Jack the Giant Slayer

Posted on by

jack giant slayer

Director: Bryan Singer

Writer: Darren Lemke, Christopher McQuarrie, Dan Studney

Starring: Nicholas Hoult, Eleanor Tomlinson, Ewan McGregor, Ian McShane, Stanley Tucci

Tomatometer: 52/50/65 (all critics, top critics, audience)

Spoiler-free Summary: Aladdin in trees.

Jack is a poor farm boy.  Isabelle is a princess.  Jack sees Isabelle in the marketplace, and saves her from some jerk.  He’s into her.  She’s into him.  Jack comes across some magic beans.  One of the beans sprouts a skyscraping beanstalk.  Isabelle ends up in the clouds, the prisoner of the giants living at 35,000 feet.  Jack and all the king’s men try to save her.  Among the search party are the king’s creepy advisor, who plans to marry the princess and take over the kingdom, and his wacky sidekick.

Two Cents: What a mess.  This film has all the markings of a forced kids’ movie – a drawn-out and diluted classic fairytale, hot, young stars hired on the cheap, serious actors embarrassing themselves in horrible bit parts, an overload of outdated action sequences, and pointless 3D effects.

I enjoy kids’ movies more than the average adult (most likely, because I have yet to grow up).  I also love action-adventure movies.  And, to top it all off, I firmly believe that there are human-eating giants living in the clouds.  Still, I found Jack the Giant Slayer only mildly enjoyable.  What did I like?  Go, go, Gadget arms!  (Get it?  I’m reaching.)  Bill Nighy should voice every CGI villain in every movie, from here on out (although, his performance as the leader of the giants does not compare to his turn as Davy Jones in the Pirates of the Caribbean films).  Also, Tomlinson is not ugly.  Yup, that’s about it.

Where in the Constitution does it say good actors have to suck in children’s movies?  Stanley Tucci, Ian McShane, and Ewan McGregor are pretty much as good as it gets when it comes to acting chops.  However, they were all firmly outperformed by the horses in this film.  Tucci, my fellow New York City subway regular, was the most egregious offender.  His villain was not scary, menacing, manipulative, nor intriguing.  He was simply awkward.

Bryan Singer did such a great job with the first two X-Men movies (plus, he directed The Usual Suspects!), and I was hoping to see the same grit and action in this film.  Unfortunately, the characters were about as deep as the river in Robin Hood: Men in Tights, and the action was less thrilling than a Chanel No.5 commercial.  I’m hoping Singer’s (and Hoult’s) imminent return to Xavier’s School for Gifted Youngsters will prove a more fruitful endeavor.

Should I/Shouldn’t I:  Young folks might enjoy this movie, as it provides some clean fun and a large helping of things children love – kings, princesses, magic, knights, etc.  However, if you’re old enough to remember Y2K, I’m sure you can find a more useful way to spend your time.  Frolf, anyone?

Sundae Rating: One scoop

21 & Over

Posted on by

21 and over

Director: Jon Lucas, Scott Moore

Writer: Jon Lucas, Scott Moore

Starring: Miles Teller, Skylar Astin, Justin Chon

Tomatometer: 30/32/67 (all critics, top critics, audience)

Spoiler-free Summary: Miller, Casey, and JeffChang, three former high school besties, are all about to graduate from different colleges.  Having lost touch over the years, Miller and Casey decide to get the band back together in celebration of JeffChang’s long-awaited 21st birthday.  Unfortunately for JeffChang, he’s got an important interview for medical school the following morning.  Fortunately for JeffChang, Miller won’t take “No” for an answer.  Unfortunately for JeffChang, Miller and Casey (who, somehow, got into Stanford) are morons (the lovable kind).

Two Cents: We’ve finally made it to March!  That means good movies are on their respective ways to theaters.  You know how people say the first few years of a certain decade are actually part of the one before it?  For example, 1992 was part of the 1980s.  Well, trust me, that’s a thing.  As it turns out, the first weekend in March is actually part of February.  So, we’ll have to wait a few more days for something truly theater-worthy.  (Hopefully, “Oz the Great and Powerful” will actually be great.)  But, I digress.

I’ll preface this section with the following disclaimer:

DISCLAIMER: I love movies about high school and/or college kids.  Although I had a fantastic time in my formative years, I’d be lying if I said there weren’t quite a few things for which I’d like to be granted a do-over.  Movies in this genre have a knack for making me feel like I’m living the exciting and carefree life of a take-life-by-the-horns teenager.  Although I don’t have much regret (there’s definitely some) about those years of my life, it’s quite a thrill to relive that stage of my existence, even if only for 90 minutes.

The first thing that drew me to the theater for 21 and Over was the fact that it was paying at a convenient time in a convenient theater.  The other was the cast.  While I wouldn’t say I’m a fan of Teller’s or Astin’s, I was very excited to them team up, as each played a supporting role in one of my favorite movies of 2012.  (Teller played the college baseball stud in Project X, and Astin played Anna Kendrick’s love interest in Pitch Perfect.) I was pleasantly surprised by their chemistry, and they made me laugh at least  six times.  Neither one will be a bona fide movie star anytime soon, but I would have no problem seeing them pop up in more movies.  I liked Teller’s performance more, but I don’t fault Astin for carving out a corner of the boring-nice-guy market in Hollywood (that trick has worked wonders for the careers of Mark Ruffalo and Keanu Reeves, to name a few).

This movie struggled with an issue that I’ve encountered in my own writing: Is there such a thing as too many movie references?  Undoubtedly, the answer is “YES!”.  Yet, we all love a good homage to our favorite films, as well as the thrill of picking up on a reference that flew over everyone else’s collective head.  This movie evokes Animal House, Can’t Hardly Wait, Beerfest, and even a hint of Van Wilder (one of my personal favorites).  The writer/directors certainly flirt with the line, but I don’t think they pass it.  I enjoyed the references, and I think they added some humor to the otherwise mediocre script (although, that’s a lazy tactic).

The supporting characters in 21 and Over are definitely there, but that’s about all I can say about them.  Miller, Casey, and JeffChang are the only characters that really get developed, but JeffChang doesn’t do much.  It was great to see Sarah Wright back in action (she starred in a short-lived, but underrated, series called The Loop a while back, when her name was Sarah Mason) as Casey’s love interest, but she’s no star.  There were a few characters that were just begging to be the Mr. Chow of the film, but none of them came close.

Should I/Shouldn’t I: 21 and Over has the moral of a One Direction song, and, at times, the uncomfortable seriousness of one of the band’s members calling himself an “artist”.  Nevertheless, I had fun watching this movie.  I liked the characters enough to root for them, and the shenanigans were often funny.  It’s not as good as Project X (not even close), but it’s better than College (which I didn’t hate).  If you need to be in a movie theater this week, you could do worse.  If you can hold out, wait for it to hit HBO.

Sundae Rating: Two scoops

Snitch

Posted on by

snitch

Director: Ric Roman Waugh

Writer: Justin Haythe, Ric Roman Waugh

Starring: Dwayne Johnson, Barry Pepper, Jon Bernthal, Susan Sarandon

Tomatometer: 54/54/81 (all critics, top critics, audience)

Spoiler-free Summary: The Rock has a son.  His name is Pebble.  Pebble, like many teenagers, is stupid enough to think teenagers can be trusted.  Unfortunately for Pebble, the person he trusts most, his best friend, Craig, is a drug dealer.  The thing about drug dealers is they often have questionable morals.  I know, right?  Who knew?  Anyway, Craig is a douche, so, he frames Pebble in order to cover his own ass.  Lucky for Pebble, his estranged father is ready and willing to help, especially if it means keeping his son from becoming someone’s girlfriend in prison.

Two Cents: With so much buzz surrounding Hollywood during the months of January and February, many people are unaware of the fact that the movies that get released during the first sixth of the year generally suck more than a turkey baster.  In the dead of winter, movie theater screens are filled with dreck that studio executives distribute early in the year, in order to make sure that those lines in their Power Point presentations have nowhere to point but upward.  Slick move, Ari Gold.  Also, they know there’s no point in releasing a decent film until March, because moviegoers use their January and February weekends to catch up on all of the Oscar-nominated pictures they haven’t yet seen.  Now, you understand why movies like Snitch get made.

I’m a fan of movie stars.  I find it comforting to know that certain actors (a term that includes actresses) will keep popping up on screens, whether they deserve to or not.  That phenomenon gives us common-folk a chance to become familiar with certain actors, watch them grow, and feel as if we are along for the rides that are their respective careers.  However, I’m also a fan of type-casting, the tendency for actors to get pigeon-holed into playing a small range of roles for long stretches of time, in numerous productions.  For example, Will Ferrell always plays the unreasonably arrogant fool.  He’s great at it, and there’s nothing wrong with that.  That’s why, even when he does a decent job in something like Stranger than Fiction, he keeps getting pulled back into projects like Anchorman 2.  Few actors have the ability to break their “type” and change the trajectory of their careers.  I, for one, am excited to see if Bradley Cooper’s Oscar-nominated performance in SIlver Linings Playbook allows him to avoid a lifetime of playing the funny douchebag.  Only time will tell.

Unfortunately for Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson, most of the executives in Hollywood believe in type-casting, as well, and Johnson’s work in Snitch isn’t going to change any of their minds.  I love a good unlikely-hero-comes-to-the-rescue thriller, but I’ve always believed that the hero in such movies needs to be someone whom most people wouldn’t actually expect to save the day.  Remember how Nicholas Cage dominated life in Con Air?  That is exactly what I’m talking about.  He was a quiet, nervous family man surrounded by a dozen tough-as-nails thugs, yet he built up the courage to take control of that plane and save the gosh-darn day.  In Snitch, The Rock tries to come off as a similarly decent, keep-your-head-down-and-work-hard family man.  When stuff starts to hit the fan, he doesn’t rip off his shirt and start throwing dudes over mountains, rather he plays the vulnerable hero, who is only motivated by his love for his son.  Not a bad way to go, if his character were being portrayed by, say, Liam Neeson.  However, when the only guy in the room standing over six feet tall and benching over 300 pounds is also the only guy in the room with a puddle next to his shoes, you know someone has made a casting error.  If that same guy also still has a long way to go before he can safely be referred to as an actor, you’ve got an even bigger problem.

I can’t say I hated this movie, because it did provide me some entertainment.  I just didn’t connect to the main character, because I didn’t find him believable.  I also found the Rock issue to be exacerbated by what I call “and-casting”, the practice of placing currently popular/famous actors in the lead roles of a movie, then filling out the bit parts with formerly popular/famous (and well-respected) actors in order to give the film more legitimacy.  In other words, after they list all the lead actors during the opening credits, they’ll finish the role call with “and Paul Giamatti” (The Hangover Part II) or “with Julie Christie and Peter O’Toole” (Troy).  And-casting can be a real treat, when it brings an already impressive cast up another notch.  When the lead actors are not carrying their weight, however, and-casting doesn’t hide those flaws, rather it puts them squarely in focus.  The film would have been far better served had Susan Sarandon and (the under-appreciated) Barry Pepper been cast in lead roles, as opposed to their  inconsequential, supporting ones.  (Oh, by the way, producers, Benjamin Bratt is not worthy of an “and”, or even a “with”.  He’s just a guy.  That’s it.)

Should I/Shouldn’t I: When you see a movie that stars a man who calls himself “The Rock”, you want to see that guy kick copious amounts of derriere.  You won’t get that in Snitch.  The story doesn’t make up for the lack of action, either.  If you’re a fan of Johnson’s, you’d be better off waiting for Fast & Furious 6, which is probably going to be more fun than a barrel of monkeys.  If you’re in the mood for an action flick that involves drug dealers and family men, there are a few of those out there, as well.  Try the Bad Boys movies.

Sundae Rating: One scoop

Oscar Recap

Posted on by

Image

Suck on that, Matt Damon!

The big winner at the 85th Academy Awards was Argo director (and star) Ben Affleck.  After being shut out in the Best Director category, Affleck was able to parlay Hollywood’s collective outrage (they had only themselves to blame) into a Best Picture win for his film.  Best of all for Affleck, he was also one of the film’s producers, so he still took home a statuette.  Coincidentally, Affleck accepted his second Oscar (one more than bestie Matt Damon) right in front of Seth MacFarlane, who once implied on Family Guy that Damon’s talent was the only reason Affleck ever got his first Oscar (for co-writing Good Will Hunting).  While Argo wasn’t a frontrunner for Best Picture a few weeks ago, it proved the old adage that it doesn’t matter how you start, only how you finish.  It works for sports, and it certainly works for the Oscars.

The night started with a bang, as Seth MacFarlane (along with special guest William Shatner and Sally Field) lived up to his reputation as a crude comedian willing to take on any crowd, even the one sitting right in front of him.  He also managed to make Tommy Lee Jones crack a smile, as well as spark 700 million young boys to Google “Angelina Jolie boobs”, thus causing the first-ever complete shutdown of the Internet.  He didn’t carry the same energy throughout the night, but MacFarlane did a very good job with the toughest gig in entertainment, showing restraint when needed and taking some production hiccups in stride.

The first award was a pleasant surprise, as well, as Christoph Waltz leap-frogged Tommy Lee Jones and Rober De Niro to take home his second Oscar.  After that, the show became a bit of a snooze-fest, as the producers got carried away with their tribute to music from movies.  The tribute came off as piecemeal, as the producers honored a few famous songs here and there, but didn’t really give any structure to the ceremony.  There wasn’t enough music to consider the show a tribute to music, and there was just enough to make it seem like the producers were trying whatever they could to set the record for longest broadcast ever.  Did anyone really want to see Catherine Zeta-Jones dancing around in lingerie at her age (or at any age)?  It was nice, however, to see Channing Tatum perform with MacFarlane and Charlize Theron, because that’s the only way Mr. Jawbone will ever find his way onto that stage.  The overhyped “50 Years of James Bond” tribute also fell flat, with a grand total of zero Bonds making an appearance.

There weren’t many big surprises, other than Waltz’s win, as one of the two frontrunners in each category managed to hoist a trophy.  However, it was refreshing to see the Academy fully embrace Quentin Tarantino, a man who clearly does his best to stay on the fringe of Hollywood society.  Jennifer Lawrence cemented her place as the current It-girl in Hollywood with her first Oscar and a rather tame acceptance speech.  Unfortunately for her, I hear Plutarch just added stairs to the arena in The Hunger Games: Catching Fire.  Daniel Day-Lewis set an incredible record by becoming the first man to win three Best Actor Oscars .  I doubt his third will be his last.  Anne Hathaway managed to make herself even more polarizing than she already was, thanks to her decision to switch from smiling all the time to never smiling, at all.  Still, her career will only get more interesting and lucrative after her first Oscar win. Ang Lee’s victory in the directing category was a small surprise, considering Steven Spielberg’s status as a Hollywood deity, but considering the size and scope of Lee’s masterful Life of Pi (as evidenced by its three other Oscars), the win was well deserved.

One award that made me feel quite confident in the Academy’s ability to pick proper winners was Anna Karenina‘s win for Best Production Design.  I found the movie underwhelming as a whole, but I was amazed by the intricate craftsmanship that went into making the movie seem like a live play, the same way Anna views her surroundings.  The production design in that movie, along with Pi‘s stunning visual effects, were the most innovative things come out of Hollywood in 2012.

All in all, I thoroughly enjoyed the 2013 Oscars, although it could have used some trimming.  I have always had immense respect for the multitalented MacFarlane, and his performance only strengthened those feelings.  Unfortunately, I think he’ll take his kudos and refuse to host the show again, next year.  Neil Patrick Harris, anyone?

Congratulations to all of the winners!  Hopefully, someday, I’ll be able to count myself amongst you.

Sundae Rating: Two scoops with whipped cream

How did I fare with my picks and predictions?

A Good Day to Die Hard

Posted on by

die hard

Director: John Moore

Writer: Skip Woods

Starring: Bruce Willis, Jai Courtney, Sebastian Koch

Tomatometer: 16/10/82 (all critics, top critics, audience)

Spoiler-free Summary: Everyone’s favorite NYPD officer, John McClane, heads to Russia in search of his estranged son Jack, who has gotten into some trouble with the law.  Somehow, Jack has become the key witness in a trial that pits a merciless politician against a disgraced billionaire.  Needless to say, John gets caught in the middle, and explosions ensue.

Two Cents: The dialogue is terrible, the plot has more holes than the O-zone, and the acting is on par with most junior high productions of Cats.  But, it sure is fun to watch stuff blow up!  The movie is short, and a lot of the action is imaginative and exciting.  You can’t go wrong with a little John McClane on a cold winter day.  Don’t worry about learning the names of the other actors, this movie is like a Springsteen concert – it’s all about BRUUUUUUUUCE.  There’s no real connection to the other films in the series, but that’s to be expected (continue reading to find out why).

Over the past decade or so, the most common question leaking from moviegoers’ lips is some form of “Why don’t they make anything new, anymore?”.  As a movie fan, I, too, am upset by the lack of cinematic innovation flowing from Southern California.  Still, I can’t blame Hollywood for leading the Reduce, Reuse, Recycle movement.  Allow me to explain.

Picture yourself in an ice cream store.  There are two flavors available – vanilla and Super Fudge Celery Peanut Salmon Crunch.  What flavor is everyone ordering?  Unless you’ve recently experienced debilitating head trauma, you know everyone is getting vanilla.  Super Fudge Celery Peanut Salmon Crunch may be the best ice cream ever invented, but it’s going to take a lot more than a tiny spoon to convince people to try it.  Now, look at it from the scooper’s side.  He’s spent days, if not months, perfecting his new, delicious flavor of ice cream.  He’s also spent money on all of the premium ingredients that make up the final product.  Now, he needs to convince everyone who walks into his store to try the new flavor.  He scoops out thousands of baby spoonfuls, losing money each time.  Then, only a fraction of the people who taste the new flavor are willing to make a loving commitment to an entire cup or cone of Super Fudge Celery Peanut Salmon Crunch.  Can you blame them?  When you offer vanilla, it’s comforting to people.  They no what to expect, and only the worst version of vanilla would truly upset them.

Now, consider Hollywood’s state of mind.  A large movie studio – let’s use Universal – wants to produce a film.  Universal can pay a couple million dollars for a hot, new script that’s been floating around the agencies, or pay a no-name writer a few hundred thousand bucks to pen a screenplay based on existing content.  The writer already has an advantage, because he doesn’t need to introduce us to the main characters.  He can just jump right into the action.  That gets people in and out of the theater more quickly, which means more showtimes.  When it’s time to cast the movie, the work is already done. Universal has at least one star in place (thanks to contracts that lock actors in for all potential installments in a series), and often, a whole slew (e.g., the Ocean’s 11 and the Pirates of the Caribbean series), so, they don’t need to bring in any other movie stars, or a big-name director.  Then, when it’s time to market the movie, Universal can slap one catchphrase on a million billboards, and people will get the message (Yippe ki-yay…).  Plus, once they post a teaser trailer on YouTube, it is sure to go viral within minutes.  I could go on and on, but you get the point.  Universal can save millions of dollars on production and advertising, and bank on selling millions of tickets to fans of previous installments in the series.  No risk, high reward (especially if you shoot in 3-D).

Should I/Shouldn’t I: If you love action on the big screen, see this one in the theater.  It’s short, and the good stuff starts right away and never lets up.  If you’re looking for a good movie, you’re better off watching the original Die Hard a few dozen times.

Sundae Rating: One scoop of Super Fudge Celery Peanut Salmon Crunch (two scoops if you’re an action junkie)

Sundae Rating Guidelines

Posted on by

The Sundae Rating scale is, essentially, my method for grading a movie on a scale from one (horrible) to six (super-awesome).

Empty cup – 1 (e.g., Meet Dave) – Not good

One scoop – 2 (e.g., The Love Guru) – Decent one-time watch

Two scoops – 3 (e.g., The Day After Tomorrow) – Good one-time watch, possible Sunday afternoon channel surf material

Two scoops with whipped cream – 4 (e.g., The Sandlot) – Really good multi-watch, definite channel surf material

Two scoops with whipped cream and hot fudge – 5 (e.g., Slumdog Millionaire) – Great, definite multi-watch, deserves award consideration

Two scoops with whipped cream, hot fudge, and a cherry on top – 6 (e.g., Braveheart) – Awesome, Oscar-worthy, an all-time favorite

sundae

Warm Bodies

Posted on by

Image

Director: Jonathan Levine

Writer: Jonathan Levine

Based On: Novel (Warm Bodies) by Isaac Marion

Starring: Nicholas Hoult, Teresa Palmer, John Malkovich, Rob Corddry

Tomatometer: 78/65/82 (all critics, top critics, audience)

Spoiler-free Summary: I had a feeling Nicholas Hoult was brain-dead.  What other excuse could he have for breaking up with Jennifer Lawrence?  As it turns out, he’s just regular dead (no heartbeat), but his brain still works.  Hoult’s character, R, is a miserable zombie who desperately wants to rejoin the human race.  His life is boring, he hasn’t quite gotten used to eating human flesh, and his only meaningful relationship consists of a few daily grunts exchanged with Rob Corddry’s M.  Enter Julie, a stunner from (possibly) Earth’s final remaining human settlement.  As Hoult begins to fall for Julie, played by Aussie beauty Palmer, he finds himself slowly regaining his humanity.  Unfortunately, he’s got to prove himself to Julie, who just happens to be the daughter of the de facto King of the human race, a zombie-hating John Malkovich.

Two Cents: We all know that the paranormal romance genre is getting a bit (read: extremely) out of hand.  However, I found it refreshing to see a fresh take on the concept of human hottie falls for non-human hottie against all odds.  This film was so different, and so self-deprecating (including a sarcastic comparison with Romeo and Juliet), that I didn’t mind the whole zombie thing at all.  Seeing the apocalypse from the POV of a zombie was interesting, as well, especially a zombie who still has an appreciation for great music (on vinyl).

Hoult is about to become a huge star (and he might be able to make his success longer than Taylor Kitsch’s did), so take notice.  He’ll be appearing in Jack the Giant Slayer and the next X-Men movie (along with his old flame, J-Law).  Palmer may just be the flavor of the week, but she’s got some talent, and a face that can put butts in seats (imagine a much better looking Kristen Stewart, plus a sweet accent).  I keep asking myself how the heck John Malkovich ended up in this movie, but I’m not complaining.  Now that he barely makes any movies, it’s always nice to get a glimpse of him.  I was hoping for a little more humor than I got from Rob Corddry, but it was nice to see him take on one of his more challenging roles.

Should I/Shouldn’t I: Feel free to wait for this movie to hit HBO.  Once it does, romance and rom-com fans will eat it up.  Comedy and action fans will not find much of that for which they are hoping.

Sundae Rating: Two scoops with whipped cream

The 85th Academy Awards – What I think

Posted on by

Each year, I make an effort to see every film that earns a nomination in the Best Picture category for the Oscars.  I generally get a bit more lazy with the second-tier categories.  However, this year, an unusually high number of nominees in the acting, directing, and writing categories came from the Best Picture nominees, making my 2012 Sunday morning screenings more rewarding and a little less expensive.

While I am far from qualified to argue with the members of the Academy about a particular film’s artistic or technical merits, I believe any person who watches a movie is qualified to offer an opinion about it.  Below are the Academy’s nominations for some of the more high-profile Oscars.  I will do my best to predict the winner in each category, as well as offer my thoughts on the nominees (and the hopefuls who got snubbed) and offer my choice for each award, had I been given the power to vote.

Let’s get down to it.

(Note: “Prediction” = I think this person/picture will win the Oscar.  “Pick” = I would vote for this person/picture if I were granted a vote.)

Best Animated Feature

Nominees: Brave, Frankenweenie, ParaNorman, The Pirates! Band of Misfits, Wreck-It Ralph

Prediction: Brave

Pick: Wreck-It Ralph

I’ll admit I haven’t done the necessary research here.  I’ve only seen two of these five movies, but they are the two heavyweights.  There’s no question this race will come down to Brave and Ralph.  Of the other three, I’d love to see Pirates, but I doubt it will get much consideration from voters.  Brave was a very good movie, with funny characters, beautiful artwork, and a dynamite soundtrack.  However, I found the plot to be weak, especially compared to the rest of Pixar’s filmography.  Having been partially raised by an Irish woman, I was rooting for this picture, but it didn’t quite resonate with me the way I’d hoped it would.  Ralph, on the other hand, blew me away.  Once I saw the preview, I had that “This is going to be awesome, but it might suck” feeling that I often get from trailers.  Luckily, only the first part of that feeling was correct.  With a complex storyline, lovable lead characters, some creative twists, and an impressive sprinkling of classic video game heroes, this movie gave me everything I want in an animated film.  Although I think most viewers would agree that Ralph was a better movie, I have a feeling that the Academy’s love affair with Pixar will carry Brave to victory.

Best Writing – Adapted Screenplay

Nominees: Argo, Beasts of the Southern Wild, Life of Pi, Lincoln, Silver Linings Playbook

Prediction: Lincoln

Pick: Lincoln

None of these screenplays blew me away.  Each one has flaws, but some – especially SLP – benefitted from superb acting and directing.  The story behind Argo was so Hollywooded for the big screen that I feel a demerit is in order.  Beasts was such a free-spirited picture that I don’t think the screenplay was firm enough to warrant a victory here.  I love Pi, and I am amazed at Ang Lee’s  ability to make such an engaging movie with just one actor on screen for so much of its duration (major props to Suraj Sharma, as well); however, the magic of this movie is in the cinematography and the artistic special effects, not in the screenplay.  In my opinion, Lincoln suffered from a common flaw in “epic” movies – an overabundance of characters.  With so many people playing a role in the debate and passing of Old Abe’s cherished amendment, I feel Spielberg gave a cursory glance at too many characters and developed too few.  For example, I would have loved to see him delve deeper into the band of misfits played by James Spader, John Hawkes, and Tim Blake Nelson.  That being said, I believe Tony Kushner had the greatest challenge of this bunch – painting a realistic picture of Abraham Lincoln while covering just a fraction of the legend’s entire life – and his screenplay easily matches the others in quality, so I’d give him the nod.

Best Writing – Original Screenplay

Nominees: Amour, Django Unchained, Flight, Moonrise Kingdom, Zero Dark Thirty

Prediction: Zero Dark Thirty

Pick: Moonrise Kingdom

This category is packed with great nominees.  Honestly, I wouldn’t mind seeing any of these screenplays take home the statuette.  Still, only one can win.  I honestly believe that Django would have been a shoe-in had Quentin Tarantino not decided to add about 20 extra pages once production had begun.  The final few scenes in the otherwise extraordinary film were all about QT, not the story.  Plus, I think we’re all getting over his overindulgent dialogue.  I love QT’s movies, but I think, with this picture, he got carried away with leaving his fingerprints on the final product.  The Academy respects Tarantino, but they’re scared of him.  For that reason, I believe he will be beaten out by Mark Boal, yet again.  (Note: Boal won the Oscar in this category for The Hurt Locker the same year Tarantino had a great chance with Inglourious Basterds.)  I enjoyed Flight, and the screenplay was sharp, but I feel it was the least groundbreaking of the group.  Amour was a beautiful movie, but I think the direction and acting were more impressive than the screenplay itself (even though the writer and director are one and the same).  My choice would be Moonrise Kingdom.  Wes Anderson has such a distinct style, yet he always finds new worlds to explore.  The way he blends humor with whimsy always impresses me, and this movie was no exception.  He made a simple story feel like an epic romance, simply by placing the viewer in a world that revolves completely around his two lead characters.  I don’t think he has a real shot at winning, but the nomination definitely shows how much the Academy appreciates Anderson and his unique storytelling skills.

Best Actress in a Supporting Role

Nominees: Amy Adams, Sally Field, Anne Hathaway, Helen Hunt, Jacki Weaver

Prediction: Hathaway

Pick: Hunt

The supporting actress category is often chock full of great nominees, even more so than the lead actress category.  Hollywood still writes for male leads, which means the best female roles are often supporting those male leads, not replacing them.  This year, there are some big names fighting for this award.  Jacki Weaver, the least famous of the group, was great in SLP, and she helped complete a record-tying sweep of acting nominations for that film, but she was faced with a tough challenge, having to share the screen with three nominated (and arguably more talented) movie stars.  She definitely got drowned out a little, and voters won’t be willing to honor her over her three more deserving costars.  Amy Adams played a perfectly sweet/creepy puppet master in The Master, but she just doesn’t seem to be getting much buzz, mostly because voters fell out of love with her film after a relatively early release.  Sally Field fought tooth and nail to land the role of Mary Todd Lincoln (who was actually much younger than Abe), and she did a splendid job.  I do think she came across as a bit more loony than Spielberg may have expected, but, for all I know, her portrayal of the First Lady was spot-on.  If the other award shows hadn’t been so obsessed with Hathaway, I’d predict Field as the winner.  Speaking of Hathaway, she certainly made the most of her screen time.  Neither her acting, nor her singing blew me away, but she did stand out as the best singer in a film that was cast based on acting ability more than anything else (I feel Eddie Redmayne was the second-best singer of the bunch).  For some reason, Academy voters seem to be overly impressed with Les Misérables as a whole, and Hathaway’s performance in particular.  My vote would go to Hunt, who amazed me in The Sessions, a movie that deserved far more recognition throughout awards season, in my opinion.  She inhabited her role with complete dedication and reckless abandon (in a good way).  Basically, I think Hunt’s performance required far more bravery than those of the other nominees, and she truly nailed it (pun not intended).

Best Actor in a Supporting Role

Nominees: Alan Arkin, Robert De Niro, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Tommy Lee Jones, Christoph Waltz

Prediction: Jones

Pick: Waltz

This is one category that is bothering me.  I didn’t think TLJ’s performance was even nomination-worthy, yet it looks as though he’s going to win an Oscar for it.  I would have replaced him with Dwight Henry, who was the true star of Beasts, Javier Bardem, who terrified me in Skyfall, or John Goodman, who turned in two great supporting performances this year, the better of the two being his turn as Denzel’s best buddy in Flight.  Furthermore, I thought James Spader out-performed TLJ in his own movie.  Alan Arkin was very funny in Argo, but it was nowhere near his incredible (and Oscar-winning) performance in Little Miss Sunshine.  PSH was awesome, as usual, but The Master lost so much of its prestige too early in the awards season process.  If anyone else has a shot to win this category, it’s De Niro.  He was fantastic in SLP, and surprisingly un-De Niro, as well.  I would be more than happy to watch RDN accept his first Oscar in over 30 years, but there’s just too much Lincoln love out there.  I hope I’m wrong.  Christoph Waltz turned in one of the few performances this year that had me jumping out of my chair.  In Django, he was equal parts hilarious, bad-ass, and manipulative.  He somewhat reminded me of a funny Hannibal Lecter, or, more accurately, a more lovable version of his own character in Basterds.

Best Actress in a Leading Role

Nominees: Jessica Chastain, Jennifer Lawrence, Emmanuelle Riva, Quvenzhané Wallis, Naomi Watts

Prediction: Lawrence

Pick: Riva

Jennifer Lawrence has pretty much won every other award, so it’s a safe assumption (yet, not a certainty) that she will take home her first Oscar for her performance in SLP.  She was superb, and she continues to make a name for herself as one of the most believable actresses in Hollywood.  Considering this less-than-stellar crop, I can’t fault anyone for voting for Katniss.  Jessica Chastain is Lawrence’s closest competition, and it would be nice to see ZD30 win a major award (possibly, in addition to Best Adapted Screenplay).  However, I feel that Chastain’s character played a passive role in her own story.  She wasn’t the one doing the torturing, she was rarely doing the interrogation, and she didn’t invade the house.  While she helped moved the story along, I don’t feel Chastain truly carried the movie.  Wallis made an incredible debut in Beasts, but the film was very loose, leaving a lot of room for Wallis to just be what I imagine is herself.  She also benefitted greatly from playing opposite an inspiring performance from Dwight Henry.  Until last week, I would have picked Watts in this category.  She was incredible as a victim of the recent tsunami in Thailand.  She possesses the incredible ability to make filth look beautiful.  She carried the underrated The Impossible, and elevated a wonderful performance from Tom Holland, who played her character’s son.  However, last week, I finally saw Amour, and Riva blew me away.  She was able to portray an elderly woman in failing health with grace and a sense of humor.  That can’t be easy.

Best Actor in a Leading Role

Nominees: Bradley Cooper, Daniel Day-Lewis, Hugh Jackman, Joaquin Phoenix, Denzel Washington

Prediction: Day-Lewis

Pick: Day-Lewis

This category is expected to be a one-horse race, and I don’t have a problem with that.  DDL is such a phenomenal actor, and he so rarely accepts a role, that we are practically conditioned to give him Oscars simply as a token of thanks for gracing our screens with his face.  He certainly was in top form playing President Lincoln, carrying an otherwise underwhelming movie.  He deserves this award, and I’m fairly certain he’ll get it.  That being said, there were two other fantastic performances in this category.  Phoenix perfected the tortured antihero in The Master, and Cooper completely changed the trajectory of his career in SLP.  (In fact, Cooper’s performance, coupled with the belief that his interview with James Lipton on Inside the Actors Studio was the most honest and enjoyable in the series’s storied history, have stoked a rather impassioned man-crush within me.)  Denzel was Denzel, which is always a good thing, but I think we’re past giving him awards for playing the same character so often.  Hugh Jackman’s nomination doesn’t sit well with me.  He was great for the first couple of songs in Les Mis, but once his hair grew in, he started to mail it in.  In his scenes as an ex-con, he showed passion, and his eyes were filled with rage, but all that (as well as his ability to sing on-key) disappeared once Valjean became a proper gentleman.  I definitely would have replaced Jackman with John Hawkes, who flat out mesmerized me in The Sessions and might have even gotten my pick for the win, had he been nominated.  I consider Dwight Henry’s to be a supporting role, although I would have been fine with his inclusion in this category.

Best Director

Nominees: Michael Haneke (Amour), Benh Zeitlin (Beasts of the Southern Wild), Ang Lee (Life of Pi), Steven Spielberg (Lincoln), David O. Russell (Silver Linings Playbook)

Prediction: Spielberg

Pick: Russell

Lee made a gorgeous movie, and I hope it wins a bunch of artistic Oscars, but i don’t see him pulling off an upset here.  Haneke’s movie had the most heart of any in this group, and the acting was superb, but it was a little slow for American audiences, so he won’t be taking home any hardware.  I was happy to see Zeitlin earn his first nomination, as he made a first-rate film with a tiny budget.  Although, if I had to replace one nominee in order to squeeze a very deserving Ben Affleck into this category, it would probably be Zeitlin.  Affleck’s snub is likely the most egregious mistake made by the Academy this year (with Hawkes’s snub close behind).  It may have been caused by the collective assumption, among voters, that Affleck was guaranteed a nomination and, therefore, didn’t need to have his name written on each Academy member’s ballot.  Either way, he has been dominating awards season, which may provide him some bit of comfort.  Spielberg made a technically sound film, but I think DDL’s transcendent performance made it look better than it is.  While I didn’t love Lincoln, Academy voters seem to.  Plus, most of the voting members in the directing category love to show their allegiance to “old Hollywood”, and I think Spielberg has at least one foot on that side of “old”.  Had he been nominated, I may have picked Affleck, and I would have considered Kathryn Bigelow, as well, but of the actual nominees, Russell gets my vote.  SLP is a very good movie, but the acting is phenomenal.  It’s actually the first movies since 1981 (Reds) to earn a nomination in all four acting categories, and I think much of the credit has to go to Russell, especially since so many of the actors (Cooper, De Niro, and Chris Tucker, especially) were playing against type.  

Best Picture

Nominees: Amour, Argo, Beasts of the Southern Wild, Django Unchained, Les Misérables, Life of Pi, Lincoln, Silver Linings Playbook, Zero Dark Thirty

Prediction: Lincoln

Pick: Argo

Lincoln is riding full steam ahead into Oscar season, and it will most likely dominate the major categories at the Academy Awards.  Expect Spielberg, along with his cast and crew, to be celebrating the biggest win of all on February 24th.  I won’t go through each film’s chances, as, frankly, there are far too many nominees, but I will point out a few snubs.  Since there are only nine films nominated, I would have loved to see The Sessions sneak into the tenth slot.  I was surprised that film did not get more love from the Academy.  Another film that is nomination-worthy, in my book, is Skyfall.  More than just a Bond movie, Skyfall was a fast-paced, intelligent thriller with a stellar cast and a killer soundtrack (Adele’s “Skyfall” is a lock for Best Original Song).  No doubt, Argo will get a few sentimental votes, as voters revolt against the fools who didn’t nominate Affleck (themselves), and it’s actually been gaining steam with a nice haul at other awards shows, but Lincoln has captured the hearts of voters in many artistic and technical categories.  The same cannot be said for Argo.  I originally thought ZD30 had a good shot at this award, but once Bigelow got dissed in the directing category, her film’s chances dimmed.  Plus, any pity votes she may have garnered have already been cast in support of Affleck’s cause.


Good luck to all of the contenders, and thank you all for taking a few minutes to read through my insignificant musings on the 85th Academy Awards!