eligible for their prize. In the last couple days, most of the respected pundits have switched their prediction to Parasite, but this disrespected pundit is sticking to Once Upon A Time. (And I already have a bad feeling about it.)

We're all in this together, and we're all screwed: That's what Parasite is saying. At least, that's what I think it's saying. Or could be saying. Or maybe, isn't saying. Okay, I have no idea. And anybody that says they know exactly what Parasite is about is lying. Nobody knows. I'm telling you, you don't know! And I think that may be part of the point, from the little I've been able to cobble together from writer/director Bong and co-writer Jin. What can we even call this thing that they have created? A parable? Metaphor? Satire? Allegory? All of the above? If there's a lesson, I have no idea what it is, and I'm not sure there is one. Bong gives us a hint in the final, pessimistic shot; but he's also said, somewhat paradoxically, that he prefers action to inaction. At face value, I think Bong is articulating in the film: I see difficult things in society, in the world, between people, and this story is figuratively how awful they make me feel -- the visual embodiment of the pathos. To me that's valid (if the story is not taken literally), and potentially powerful. The film certainly gives me anxiety, and makes me more anxious the more I think about it, especially because most of it could have been easily avoided by characters making different decisions. (In fact, I'm getting anxious right now just writing about it.) I'm also bothered by the fact that it's easier to point out problems than offer realistic solutions, and other than violence (which I don't think Bong is endorsing), there are no readily-identifiable solutions. Something I keep coming back to: The film seems to dare you to find guilt or choose a side, and by doing so, it seems you might actually be tricked into endorsing a guilty party and condemning yourself. If that's the case, what is this thing they've created? A trap.

Almost no readers get this far in my article, so I'm not too worried about giving away spoilers. But if by the grace of god you are still reading, and you haven't seen 1917, SPOILERS AHEAD: SKIP TO THE NEXT PARAGRAPH. Screenplay is widely considered the weakest element of 1917, and is the one award that the film definitely won't win. Its script is seen by many as a mere blueprint for the mechanics of the camera, and undoubtedly tells a simple story, but I honestly don't think Sam Mendes and Krysty Wilson-Cairns get enough credit for it. I can't help but wonder, is the story any better if my theory on the ending is correct? SPOILER: First of all, my theory is totally wrong. I've found absolutely no evidence supporting it online, from critics, or from people who have seen the movie, and my tweets to Mendes have gone sadly unanswered and un-re-tweeted. But I'm sticking to it! In the final shot, the soldier walks away from the army hospital, and sits down at a tree; the camera pans around 180 degrees to show his face and what's behind him… which is nothing. No army hospital anymore. Just an empty field. So… is he really there? Is he dead? Does he die when he encounters the sniper and the screen goes black, and never awakens from unconsciousness? Are all the remaining characters, who appear in a foggy, dream-like nightscape, just projections as he journeys to the afterlife? Are his wife and child also already dead? Is that what her inscription, "Come back to us," really suggests? Yes? Yes? No?? Ah, the hell with you people.

The script for Noah Baumbach's Marriage Story (a totally fictional "personal" story focused on a New York writer that is totally not at all based, like, at all, on his totally-coincidental divorce from actress Jennifer Jason Leigh; again, no parallels whatsoever) is somewhat about the end of a marriage, but mostly about dialogue. The ostentatious wordiness is what makes it endearing and scathing and clever, but is at times also a hinderance and a little too clever. It's no surprise; after all, Baumbach is a graduate of the esteemed Wes Anderson School Of Stylized Dialogue. Don't writers know that writers don't talk the way they write? Half of it feels real, and the other half feels cutesy and New York writer-y. (I prefer Midwestern writer-y, where they take ten times as long as necessary to make a simple point. In other words, they make the same point again and again without adding anything valuable. Multiple times.)

It's hard not to watch Marriage Story without thinking Adam Driver is Kylo Ren without a helmet (he was just as whiny, self-absorbed, and immature as his Star Wars counterpart). Come to think of it, I think I'd rather see this movie with Driver as Kylo Ren and Scarlett Johansson as her Avengers character Black Widow. That dude would never stand a chance. Imagine it…

STAR WARS: EPISODE X - MARRIAGE ENDGAME Kylo Ren is sulking on a Star Destroyer, considering ending his marriage. The Avengers helicarrier lands. Black Widow jumps out. KYLO REN (tears in eyes): I know what I have to do, but I don't know if I have the strength to do it. Black Widow unsheathes a katana sword and swiftly cuts off Ren's head. She licks the blade. BLACK WIDOW: Consider that a divorce. FADE OUT.

(If you like that, you'll love my other Star Wars script, Millennial Falcon: It's the story of a spaceship that doesn't want to jump to hyperspace because that's not really its passion, expects to be able to make the Kessel Run in 12 parsecs without any hard work, and prefers to be called just "Falcon" because it doesn't believe in labels. "May the Force be with you." "Okay, boomer.")

Rian Johnson's Knives Out is the least likely to win, but is my personal favorite. Incredible movie, incredible cast, incredible direction, incredible cinematography… but most of all, incredible script. It's cool to see the accolades for Johnson after making slick, underappreciated films like Brick and Looper. (And it almost makes me want to forgive him for his mess of Star Wars: The Last Jedi. Almost.)

With my snubbed choice, I'm going with a curveball… Glass, from M. Night Shyamalan. The capper in the Unbreakable Trilogy, the film is a lot better than the critical reviews and January dumping-ground release date would lead you to believe. It's a fascinating, slick, melancholy resolution to a film series that was ahead of its time. (Go back and watch Unbreakable, and see how much of the "reality-based" comic-book/superhero craze it presaged.) As smart as it is, it unfortunately lacks charisma and fun, so it's probably too heavy for what audiences expected from a PG-13 superhero flick. But I'm sticking up for it, all the way to the Oscars. (Other worthy original scripts include The Farewell by Lulu Wang, Us by Jordan Peele, and Yesterday by Jack Bart and Richard Curtis.)

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY:

SHOULD WIN: Taika Waititi (Jojo Rabbit) WILL WIN: Taika Waititi (Jojo Rabbit) GLORIOUSLY OMITTED: Jeff Nathanson (The Lion King) INGLORIOUSLY SNUBBED: Christopher Markus, Stephen McFeely (Avengers: Endgame)

With the top three candidates for Picture and Director duking it out in the Original Screenplay category, Adapted Screenplay is open for someone else to pick up a prize. But who? It's going to be close between Taika Waititi for Jojo Rabbit and Greta Gerwig for Little Women. Waititi's win at the Writers Guild Awards would seem to tip the scales heavily in his favor. However, the WGA was just voting on screenplay, while the Academy is notorious for compensating across categories, and will give Gerwig plenty of votes for her Best Director snub. A week ago, I would have predicted a win for Gerwig. But in a tight race like this, history tells us to follow the guilds. So I'll go with Waititi by a (Hitler) mustache.

And in case you hadn't noticed, Waititi is everywhere. Besides being a quadruple threat (writing, directing, co-starring, producing) for Jojo Rabbit, in the past year he directed and did a voice for Star Wars: The Mandalorian (which was arguably better than the actual Star Wars movie that came out), wrote/directed/produced the cult hit show What We Do In The Shadows, and was a significant contributor to a little movie called Avengers: Endgame. In his spare time, he's lined up creative roles in more Marvel movies and TV shows, the DC Universe, a new Time Bandits, and (if the rumors are to be believed) a new Star Wars movie. Oh, and he was nominated for a couple Oscars. (Fun fact: These are not his first; he was previously nominated for a short film called Two Cars, One Night in 2005.) He's got my vote for Adapted Screenplay for Jojo Rabbit. Gerwig deserves the praise for her updated take on Little Women, but that film has been re-made over a dozen times (as recently as 2018), so I'm going with Waititi's irreverently fresh, fun, gut-wrenching, and hopeful take on World War II.

Gerwig is in a long-term relationship with fellow nominee Noah Baumbach (Marriage Story) -- and of course, their relationship is also totally not at all an inspiration for his film. They are the latest in a surprisingly long list of couples who have both been nominated in the same year (names like Taylor & Burton, Hepburn & Tracy, Woodward & Newman, and Jolie & Pitt). In the cases where one of them won an Oscar, almost every time, it was a woman. If Baumbach values his career, he'll break up the night before the ceremony. Just imagine if they'd both been nominated for Best Director…

Only an a##hole would relentlessly compare The Irishman to Goodfellas. So here I go… Martin Scorsese (and co-writer Nicholas Pileggi) crafted a perfect ending (and one of the greatest movies of all time) with Goodfellas. Ray Liotta's character escapes with his life, only to spend the rest of it trapped in suburban purgatory, exiled into anonymity, powerless and castrated, complaining to an imaginary audience. The denouement is short, but his anguish is palpable. With The Irishman, Scorsese (and writer Steven Zaillian) unmoor us, letting the audience drift along for the listless (and seemingly endless) conclusion. Compounding that feeling is the fact that Robert De Niro's character is mostly passive throughout the film, so we're sort of forced along on the ride by other characters. Ultimately, we don't really know any more about him at the end than we did at the beginning. Maybe that's the point, but it doesn't really work for me. Overall, the script has a lot to offer, but it felt too loose to be compelling or poignant.

So, they make a movie called The Two Popes, and neither of them was John Paul II? JP2? The Deuce? Papa Due? The guy was a marketing monster in his day. He was so popular, they kept putting him on the Popener years after he died, because Benedict was so dull and not pulling in the sales. (And if you don't know what a Popener is, you need to stop reading this article right now, go to Rome, and buy a bottle opener and with the pope's face on it.) Aside from that transgression, the script by Anthony McCarten is a fantastic, crackling, metaphorical, even funny, piece of work. As a result, the film is engrossing, considering most of it is just two old men talking. You don't even need to know much about Catholicism to enjoy the sparring between these two headstrong leaders debating their ideals while trying to find forgiveness and peace. My one disappointment? No argument over who has the better Popener.

Todd Phillips and Scott Silver's script for Joker is hypnotic in a dread-inducing kind of way, and in the theater caused at least one grown man to grab my leg in fright (you know who you are). But I feel like the last act unraveled a little bit, and the ending, I mean, who the hell knows? Even now, I don't quite know what to make of the film or what it's trying to say. Maybe Charlie Chaplin captured it best, long before the Joker existed: "Life is a tragedy when seen in close-up, but a comedy in a long-shot."

#oscars #oscarpredictions #oscarpredictions2020 #oscarprognostication2020 #donovansoscarprognostication2020 #oscars2020 #academyawards #academyaward

0 notes

jordoalejandro · 8 years

Text

The Sixth Annual List of Movies I Saw the Past Year

Year six. Movie ranking time. Not much up here because I wrote a lot on the actual list. Let's just get to it.

Here are all the films I've seen that have come out since-ish the last Oscars ceremony (2/28/16).

29. Fences - The biggest problem with this film is that it's not really a film. Fences reads more like a filmed play, which makes some sense, because it started as one. Still, when adapting anything from one medium to film, you have to add some, for lack of a better word, movie-ness. Fences doesn't. With the exception of just a few scattered scenes, the film takes place in and around the family home. Important scenes happen off-screen because they didn't happen on-stage in the play. Actors go on long, strained monologues about life because that's what happens in a play (they have that play cadence to them that constantly reminds you you're watching people act in a production). I mean, look, Denzel Washington was, as they say, a force. When he's on the screen, he's commanding. And Viola Davis is the only one who can keep up with him. But I wouldn't say I particularly enjoyed their acting. I think they did a good job for what they were going for, but they were definitely playing to the back rows too much for my taste. There's maybe something here if you like big performances, but I found this to be a real slog, like sitting through a show you didn't really want to see.

28. Jackie - This was, at the very least, a good looking film. And Natalie Portman does a solid job as Jackie Kennedy, shining in the prerequisite shock and horror scenes, though she does give off a strange vibe in many of the other scenes. I confess I don't know what the real Jackie was like most of the time, so maybe it was on the money, but Portman's Jackie, with her affected -- though from what I've heard, apparently accurate -- voice comes off as a bit peculiar. I couldn't quite put my finger on it, like she was air-headed, but not dumb; present, but not wholly there. Chalk it up to being in a bad state following (spoiler?) JFK's death, maybe? Anyway, the movie itself was not great. I think the problem is that not all real life stories necessarily deserve the movie treatment. There's certainly some interesting stuff in the immediate aftermath of the assassination, but around that, it's just kind of a series of disjointed scenes of Jackie being upset in a passive-aggressive, standoffish way. This and Manchester by the Sea are both movies about dealing with grief, but Manchester deals with it in a much more human, grounded, emotional way. This film feels like it's expecting the fact that it's about the first family to do the heavy lifting. Also, I have to note the score. It was this loud, avant-garde style music that reminded me of Philip Glass's work in Koyannisqatsi (that's right, I went to film school). It frequently felt at odds with the movie and was fairly distracting. A weird choice by the director, one of many weird choices made in this film.

27. Lion - This was another true story that I wonder if it was worth making into a film. There's just not that much here. (SPOILERS) The movie is essentially three parts: the first 45 minutes, Saroo, the main character, is a child in India. He is separated from his family and gets lost and wanders around India's streets getting into perilous situations. He eventually gets adopted by an Australian couple. The next 45 minutes, you have Saroo as an adult in Australia. The last 20 minutes is a lot of Googling and then a quick trip. Now, there's certainly some interesting stuff in the first 45 minutes about poor children in India (though, if I'm being honest, it's a little well-trodden ground. Hell, Dev Patel even starred in one of the films I'm thinking about that handled this subject matter better). But the second 45 minutes were just a whole lot of nothing: a guy living in Australia wonders about his previous life, decides he wants to know more about it, and then just acts aloof for a long time for kind of no reason. Saroo mentions at one point in this segment that he doesn't want to tell his adopted mother that he's looking into his former life in India for fear it would hurt her. So instead, he separates himself from his family and friends and retreats back to his dark apartment to obsessively Google stuff and set up a Homeland-style board of clues. Unsurprisingly, this makes his friends and family worry about him. I mean, was it really so hard to just tell your mom, "Hey mom, I'm curious about my past. I'd like to look into it." But then, that might've been a quick discussion, and how else do you stretch out the middle section of a film without creating unnecessary drama? So, then, the last 20 minutes (SPOILER warning again, because this is going to be about how the film ends), Saroo goes on one final, looooong Googling binge, figures things out, flies out to India, finds his hometown almost immediately, finds his mother almost immediately, has a quick reunion, and the movie ends. (END SPOILERS) I think there's a premise here could've been something much better. Instead, it was a strangely structured, fairly unsatisfying film. On the bright side, decent acting from both Nicole Kidman and Dev Patel.

26. Captain Fantastic - I think this is a movie about how being born into a cult might ruin a person for life if they don't get out fast enough. I’m not entirely sure. I really don't know what this movie wanted from me. Viggo Mortensen and his family live out in the woods and learn survivalist techniques and do gardening and discuss literature. I think the film wants me to sympathize with Viggo but he and his family come off like annoying weirdos and he's training them to be survivalists for reasons I don't quite get. On the other hand, it obviously doesn't want me to identify with any of the "normal" people, as everyone Viggo’s family comes across in the real world is either wildly antagonistic or an easily knocked down strawman or both. The film has some funny and/or entertaining bits and decent acting from Mortensen and the kids, who did a good job by making it through most scenes without reminding me they were child actors. The kids, though, are not really developed as characters. They’re mostly interchangeable and are pretty much just used as props to showcase what a good dad Viggo is, and how smart he's making them. The movie is essentially lots of insufferable people trying to prove their extremely polar opposite views on life are the right ones, and (SPOILER) it ultimately decides that it's okay to be forest people, just as long as you also sometimes go into the real world, which… OK.

25. Now You See Me 2 - I feel the same way about this movie as I felt about the first one: they’re both nuts. First, this is one of those exhausting movies where every character is four twisty, chess moves ahead of one another. Like, not just the good guys... the bad guys, the side characters, the background characters, people who appear in just one scene... they're all part of the game. Also, the world the movie takes place in is this insane world where Las Vegas magicians are, apparently, the biggest rock stars in the world, so much so that they have news channels doing live reporting on their tricks and every time anyone sees them they lose their minds. I mean that almost literally. The crowds in this film are crazy for these magicians. They scream and laugh and cheer and gather around in huge, enthusiastic mobs in a way that has never happened in real life for magicians, ever. But here's the thing, too. These magicians? They're also on like, the FBI's most wanted criminals list from their escapades in the first movie. So they appear randomly and put on these huge shows, and then inevitably have to take off running because the feds start closing in on them. The real world equivalent is like if Beyoncé randomly popped up at parks around the country, started singing to the quickly amassed mobs, and then took off running after a few songs as large groups of feds showed up and chased her. I can't even pay attention to the story because this film world is so crazy I can't figure out if it takes place on this Earth or a parallel universe Earth where any of this makes sense. I'm find myself wondering who was asking for this world. Who was thinking, "Well, if no one is going to put to screen the story of criminal thief secret society rock star magicians, I'll be the one to do it. It's what the people want. No! It’s what the people neeeeeed!" The movie also kind of nails that cringey, awful magician speech pattern, where you force a story to go with the trick and make cheesy quips and try to add flair to make it seem cool and mysterious. I really can't tell how far the filmmakers have their tongues in their cheeks here. Did they do that awful magician talk because they thought it would be funny how bad it is and accurate to real life magicians, or did they legitimately think it was cool? I mean, some of the stuff they do seems to indicate they know and are playing, but the finale of the film comes across so sincere that I'm thinking, "Oh no. No. They meant everything." One last thing, because I can't finish this review without mentioning it: Woody Harrelson plays dual roles in this film, as his character from the original and as his newly introduced evil identical twin, which appears to be Harrelson doing something of a Matthew McConaughey impression, including wearing a Matthew McConaughey curly wig. It stands out as one of the nuttiest choices in a film chock-full of them. All this being said, I don't know if I would tell you not to watch this film and its predecessor. They aren't good films, but they're so absurd that they're kind of entertaining. I found myself laughing and somewhat captivated, despite the awfulness. You know, like watching Russian dashboard camera compilation videos.

24. Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice - Okay, here are some positives: it’s a visually interesting film, it has an interesting take on Batman (though less so than Burton’s and Nolan’s takes), there’s a fun sequence with a bunch of real world talking heads that takes on the philosophical debate about how Superman fits into society, and there are some decent action scenes (the scene in which Batman infiltrates the warehouse to get Martha is the high point). Now, negatives. Most of the action is unspectacular. The big final fight, similar to the final fight in Man of Steel, is too CGI-y, which made it hard to focus on (on the bright side, seeing the big 3 of the Justice League together is a pretty cool moment). The actual Batman v. Superman Dawn of Justice fight itself was plodding and bland and the reasoning behind it was contrived. Batman’s motivation for wanting to murder Superman wasn’t strong enough and Superman likely could’ve prevented the fight altogether by articulating a few thoughts before throwing fists. And the ending to the fight is even more contrived and nonsensical (SPOILER: sure is lucky for Superman he was adopted by a Martha and not a Susan or something. Or that Batman’s mom didn’t go by a nickname. END SPOILER). Another negative: Jesse Eisenberg’s Lex Luthor is an insane, cartoon character, down to the voice, which I can't fully place my finger on, but I wanna say... half-Snagglepuss, half-Wally Gator? I don’t know what he was doing. I think he was trying to go for an over-the-top, chewing-the-scenery villain, but he didn’t stick that landing and, in fairness to Eisenberg, it was never going to work with Zach Snyder’s vision of this world, which is: grim, dark, and no fun at all. This world is also filled with wanton destruction. People had issue with the ending of Man of Steel for similar reasons (though it had much to do with Superman causing most of that destruction and not saving people), and you might think this almost universal negative reaction would cause the filmmakers to reconsider their approach. Their solution, however, was to have the same wanton destruction (they level like three different neighborhoods in the third act) but just, this time, keep having characters say, “It’s fine, there’s no one in the area.” At one point someone mentions that this whole huge swath of downtown is empty because it’s an office district and it’s after work hours. Oh, okay, that’s reassuring, I guess, unless there are people working late, or janitors cleaning the building, or any bars or restaurants at all in the area where people might’ve gone after work. Whatever. Here’s the biggest issue with the film: it is way, way, way too overstuffed, likely the result of trying to do what Marvel did in five films in, like, one and a half. I mean, this is a two and a half hour movie where every scene feels cut like a montage and lasts about 30 seconds (except for Bruce Wayne’s dream sequences, which are meaningless and go on forever). There’s just no time to breathe in this film. You never really get to appreciate that we have BATMAN AND SUPERMAN ON THE SAME DAMN SCREEN. Oh, and HERE’S WONDER WOMAN, TOO. We should get to savor this more, but we can’t because we need to keep moving, more story, more dream sequences, more explosions leveling blocks of abandoned buildings, more of Lex Luthor's affected monologues, more pointless cameos from other members of the Justice League. And my big worry is that this isn’t going to get any better in the next movie. This movie tried to tell a story (and not a simple one, either, one with grander DC Extended Universe implications) while introducing Lex Luthor, Wonder Woman, and Batman (and all his mythology) to Superman’s world. By the time Justice League comes around, they will not have laid any more groundwork. They’ll have released Suicide Squad (which doesn’t figure to have any significant impact on the overarching film universe) and Wonder Woman (which will at least flesh her out a little more). That’ll leave Justice League to tell a complete story while introducing Flash, Cyborg, and Aquaman into the world (their two second cameos in this film were cute little Easter eggs that tell us nothing about the characters), and catching up on whatever the previously established heroes and their friends and love interests are up to, and introducing whatever villains will show up. There’s a lot of potential here to create an even bigger mess. It’s okay. I trust the filmmakers to not try and cover up any shortcomings they have in the story and character departments with more and bigger explosions. My God, this review has gotten as bloated and nonsensical as the movie itself. Uh… I didn’t hate this movie, I just didn’t like it.

23. X-Men: Apocalypse - This was another superhero movie that was kind of a mess. It's weirdly structured. The first hour is all team building for both the good guys and bad guys: new mutants showing up, meeting each other, interacting, yadda yadda. The next 30 minutes are a side mission that doesn’t serve the greater narrative of the movie at all and seems to have old been added so they could pay some fan service with a short cameo (which, in fairness, was one of the more fun parts of the movie). The last 45 minutes are the big final battle, which isn't particularly memorable and not set up well enough to really feel important. There's the obligatory shots of some cities being slowly destroyed, but we don't really know or see any characters in these cities so it feels somewhat impersonal and makes it hard to care. There's just nothing really remarkable at all about the film. There are also a lot of retreads of things we've seen in previous X-Men films: a “Cyclops's powers awaken” scene, a “Weapon X facility” scene, a “Quicksilver does a bunch of stuff really fast while era appropriate music plays” scene (though, again, in fairness, this scene is just about as fun as the last one and probably the high point of the film). There's even the "emotional appeal to Magneto" scene. Magneto’s arc in these movies is the same thing over and over again. He starts out an okay guy, then turns into an asshole, then at the last minute, becomes okay again, before leaving to go be a loner again at the end of the film. It’s getting tired. I also had a problem with how imbalanced the X-Men's powers are. The bad guy, Apocalypse, is like a God that can destroy worlds. Meanwhile, the X-Men have Beast, who is strong. And Mystique is just about worthless except to pull the one-time-per-movie trick where she walks up to a villain disguised as an ally, only to surprise attack. That, and she's good for leading the emotional appeal to Magneto to stop being an asshole. X-Men Apocalypse probably should have been two movies: one about the new class of X-Men so we get to know them better (which, granted, would've been a hard sell considering they just did a first class of X-Men movie not that long ago and we sort of already know most of these X-Men), and one about fighting Apocalypse so his plan and danger actually connected with the audience. Or maybe they just shouldn't have spent so much time retreading familiar ground.

22. Ghostbusters - This was a decent sci-fi action flick that was passably funny, which is a huge disappointment given the film's pedigree. Paul Feig, Kristen Wiig, Melissa McCarthy, and Kate McKinnon, some of the finest people working in comedy today, should've been able to cook up something much better than this. Instead, the Ghostbusters themselves are pretty bland and deliver very few laughs throughout. Honestly, the best and most consistently funny part of this film is somehow Chris Hemsworth. And he's great, but how does that happen with all the other comedy superstars in here? The main crew is even shown up by cameo roles on more than one occasion (Cecily Strong, Zach Woods, and Steve Higgins all produce solid laughs in just their short times on screen). Ultimately, this was a pretty average film that I cannot believe people fought a culture war over. Well, I mean, I can believe it because that's where we are in society, I guess. But, you know... Come on.

21. Jason Bourne - This one had some solid action and I like that Bourne only says about 25 lines throughout. It fits his character well and doesn't bog down the film with too much exposition. But overall, this isn't a great movie, which is so disappointing because I love this franchise. The directing and editing makes for good action films, but smart writing is what made the original trilogy into great films. Maybe it was Tony Gilroy's absence, or maybe it was just trying too hard to force a story for this character, but the writing just wasn't up to snuff here. The story is slow and, even worse, feels unnecessary, created just to allow for Matt Damon to travel around Europe and the world and kick ass. I mean, I can appreciate that. That is almost all that I want from a Bourne film, but it still left me feeling a bit hollow. I will always welcome more Bourne, but if they can't find a good reason for him to continue, then perhaps Jason's story should have ended with Ultimatum.

20. Central Intelligence - You kind of know what you're going to get. This is a decent buddy cop movie with some good laughs and serviceable action, though it has a fairly predictable plot and a few really lazy "lol so random" jokes in it. Kevin Hart does his Kevin Hart thing just fine. To be honest, I actually didn't care for The Rock's character. I didn't know what he was supposed to be: shy loner, obsessive weirdo, or even possibly slightly autistic? He was reading real strange, and I just don't think The Rock was able to pull it off. He has charisma, to be sure, and I generally like him in things, but he might not have enough range to give this character that roundedness it truly needed. Either that, or it was just a poorly written character. Fun movie in general though, and good enough to watch if you catch it on cable one day.

19. Hidden Figures - This was a nice, inspirational movie, even though it felt real dull around the edges, like it was almost made for children. The plot is very paint by numbers and there aren't a whole lot of surprises here. You do get some good acting from the cast, though (of note: Taraji P. Henson, Octavia Spencer, Janelle Monáe, and Kevin Costner), and that helps to carry the film all the way across the finish line.

18. Deadpool - Well, I will say this, this is certainly the funniest movie to ever feature a horrific, 20 minute segment of medical torture. The humor, in general, is very quantity over quality. There are a few really good jokes that land well and the film is at its best when it's making fun of superhero tropes, but there are so many goddamn dick jokes and topical jokes that will date super poorly: Rosie O'Donnell references? Jokes about the Taken movies? These aren't exactly fresh and hilarious now. If you rewatch this film in a few years, they'll make you cringe. The film has some decent, if sparse, action and Ryan Reynolds and Morena Baccarin had good chemistry. It's fun to get a different take on the superhero world every now and then, but I don't know that this film is, or even should be, the game changer that people were saying.

17. Keanu - This movie's got a handful of genuinely funny moments and some great running jokes, though there are parts where the comedy really slows down as they try to ratchet up the drama. Keegan-Michael Key and Jordan Peele have fantastic chemistry and the kitten is an amazing actor, just heart-meltingly adorable. Fans of the Key and Peele show will enjoy this the most, but it plays well to all audiences.

16. Arrival - Arrival looks great and has some excellent acting, especially from Amy Adams, who carries most of the film, and Jeremy Renner, who does a good job without a whole lot to work with. The villains of the piece, though, are a little too one-note, on-the-nose bureaucrats. I was enjoying this film through the first two acts or so, but I had major problems with the ending. (SPOILERS) It's, as my brother put it, "future ex machina." The film essentially uses the causal loop as a way to resolve the plot. The causal loop is cute in movies like The Terminator as a way to make you reconsider elements from the film, but I hate it being used as a linchpin to make the plot work. This film perhaps might have been better served by focusing on communication and our issues with language, which is a subject it plays with well. I would've avoided the issues of time altogether because time travel movies rarely, if ever, are told without getting messy. (END SPOILERS)

15. Hail, Caesar! - This film's story is pretty weak, but all the things that happen around the story are fantastic. Hail, Caesar! is at its best when it's paying homage to old Hollywood with really well done song and dance pieces or sending up the business with excellent comedic bits. The film looks fantastic and gets strong performances out of Josh Brolin and Alden Ehrenreich. It's a love letter to the olden days of the film industry that's not as great as the sum of all its parts. Its parts, however, add up to a very high sum.

-Okay, break time. We're about half-way done with the list so here's where I'll stop to mention the two documentaries I saw this year.

Weiner was like watching a fascinating, slow motion train wreck. It makes you sad about what a good politician Anthony Weiner could've been if he could've kept his dick in his pants. It also helps you see that his passion and inability to back down from anything -- a big part of what made him a compelling politician in the first place -- is also what makes him constantly get in his own way. It's probably what also led to him to allow a documentary crew follow him around as he ran for mayor of New York, and stay around even after his second texting scandal broke. Also, my God do you feel bad for Huma Abedin.

O.J.: Made in America is a wide-spanning, masterpiece of a documentary that presents to you, in compelling fashion, everything you ever needed to know about O.J. Simpson. It covers him from childhood through his recent second arrest and conviction and touches on every part in between, including painting a vivid picture of race relations in America at the time of the trial. This documentary is about eight hours long, but you never feel like there's any stretching. In fact, you sort of wish there was even more. It's a gripping and tragic story and Ezra Edelman did a fantastic job putting it together.

I'm not going to try and fit these two documentaries into the list of narrative films, but I will just say I thought both of them were excellent and recommend them.

All right. Let's get back to it. These last 14 films all received A-minuses or better in my invisible rating scale that I use to help me order the list, so here, in my opinion, is the good stuff.-

14. Doctor Strange - This was a very fun, visually extraordinary ride. The action scenes were excellent, making clever use of space and time. The film is well directed. There's a lot of interdimensional traveling and warping of space in this movie that could've been a mess, but it's actually surprisingly easy to follow. Benedict Cumberbatch is very charismatic, though I felt he could've used some more character building (he just kind of goes from slightly a jerk to not such a jerk). There's lots of setup and exposition about Doctor Strange and his mythology, so there's less time to really develop Mads Mikkelsen's villain, Kaecilius, which feels like a missed opportunity. Otherwise, though, there are quite a few good supporting characters, including The Ancient One, played with some depth by Tilda Swinton. Another strong addition to the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

13. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot - Or as I called it, Zero Dark Thirty Rock thank you, thank you very much. What? Roses? You're too kind. Thank you! Whiskey Tango Foxtrot is an excellent comedy/war drama, with some great dialogue, solid acting (of note: Tina Fey, Christopher Abbott, and strong bit roles from Billy Bob Thornton and Evan Jonigkeit), and surprisingly touching and/or dramatic moments.

12. Popstar: Never Stop Never Stopping - There are just so many jokes in this. They come at you a mile a minute, so there are bound to be a handful of misses (mostly when the jokes veer into the too silly, 14 year old boy stuff) but there are a lot more jokes that hit and hit hard. The best come when the film is sending up the music industry, especially using real, big names from said industry in faux interviews. The songs are a real high point, too. This was definitely the funniest movie I saw this year.

11. The Nice Guys - This one's the ol' Shane Black special: mismatched buddy "cops" (not really cops, but for lack of a better cliché), witty dialogue, violence, mystery, physical humor. It's expertly done all around from writing to acting to directing. If you're a fan of Black’s work, this is a quality addition to his oeuvre.

10. Other People - This one treads on somewhat familiar ground but does so in a smart, well-crafted way. It's a film about watching someone you love die, which makes it a hard film to watch, especially because it hits on this nugget of truth: living through the death of a loved one is weird. I mean, sure, it's painful and heartbreaking, but it's also often awkward and frustrating, and sometimes, even darkly humorous. Loss is a part of life we all must experience, but we never really know how to deal with it perfectly and this is a film that touches beautifully on that. Great acting from Jesse Plemons and Molly Shannon at the center of this.

9. Rogue One: A Star Wars Story - A great take on a war movie in the Star Wars universe, with some excellent visuals, a fantastic third act, and a breathtaking sequence featuring Darth Vader. The film has a good score but I felt it was sometimes overbearing to the point of distraction -- there's a scene where a bunch of rebels are just debating at a table and the score is playing loudly like a battle sequence. Felicity Jones was a strong lead but, and maybe this is just my own issue to get over, Diego Luna just does nothing for me. The CGI Grand Moff Tarken was a little too CGI-y for my taste. He almost felt like a Jar Jar Binks-type full CGI character that wasn't actually there. I thought it could've used some scaling back but others who saw the movie with me didn't even notice he wasn't real, so maybe that was just because I went in with the knowledge the real actor had died years ago. Ultimately, this movie presents some cool ideas and offers a different, more grounded take on the Star Wars universe, but I have to say, I did kind of miss some of the Star Wars of it all: Jedis and lightsabers and such.

8. Moonlight - A beautifully shot, well written and directed film that touches on some familiar movie themes -- being poor and coming of age, being black and coming of age, and being gay and coming of age -- but combines them in a way that is more rarely seen. It's artfully done and without excess melodrama, though it's, let's say, methodically paced (the whole movie is maybe 10 segments). The acting is wonderful all around. The main two characters who we see grow up through the film are cast well. Chiron, especially, was a rich, full character created by three different actors doing the lifting. This film also received great supporting performances from Mahershala Ali, Janelle Monáe, and Naomie Harris. There isn't really a sour note in the whole ensemble.

7. Hunt for the Wilderpeople - This one is equal parts cute, funny, and touching, and is presented in an interesting style (very Wes Anderson-ian in camera, music, and color). At times, the plot isn't as tight as I'd like it to be, sometimes becoming almost dreamlike, moving from vignette to vignette, as the heroes encounter strange people and situations that don't always make sense. Still, there's a lot of heart at the center of this strange film, and it makes for an excellent movie going experience. Sam Neill and Julian Dennison give excellent performances.

6. Zootopia - I was not expecting to love this movie as much as I did. It's funny, sweet, and very imaginative. The little world that's been created for this film is fascinating, with clever parodies and animal gags (sloths running the DMV, for example). The film provides a pretty decent mystery thriller as well, while managing to touch on issues of classism, sexism, and racism (little on the nose though they might be - it is a kid's movie after all). It's impressive considering there are seven different writers credited on the story. That's normally a bad sign, but this movie worked. If you're looking for things to watch with the family, you could do much, much worse.

5. Manchester by the Sea - As a movie (that is, a story with a beginning, middle, end, 3 act structure and all that), it doesn't quite come all together for me. I wish the story was more solid. It almost feels like a visual novel, in a way, as weird as that sounds. I wish the music, beautiful as it was, was quieter or not there, allowing us to be fully with the characters more. I think these, for lack of a better word, shortcomings, as a movie prevent me from moving this film higher up the list. The reason I have this as high as it is, though, is because if you see this not as a film but as an examination of life, it's incredible. It speaks to how life can be unfair and unbearably painful and yet still humorous (sometimes morbidly so). How love and family can be the greatest sources of strength in our lives, and the things that cause us the most pain. How we deal with tragedy, and how in life, things don't always work out. Sometimes, there isn't character growth. Sometimes, we just find ourselves drifting, trying to make it through life as best we can. Manchester by the Sea is beautiful, and real, and emotionally gutting. Casey Affleck is amazing, his pain just simmering under the surface at all times, constantly affecting him. Lucas Hedges and Kyle Chandler were both excellent in supporting roles. And Michelle Williams, in her one big scene, is heartbreaking. That one big scene, too... my God, it's devastating. Affleck and Williams made me feel more emotion in that scene than any other scene in any film this year did. Don't be discouraged from watching this film because people talk about how depressing it is. There is sadness, to be sure. It isn't a light watch. But there's levity in here as well. There's both. That's life.

4. Florence Foster Jenkins - Another movie that took me by complete surprise. You see the commercials and think this is just a film with Meryl Streep singing bad and that's the joke and that's it. And sure, there's some of that. But this movie, at its core, is a beautiful, lovable movie about chasing your dreams. About making an effort to create, and being vulnerable, and trying things, and being a positive influence on the world. It's also a story about love, and what you would do to protect and support those you love. And finally, it's a movie about empathy, and about how we should treat one another. You get some fantastic acting from Streep, of course. I mean, yeah, she's good in everything, but what she did here, with what could be a one-note character, is made a full human. Streep plays Jenkins with a kindness that makes you love her, and a dauntless attitude that makes you respect her. You want her to succeed, and, knowing she can't, you want to protect her. There's solid supporting work here, too, from Rebecca Ferguson and Hugh Grant (who does an excellent job as a man of contradictions, but one who cares deeply for Florence and will go to great lengths to protect her), but I was most surprised by Simon Helberg's Cosmé McMoon. He brings a meekness and sweetness to his role that really humanizes his character. Look, your mileage may vary here. I’m not blind to some of the issues of this film, but it just hit me in such a wonderful, unexpected way and I enjoyed it immensely.

3. Sing Street - This is a fantastic little indie film with some great music and original songs, really funny bits, and good acting (especially from Jack Reynor, who plays a mentor older brother with a little extra bubbling under the surface). The film touches on the importance of music in life (especially as a form of escapism or a way to speak about love), about taking risks, and chasing dreams. I don't have a whole much else to say about it. It just works on every level and accomplishes everything it sets out to do. One of the most enjoyable films of the year.

2. Captain America: Civil War - The most fun I had in a movie theater this year. It's filled with great action sequences, including the awesome airport fight scene (the best action sequence of the year), that actually have some strong emotion behind them and consequences because of them. It also has some excellent bits of humor sprinkled throughout. There's a huge cast here, but they are used well and play well off of each other. Robert Downey Jr., who is always good as Tony Stark, shows a little bit of range, flashing some of his acting chops in a couple of family-related emotional scenes. Tom Holland is an outstanding Spider-Man and his interactions with Tony Stark and the rest of the Avengers are some of the high points of the film. Finally, I think it's an impressive bit of writing to establish both sides of the civil war as reasonable and somewhat unreasonable. You get why the heroes pick the sides they're on, and why they don't understand how their friends could pick the other side. Their reasons for fighting each other make sense and the fight feels like an inevitability instead of a obligatory point we've been forced towards. Another hit for Marvel.

1. La La Land - Feels like this Damien Chazelle guy might be someone to watch. This movie is pure, wonderful fantasy. It's just a delight. I loved it. It's brilliantly directed and cleverly written. Every shot and scene is so visually interesting and vibrant. There's some great choreography and the music is pretty good, though I actually think it could've been better. It's enjoyable while you're in the film, but outside of "City of Stars," none of the songs really stuck with me in a way I wish they did. Also, (SPOILERS) the ending is so emotionally crushing. I get it, I accept it, it's beautiful and bold in its own way of looking at life, but, come on, if you're going for a throwback musical, end it like a throwback musical. I mean, yeah, it's a throwback musical with a modern twist and in modern life, things don't work out all the time. Okay, okay, fine. But I say leave that stark realism to Manchester by the Sea and leave this film with the magic, happy ending. That’s the effect this film had on me. I know, in my head, the ending makes sense, but this film had me by the heart so badly that I couldn’t deal with it. I was so damn emotionally invested! (END SPOILERS) Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone are incredible. They have the best on-screen chemistry of any couple on film this year. This film filled me with joy and left me in awe. I don't know how you could watch it and not have a smile on your face. That's why it's my #1 film of the year.

All right. Let's wrap it up with some individual awards.

Best Actor

5. Sam Neill, Hunt for the Wilderpeople 4. Jesse Plemmons, Other People 3. Denzel Washington, Fences 2. Ryan Gosling, La La Land 1. Casey Affleck, Manchester by the Sea

Best Actress

5. Taraji P. Henson, Hidden Figures 4. Viola Davis, Fences 3. Amy Adams, Arrival 2. Emma Stone, La La Land 1. Meryl Streep, Florence Foster Jenkins

Best Supporting Actor

5. Hugh Grant, Florence Foster Jenkins 4. Simon Helberg, Florence Foster Jenkins 3. Alden Ehrenreich, Hail, Caesar! 2. Lucas Hedges, Manchester by the Sea 1. Mahershala Ali, Moonlight

Best Supporting Actress

5. Octavia Spencer, Hidden Figures 4. Janelle Monáe, Moonlight 3. Molly Shannon, Other People 2. Naomie Harris, Moonlight 1. Michelle Williams, Manchester by the Sea

Best Director

5. Ethan Coen and Joel Coen, Hail, Caesar! 4. Taika Waititi, Hunt for the Wilderpeople 3. Barry Jenkins, Moonlight 2. Kenneth Lonergan, Manchester by the Sea 1. Damien Chazelle, La La Land

Best Screenplay

5. Shane Black and Anthony Bagarozzi, The Nice Guys 4. Chris Kelly, Other People 3. Kenneth Lonergan, Manchester by the Sea 2. Damien Chazelle, La La Land 1. John Carney, Sing Street

There we go. Way too many words about movies. If you stuck around this long, I apologize for the insane rants about some of those movies up in the 20s.

Also, if you stuck around this long, what are you doing? You're crazy and I love you.

- - - - -

Annual Lists of Movies I Saw the Past Year

#Reviews #Annual Lists of Movies I Saw The Past Year

0 notes