Wednesday, January 14, 2015

MY OFFICIAL 2014 OSCAR NOMINATION PREDICTIONS! (LAWYER'S NOTE: David Baruffi reserves all rights to change/alter any all predictions, prior to, during, and after the Awards are handed out. These predictions are in no way official, nor are they predictions.)



I know, I'm cutting it a little close. This should've been posted earlier, but somebody, who said they were gonna get up at seven and wake me up, didn't get me up until NOON!!!!!!!! I'm still fucking pissed, and catching up, and trying to finish posting this at a reasonable hour, but that didn't fucking happen! GRRRRRRRROWL! (Heavy frustrated sigh)

Anyway, no time for my annual spiel about always correctly predicting every Oscar nominations, so, just pretend I did that again this year, and pretend there's the LAWYER'S NOTE below about how everything I just said was subject to creativity or whatever it is I usually say, just assume I said all that, and with, eh-ugh-, hmm, about 11 hours or so to go, before the Oscar nominations, here are my Predictions, which as I said before, I've never gotten wrong, if you want to win your poll, here ya go. Just saying, take it with a grain of salt, again, sorry for being late with this, but we all promise the most extensive coverage and analyse of anybody, and thankfully Goldderby.com hasn't sued me for saying that, but we'll do our best to do it anyway again. So remember, these are PREDICTIONS, these are not preferences; I haven't seen most of the movies yet, unfortunately; I did listen to most all the songs though, if that helps, (Probably not, knowing the Song category) but still, here we go, no more delaying, let's start with the big categories! First with the list of possible/suspected nominees and then, analyzing the categories, and finally the always perfect (fingers crossed) predictions!


BEST PICTURE
CONTENDERS (Longlist)
"American Sniper"
"Belle"
"Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)"
"Black or White"
"Boyhood"
"Calvary"
"Citizenfour"
"Dear White People"
"Force Majeure"
"Foxcatcher"
"Fury"
"Gone Girl"
"The Grand Budapest Hotel"
"Guardians of the Galaxy"
"Ida"
"The Imitation Game"
"Inherent Vice"
"Interstellar"
"Into the Woods"
"The LEGO Movie"
"Leviathan"
"Life Itself"
"Love is Strange"
"Mommy"
"A Most Violent Year"
"Mr. Turner"
"Nightcrawler"
"Obvious Child"
"Pride"
"Selma"
"St. Vincent"
"The Theory of Everything"
"Two Days, One Night"
"Unbroken"
"Under the Skin"
"Whiplash"
"Wild"

They really gotta go back to 5 for Best Picture, but that's tomorrow's problem. As always we try to make sure nearly every somewhat possible/plausible nominee gets considered and listened here, so we'll have a lot of longlists to analyze, but I usually end up missing one in one of the nominees, but we'll see. The thing to remember is that the Best Picture category is a preferential ballot, not just a list of nominees, and it skews towards number one votes, that's why something like "Unbroken" which has split a lot of critics and viewers, but could get a lot of first place votes by those who do like it. The one that looks like a lock, but I'm really worried about is "Selma". I have a feeling there's a bit of a backlash towards this film after some of the supposed, importance votes that some in Hollywood claimed they made after voting for "12 Years a Slave" last year. The lack of a PGA nomination in particular, is very conspicuous, even though it was a late entry and they didn't get all their screeners out in time supposedly, it didn't show up there, (And they have the same voting process as the Oscars), it didn't show up at BAFTA either, in fact it got shutout entirely there, it didn't screen for the SAGs, I don't think..., trying to figure out exactly where the voters are standing on it, is a bit of a question mark. Other than "American Sniper" and "Nightcrawler", both of which did get into PGAs, they're gaining momentum, "Inherent Vice" and "Interstellar" look a lot like also-ran, this is where those first place votes could come into play, so those have to be considered as strong possibilities as well. Don't be too surprised either if something out there like "Ida" or "Life Itself" sneaks into Best Picture also, this can easily be a year where something like that happens.


PREDICTIONS
"Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)"
"Boyhood"
"Foxcatcher"
"The Grand Budapest Hotel"
"The Imitation Game"
"Nightcrawler"

"Selma"
"The Theory of Everything
"Whiplash"

*"American Sniper"

"Well, "Birdman..." and "Boyhood" are the easy ones, "The Imitation Game"'s got the Weinstein backing, "Gone Girl", I'm worried about 'cause occasionally David Fincher can find a way of getting snubbed, even when it seems obvious, like when he got a DGA nomination for "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" and that didn't push him or the film up at Oscars. I'm taking a shot and say "Nightcrawler" could be the last to sneak in. "The Grand Budapest Hotel", I was worried about, 'cause Wes Anderson films, never get respect at the Oscars, but it's just run the table, getting nominated everywhere and over-exceeding most expectations across the board; I just can't imagine it getting ignored right now. I think there's enough of a "Selma" push, to move it forward,- I'm predicting nine, I think "The Theory of Everything" could be the surprising one out. It's getting good reviews, not great for the film, even though, it's got a fanbase, a good director in James Marsh, an Oscar-winner actually, he won for the documentary "Man on Wire", but I think the performances are outshining the film, and I think this year, but I think it's gonna be "Gone Girl" that ultimately misses out. Honestly, though if the pattern didn't keep tending towards nine nominations, this would be a year where I'd think we might only get six or seven, but I don't think it's gonna get first or second place votes, and this could be the one that falls inevitably. "Foxcatcher" and "Whiplash", are also, fairly safely in, maybe "Foxcatcher"'s on the way out, but just when you think that film's gonna lose momentum, it gains it right back; it did very well at the BAFTAs, Bennett Miller is an Oscar favorite, it's one of the most controversial films, which means first place votes here and there. "Unbroken" just keeps trending down, it's still the one wild card out there, I think it could get the "Nightcrawler" spot,- the thing that's worrying me, with "Unbroken" is that it did incredibly with the Critic's Choice nominations, and that's usually the award show with the biggest parallels, even when it seems like a fluke, like "Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close" getting into Critics Choice, which was bizarre considered it actually got more negative reviews than positive reviews according to Rottentomatoes.com, but the Broadcast Critics liked it, it's better than that film, it got into Picture, Directing, Screenplay, and Cinematography there, so it wasn't one fluky extra nominations for Best Picture thing there, people want to nominate Angelina Jolie,- if she gets into directing, at the DGA's then maybe she gets in, but I'm not seeing it, completely. (LATE SWITCH: moved "Gone Girl" to completely out of Top Ten, and made "American Sniper" late one out.)


BEST DIRECTOR
CONTENDERS (Longlist)
Paul Thomas Anderson-"Inherent Vice"
Wes Anderson-"The Grand Budapest Hotel"
Damien Chazelle-"Whiplash"
Jean-Pierre & Luc Dardenne-"Two Days, One Night"
Ava Duvernay-"Selma"
Clint Eastwood-"American Sniper"
David Fincher-"Gone Girl"
Dan Gilroy-"Nightcrawler"
Jonathan Glazer-"Under the Skin"
Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu-"Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)"
Angelina Jolie-"Unbroken"
Steven Knight-"Locke"
Mike Leigh-"Mr. Turner"
Richard Linklater-"Boyhood"
James Marsh-"The Theory of Everything"
Rob Marshall-"Into the Woods"
John Michael McDonaugh-"Calvary"
Bennett Miller-"Foxcatcher"
Christopher Nolan-"Interstellar"
Robert Oslund-"Force Majeure"
Pawel Pawlikowska-"Ida"
Morten Tyldum-"The Imitation Game"
Paolo Virzi-"Human Capital"
Matthew Warchus-"Pride"
Andrey Zvyagintsev-"Leviathan"

The DGA nods just came in, and it just sorta complicated the nominations more it seems like it's more complicated than ever. Wes Anderson, Linklater and Inarritu, they're the obvious ones, I think Tyldum is in as well; I think the DGA nod sealed it. Eastwood's nomination- Eastwood tends to get votes, just because of name recognition sometimes, and that's unduly, he's still amazingly talented, but I'm not quite sure "American Sniper" has jumped that far yet; I still don't have it in for Best Picture; it feels a bit like it's on the outside looking in; I think it probably needs a screenplay nod and Bradley Cooper to sneak into Actor for it to get into Director and Picture. Um, Ava Duvernay; I thought for sure she was getting into DGA, and this would've been the last spot for "Selma" to really get a critical nomination late, and it didn't. It's screeners have been late, but still, the lack of nominations, a little uneasy, scary really. There's a chance or two for somebody way out there; if the film was eligible I thought Jean-Luc Godard might've snuck in enough votes for "Goodbye to Language" didn't get a eligibility screening in time though, but a Pawel Pawlikowska, don't be shocked if he sneaks in, James Marsh I think can get in. Bennett Miller has gotten in before, he's got a shot at getting in, Fincher always a possibility, although no DGA is a little weird. Damian Chazelle got into BAFTA, surprisingly, that's a possibility. Christopher Nolan's got an outside shot, but unlikely without a Best Picture nod.

PREDICTIONS
Wes Anderson-"The Grand Budapest Hotel"
Damian Chazelle-"Whiplash"
Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu-"Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)"
Richard Linklater-"Boyhood"
Morten Tyldem-"The Imitation Game"

They've surprised us with a first-time filmmaker before and recently, including with Bennett Miller, so I'm kinda thinking they're going that way again, if the trend continues and it's not Duvernay; I was tempted to write-in Bennett Miller, I think it's one of the two, but something tells me, that instead of giving it to Miller again, they're gonna nominate Chazelle instead, and give this new first-time filmmaker the nod. It's been a trend, fifth nomination to the newcomer; it can happen; this seems like where it would.


BEST ACTOR
CONTENDERS (Longlist)
Ben Affleck-"Gone Girl"
Andre Benjamin-"Jimi: All is By My Side"
Steve Carell-"Foxcatcher"
Ellar Coltrane-"Boyhood"
Bradley Cooper-"American Sniper"
Tom Cruise-"Edge of Tomorrow"
Benedict Cumberbatch-"The Imitation Game"
Jon Favreau-"Chef"
Ralph Fiennes-"The Grand Budapest Hotel"
Brendan Gleeson-"Calvary"
Jake Gyllenhaal-"Nightcrawler"
Bill Hader-"The Skeleton Twins"
Tom Hardy-"Locke"
Ethan Hawke-"Boyhood"
Philip Seymour Hoffman-"A Most Wanted Man"
Oscar Isaac-"A Most Violent Year"
Michael Keaton-"Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)"
John Lithgow-"Love is Strange"
Matthew McConaughey-"Interstellar"
Bill Murray-"St. Vincent"
Jack O'Connell-"Unbroken"
David Oyelowo-"Selma"
Joaquin Phoenix-"Inherent Vice"
Eddie Redmayne-"The Theory of Everything"
Chris Rock-"Top Five"
Timothy Spall-"Mr. Turner"
Channing Tatum-"22 Jump Street"
Channing Tatum-"Foxcatcher"
Miles Teller-"Whiplash"
Christoph Waltz-"Big Eyes"

Steve Carell, got into the BAFTAs as a Supporting Actor nominee, and since the top of this category is loaded, something tells me that the Oscars might do that too. Remember, actors listed in categories like this, and if a performance is listed for both Lead and Supporting, both votes are combined and the performance goes into the category that the performance got the most votes, and Carell can sneak into either category, if voters, start doing that, and the more I look at it, the more possible this gets. Ethan Hawke is in a similar position as well, mostly honored for Supporting, but, those extra votes in both categories, could steal a nomination here. Until we know how the Academy feels about "Unbroken" I can't completely rule out Jack O'Connell" and the same goes for "Selma" as well, and there's a few other leftfield possibilities here, Bradley Cooper, "American Sniper" is a hot film at the right time, Philip Seymour Hoffman, there's definitely a possibility for a vote for him, people want to see him nominated. When Timothy Spall didn't get into BAFTA, I think that knocked his chances out, 'cause if he was getting in anywhere, it would've been BAFTA, and "Mr. Turner", did poorly there in general surprisingly. Tom Hardy for "Locke", is one of those weird one in another year, I would think could sneak in, but I think it's too loaded a field for him to get the opening, even if Carell moves to Supporting.

PREDICTIONS
Benedict Cumberbatch-
"The Imitation Game"
Jake Gyllenhaal-"Nightcrawler"
Michael Keaton-"Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)"
David Oyelowo-"Selma"
Eddie Redmayne-"The Theory of Everything"

Cumberbatch, Keaton, Redmayne, and I'm gonna say Gyllenhaal are in. Gyllenhaal's the one that seems weakest on first inspection, but he's gotten in everywhere so far, Keaton's the comeback story, Redmayne's playing Stephen Hawking, he's in, Cumberbatch- you can make a serious argument that he's the biggest star in the world right now, and I think the Oscars want to recognize that, plus it's a very good performance, but the last nomination, depends entirely on where Steve Carell ends up. I'm going with Oyelowo, I wouldn't be shocked if Bradley Cooper gets it instead; Ralph Fiennes is the other one, who could sneak in here, but until I see a Wes Anderson performance gets nominated, I don't feel like I can presume it, plus he didn't get SAG, but the more I think about the actors starring at this ballot, trying to figure where to put Carell, I can just easily see votes going to him for Supporting, and I have a strange hunch that more voters did that then we think. But, if I'm wrong, it's Carell in instead of Oyelowo; maybe he gets in over Cumberbatch or Gyllenhaal, but I think it's Oyelowo, he'd knock out in Lead, and Supporting, we'll get to in a sec.


BEST ACTRESS
CONTENDERS (Longlist)
Amy Adams-"Big Eyes"
Jennifer Aniston-"Cake"
Patricia Arquette-"Boyhood"
Emily Blunt-"Into the Woods"
Valeria Bruni Tedeschi-"Human Capital"
Marion Cotillard-"The Immigrant"
Marion Cotillard-"Two Days, One Night"
Essie Davis-"The Babadook"
Anne Dorval-"Mommy"
Isabelle Huppert-"Abuse of Weakness"
Scarlett Johansson-"Lucy"
Scarlett Johansson-"Under the Skin"
Felicity Jones-"The Theory of Everything"
Agata Kulesza-"Ida"
Gugu Mbatha-Raw-"Belle"
Melissa McCarthy-"St. Vincent"
Helen Mirren-"The Hundred-Foot Journey"
Julianne Moore-"Maps to the Stars"
Julianne Moore-"Still Alice"
Cheng Pei Pei-"Lilting"
Rosamund Pike-"Gone Girl"
Jenny Slate-"Obvious Child"
Hilary Swank-"The Homesman"
Tilda Swinton-"Only Lovers Left Alive"
Tessa Thompson-"Dear White People"
Agata Trzebuchowska-"Ida"
Quvenzhane Wallis-"Annie"
Mia Wasikowska-"Tracks"
Kristen Wiig-"The Skeleton Twins"
Reese Witherspoon-"Wild"

The one that I think is the toughest one here to analyze is Amy Adams, for sure. "Big Eyes", not doing great in theaters or great with critics; but she was the heavy favorite, according to a lot of prognosticators for months ahead of time, but "Big Eyes" is a Weinstein film, she just won the Golden Globe, she got into BAFTA, no SAG nomination's a bit scary, and the trend continues to roll downhill against it. That said, she's still the one that I more people than should are ignoring, and thinking she's out completely, I'm just not sure where she's gonna end up. The other tricky one, is Jennifer Aniston for "Cake", she got into SAG, Critics and the Globes, but it's her and Adams for the last spot, and I thing that we're probably missing something, and I just don't particularly see it elsewhere. If there's one, kind out there nominee, it's probably Marion Cotillard, but she's a bit screwed 'cause she's got two films and what votes she's getting are gonna be split between, which is a bit strange considering that's not happening with Julianne Moore. Pretty much unanimously "Still Alice" has got all her votes, even though she won at Cannes for "Maps to the Stars". An actor/actress can only be nominated once in a category at the Oscars (They should change that rule but...) but it seems fairly clear the four who are guaranteed ins,  and the last one in, flip a coin, it's either Aniston or Adams.

PREDICTIONS
Jennifer Aniston-"Cake"
Felicity Jones-"The Theory of Everything"
Julianne Moore-"Still Alice"
Rosamund Pike-"Gone Girl"
Reese Witherspoon-"Wild"

There's one other out there scenario where Patricia Arquette might be switched off into Lead, but I don't see that happening, and- frankly, Amy Adams has been nominated so often now that, I have a suspicion that, no matter the Weinstein backing, if none of the voters she really has a chance to win at this point, then I don't think it's overly worth it to nominate her, and I think it pretty clear they don't think that, so with Cotillard's votes split, Aniston gets the last spot. The only name I didn't put up there earlier who could pull something off, maybe Isabelle Huppert for "Abuse of Weakness", but I don't think enough people saw it.


SUPPORTING ACTOR
CONTENDERS (Longlist)
Riz Ahmen-"Nightcrawler"
Josh Brolin-"Inherent Vice
Albert Brooks-"A Most Violent Year"
Steve Carell-"Foxcatcher"
Johnny Depp-"A Most Violent Year"
Robert Duvall-"The Judge"
Michael Fassbender-"Frank"
Ethan Hawke-"Boyhood"
Miyavi-"Unbroken"
Alfred Molina-"Love is Strange"
Edward Norton-"Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)"
Tyler Perry-"Gone Girl"
Mark Ruffalo-"Foxcatcher"
Ben Schnetzer-"Pride"
Andrew Scott-"Pride"
Andy Serkis-"Dawn of the Planet of the Apes"
J.K. Simmons-"Whiplash"
Christoph Waltz-"Big Eyes"
Tom Wilkinson-"Selma"

I feel like-eh, Tim Russert with the clipboard here, but instead of it saying "Florida! Florida! Florida!" it says "Steve Carell! Steve Carell! Steve Carell!", is there enough people coming to say conclusion that BAFTA did, and put him in Supporting, and is that enough votes between the categories? This is a helluva gamble, but I'm go double-down on this, I think he gets into Supporting Actor; I look at the rest of the potential nominees, and it's harder to make the argument for too many of them.  The rest of them seem solid, Simmons is in, probably will win, Ruffalo, Norton, and Hawke are in, and maybe Josh Brolin, maybe Tom Wilkinson, maybe Christoph Waltz, although if he gets in we'd really have to rethink how they're reacting to "Big Eyes", Miyavi for "Unbroken", possible deep longshot, and that's if we think "Unbroken"'s gonna get in a lot of places, and I just don't see. Robert Duvall got the SAG nod, but he's gotten that before when it hasn't payed off, and Carell was nominated in Lead for SAG, so if it's the fifth place struggle between them....

PREDICTIONS
Steve Carell-"Foxcatcher"
Ethan Hawke-"Boyhood"
Edward Norton-"Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)
Mark Ruffalo-"Foxcatcher"
J.K. Simmons-"Whiplash"

This is a huge crapshoot when you're not the one rolling the dice, but I'm gonna take it, Carell gets in at Supporting, the rest stay paint.


SUPPORTING ACTRESS
CONTENDERS (Longlist)
Shohreh Agdashloo-"Rosewater"
Patricia Arquette-"Boyhood"
Dorothy Atkinson-"Mr. Turner"
Adrianna Barrazza-"Cake"
Jessica Chastain-"A Most Violent Year"
Jessica Chastain-"Interstellar"
Suzanne Clement-"Mommy"
Carrie Coon-"Gone Girl"
Viola Davis-"The Disappearance of Eleanor Rigby"
Laura Dern-"Wild"
Kim Dickens-"Gone Girl"
Carmen Ejogo-"Selma"
Jessica Lange-"The Gambler"
Anna Kendrick-"Into the Woods"
Keira Knightley-"The Imitation Game"
Agata Kulesza-"Ida"
Melissa McCarthy-"St. Vincent"
Sienna Miller-"Foxcatcher"
Julianne Moore-"Maps to the Stars"
Miranda Otto-"The Homesman"
Rosamund Pike-"Gone Girl"
Vanessa Redgrave-"Foxcatcher"
Rene Russo-"Nightcrawler"
Octavia Spencer-"Black or White"
Imelda Staunton-"Pride"
Kristen Stewart-"Still Alice"
Emma Stone-"Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)"
Meryl Streep-"Into the Woods"
Tilda Swinton-"Snowpiercer"
Tessa Thompson-"Dear White People"
Marisa Tomei-"Love is Strange"
Katherine Waterston-"Inherent Vice"
Naomi Watts-"Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)"
Naomi Watts-"St. Vincent"
Reese Witherspoon-"Inherent Vice"

The one kinda, outta leftfield Guild nomination was Naomi Watts getting in for "St. Vincent" of all things. She's a great actress who probably should be honored for films, even when the films aren't overly-considered themselves great (And she has before with her nomination for "The Impossible") but with a more unpredictable SAG guild to consider anyway, I think most everybody considers that nomination to be an anomaly. If anything, she has a better shot for getting in for "Birdman...". Also, there's a late push to try to get Julianne Moore into Supporting for "Maps to the Stars", it's happened before with her, where she probably, I'd argue should've been in for lead for "The Hours", but was nominated that year for "Far From Heaven", so she got placed in Supporting for that film, but it's a very late development if that's happening, but there is room. I'm the one, that's not as sold on Keira Knightley's nomination as others are; she's the one I think is slipping out as well, and that leaves some room open. Rosamund Pike, I think it's pushed enough into lead that she'll be in there, little chance of her falling back into Supporting. Katherine Waterston for "Inherent Vice" might be the one we're all overlooking as well, That said, Arquette's in, Emma Stone is in, Meryl Streep, fairly certain she's in. Knightley, might be in the lead, but there's competition, Adrianna Barrazza for "Cake", she's snuck in before when no one particularly had her in, Jessica Chastain got in for SAG and the Globe, Rene Russo for "Nightcrawler" is another one; she's never been nominated before, and very quietly, really quietly, really, she's been doing some of her really best work. She got into BAFTA; it's hard to imagine there isn't an upswell for her, especially if "Nightcrawler" keeps getting in for Gyllenhaal, and seemingly everything else. Carmen Ejogo, Imelda Staunton, and Laura Dern also have been hovering around a few nominations here and there. Tilda Swinton's got a push for "Snowpiercer", but I'm not seeing that one; I don't think enough of the voters liked the film that much, and frankly, while it's an interesting performance; I can't imagine that sneaking in here with other options on the board. This category, has a tendency to be a little wild anyway and I think there's room for some wild cards here.

PREDICTIONS
Patricia Arquette-"Boyhood"
Jessica Chastain-"A Most Violent Year"
Rene Russo-"Nightcrawler"
Emma Stone-"Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)"
Meryl Streep-"Into the Woods"

Russo, I think will get in through the "Nightcrawler" upswell, and it is a bit weird that she's never gotten nominated; I lot of people like Rene Russo, and really want to give her a career nomination anyway. Jessica Chastain is the spot to honor "A Most Violent Year" and the Academy does like J.C. Chandor and they've recognized in a short time, the really high quality of films he's put out; a little tricky this year putting him into Screenplay, so I think they'll want to honor him and Chastain here, and Chastain's a favorite anyway. And I had Laura Dern getting the fifth spot, but Meryl Streep's been more consistent with the nominations across the board, and frankly she's Meryl Streep, she did a movie; she's probably getting nominated, and I'm gonna say Keira Knightley falls out. They love Keira Knightley, but even with Weinstein backing, I'm a little surprised she keeps sneaking in, and there's always one that there for every award and then somehow, Oscars miss them, and this is one of those spots where it makes sense that she'd be missed here, especially since there's room for a lot of possible surprises here.


ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
CONTENDERS (Longlist)
"Big Eyes"-Scott Alexander & Larry Karaszewski
"Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)"-Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu, Nicolas Giacobone, Alexander Dinelaris, Jr. and Armando Bo
"Blue Ruin"-Jeremy Saulnier
"Boyhood"-Richard Linklater
"Calvary"-John Michael McDonaugh
"Dear White People"-Justin Simien
"The Grand Budapest Hotel"-Wes Anderson and Hugo Guiness
"Foxcatcher"-E. Max Frye and Dan Futterman
"Frank"-Jon Ronson and Peter Straughn
"Fury"-David Ayer
"Ida"-Pawel Pawlikowska and Rebecca Lenkiewicz
"Interstellar"-Jonathan Nolan and Christopher Nolan
"Land Ho!"-Aaron Katz & Martha Stevens
"The LEGO Movie"-Screenplay: Phil Lord & Christopher; Story by Dan Hagerman & Kevin Hagerman and Phil Lord & Christopher Miller
"Leviathan"-Oleg Negin and Andrey Zvyagintsev
"Lilting"-Hong Khaou
"Locke"-Steven Knight"
"Love is Strange"-Ira Sacs & Mauricio Zacharias
"A Most Violent Year"-J.C. Chandor
"Mr. Turner"-Mike Leigh
"Nightcrawler"-Dan Gilroy
"The One I Love"-Justin Lader
"Only Lovers Left Alive"-Jim Jarmusch
"Pride"-Steven Beresford
"Selma"-Paul Webb
"The Skeleton Twins"-Craig Johnson & Mark Heyman
"St. Vincent"-Theodore Melfi
"Top Five"-Chris Rock"
"Two Days, One Night"-Jean-Pierre Dardenne & Luc Dardenne

Okay with "Whiplash" out, "Boyhood", "Birdman...." and "The Grand Budapest Hotel", they're the guaranteed ones. "Selma", "Nightcrawler" and "Foxcatcher", are the last three, maybe "A Most Violent Year" will sneak in, but it'd have to knock out two of those. "Locke" would be interesting, but I don't see it; "Ida" and "Only Lovers Left Alive" are directors films, "Mr. Turner" also got a shot, 'cause traditionally you would normally just write-in the Mike Leigh nomination here, but he didn't get into WGA, BAFTA, or the Critics Choice either, strangely. Assuming DGA nod for Ava Duvernay, I think "Selma"'s in, if she doesn't get DGA though, uh, we have to rethink a lot including this category.

PREDICTIONS
Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)-Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu, Nicolas Giacobone, Alexander Dinelaris, Jr. and Armando Bo
Boyhood-Richard Linklater
Foxcatcher-E. Max Frye and Dan Futterman
The Grand Budapest Hotel-Wes Anderson and Hugo Guiness
Nightcrawler-Dan Gilroy

Hmm. "Selma", might be like "The Help" here, and miss screenplay I think. Just a hunch.


ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
CONTENDERS (Longlist)
"American Sniper"-Jason Hall
"Gone Girl"-Gillian Flynn
"Guardians of the Galaxy"-James Gunn and Nicole Perlman
"The Imitation Game"-Graham Moore
"Inherent Vice"-Paul Thomas Anderson
"Into the Woods"-James Lapine
"A Most Wanted Man"-Andrew Bovell
"Paddington"-Paul King
"Snowpiercer"-Joon-Ho Bong and Kelly Masterson
"Still Alice"-Richard Glatzner & Wash Westmoreland
"The Theory of Everything"-Anthony McCarten
"Unbroken"-Joel Coen & Ethan Coen, Richard LaGravenese and William Nicholson
"Under the Skin"-Jonathan Glazer
"We are the Best!"-Lukas Moodysson
"Whiplash"-Damien Chazelle
"Wild"-Nick Hornby

Some controversy in the category as "Whiplash" was switched over to Adapted Screenplay, under dubious circumstances, but it through a loop into the category. WGA are not a great basis for the category to begin with, 'cause they're notoriously unreliable due to the strictness of their rules."The Theory of Everything" probably benefits most from this, and it's a stretch putting "Guardians of the Galaxy" into Adapted anyway. "Gone Girl" is listed on Gold Derby as the second choice right now, but here's the thing that might screw Gillian Flynn over here, especially if it doesn't get into Best Picture, she's adapting her own work, and nobody's won an Oscar doing that since "The Cider House Rules" won back in, '99, I believe. That's a long time, and frankly, the Academy tends to skew against people adapting their own material, figuring it's fairly simple to do, and to some extent they might have a point; last year for instance, Tracy Letts didn't get in for "August: Osage County", and Fincher, people forget this him, but his films rarely get screenplay nominations. Aaron Sorkin, won his Oscar for "The Social Network" and remember he lost Director for that, and that was his best shot at winning to date, and "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" was controversially nominated in Adapted Screenplay, while it wasn't a direct adaptation, there a conspicuously noticeable amount of material that Eric Roth seemed to be recycling from "Forrest Gump". That said, there's not a large board to look off of either. Assuming Jason Hall is in for "American Sniper", assuming the momentum continues for "Whiplash", and "The Imitation Game", "The Theory of Everything" is in, that leaves one spot. There's "Wild" which Nick Hornby co-wrote and they want to honor him, 'cause he's books have been a source of inspiration for some really good films in the past including "About a Boy" which got an Adapted Screenplay nomination once, there's "Unbroken", the Coen Brothers and other good writers there; there's "Inherent Vice", P.T. Anderson is a favorite, but "The Master" wasn't in Writing last time, might be a downward trend there. And "Gone Girl" still has the momentum over "Wild" frankly; which nobody's listing for Best Picture or anything else other than acting and this one screenplay possibility.

PREDICTIONS
Gone Girl-Gillian Flynn
The Imitation Game-Graham Moore
Inherent Vice-Paul Thomas Anderson
The Theory of Everything-Anthony McCarten
Whiplash-Damien Chazelle

I've written in a crossed out a few titles multiple times here, but I'm gonna take a shot and say "Unbroken"'s losing streak will continue. And I don't think "American Sniper" is gonna get the late push some think it will, Eastwood hasn't been particularly beloved by the Academy lately, and there's some controversy around that normally, I think it wouldn't hurt in the screenplay category, but, I don't know if the script was the appeal of the film either. I'm gonna through "Inherent Vice" into the "American Sniper" slot. I don't know, I might switch that back to "Wild", this is gonna be close; this is the toughest year to predict Adapted Screenplay in a while.


ANIMATED FEATURE
CONTENDERS
"Big Hero 6"
"The Book of Life"
"The Boxtrolls"
"Cheatin'"
"Giovanni's Island"
"Henry & Me"
"The Hero of Color City"
"How to Train Your Dragon 2"
"Jack and the Cuckoo-Clock Heart"
"Legends of Oz: Dorothy's Return"
"Miniscule--Valley of the Lost Ants"
"Mr. Peabody & Sherman"
"Penguins of Madagascar"
"The Pirate Fairy"
"Planes: Fire & Rescue"
"Rio 2"
"Rocks in My Pockets"
"Song of the Sea"
"The Tale of Princess Kaguya"

In a weak animated year, as this seems to be, I think it's time to look around a bit. "The LEGO Movie" is in, "Big Hero 6" and "How to Train Your Dragon 2" are probably in, "The Tale of Princess Kaguya" is the one gaining the most momentum, after that, it's a little tricky. "Cheatin'" for instance, isn't even listed on the Goldderby list, but it was nominated for a Best Picture Annie Award, and it's the great Bill Plympton's film. There's also "Song of the Sea", that's Tomm Moore's film; he got a surprise nomination one year for "The Secret of the Kells", which wasn't even that good a movie, so they like him. "Jack and the Cuckoo-Clock Heart" is a French animated film, they've gone a French film a few times in the past. "Rocks in My Pockets" is a bit of a daring film as well. I think "The Boxtrolls" probably has presumed the last position, but I don't think it's over safe here.

PREDICTIONS
Big Hero 6
The Boxtrolls
How to Train Your Dragon
The LEGO Movie
The Tale of Princess Kaguya

I thought a big about going off the board here, especially since  I think they'd like to honor Bill Plympton once in a while, and this is a good chance to do it, but, I think based on the Annie nominations if you closely through them; it seems like "The Boxtrolls" will have a lock on that last spot. I can't really see enough for anything else, but if there is, it'll probably be "Song of the Sea" getting in instead.


FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM
CONTENDERS
"Accused" (The Netherlands)
"Corn Island" (Georgia)
"Force Majeure" (Sweden)
"Ida" (Poland)
"Leviathan" (Russia)
"The Liberator" (Venezuela)
"Tangerines" (Estonia)
"Timbuktu" (Mauritania)
"Wild Tales" (Argentina)

There were a few titles that didn't make the Oscar shortlist strangely. The Dardenne Brothers' "Two Days, One Night", they never seem to have luck at the Oscars, and despite Cotillard being a legitimate Best Actress contender, didn't get it. Eh, Xavier Dolan's "Mommy", Canada's entry, missed the cut; that film won at Cannes. France's entry Bertrand Bonello's "Yves Saint Laurent", good director, and I think that film has an outside shot at Costume Design, but missed the cut here. Israel's "Gett, the Trial of Vivian Ansalem" that won a lot of critics' awards and nominated across Europe and the Middle East, missed the cut. "Human Capital" did well with the European Film Awards, the Italian film, missed. The Philippines's entry, "Norte, the end of History" got noted a few places too; Turkey's "Winter Sleep", really shocking that that one got left out. I know it was a loaded field, and except for "Corn Island" from Georgia and "The Liberator" from Venezuela, there wasn't anything out-of-nowhere completely, that made the cut,  And yes, I'm sure you're all aware, "Tangerines"'s director, Zazu Urushadze, is technically from Georgia, how does his film end up, Estonian, while Georgis submits "Corn Island" instead? It's a bit controversial, I know, but it's nothing, a country has to fund the production; so it isn't just where the Director is from that determines the film. Anyway, it was a split production, and Estonia submitted it, while Georgia looks smart submitting a different film; they can technically almost get two films in this year.

PREDICTIONS
Corn Island Georgia
Force Majeure (Sweden)
Ida (Poland)
Leviathan (Russia)
Tangerines (Estonia)

Foreign Language film, is always a bit of a crapshoot, especially since it's a committee, you never really know what they're thinking, until the announcements come out. You kinda just have to look around. "Ida" and "Leviathan", they're basically 1-2 in most everywhere; I can't imagine them not getting in. "Force Majeure" has also been showing up constantly, but I'm a little worried about that one, myself, but I'm gonna go with the trend. "Timbuktu" has been showing up as well, Mauritania is one of those countries that's never been nominated, like Estonia and Georgia as well, I'm not sure Venezuela ever gotten a film in either. That's a biopic of Simon Bolivar they submitted with a named star in Edgar Ramirez, that's one to worry about as well. The apple in the bag of oranges, is "Corn Island" which is a silent film, it sounds like a documentary but it's a drama about life in the Republic of Georgia. It looks like this year's "The Missing Picture", but I'm struggling to figure out what goes out to put it in, and "Wild Tales" just seems like it's gotten a lot of praise as well; I can't really see that not getting. I'd be worried about "Accused" as well, that's a director that's Paula van der Oest, she's been a surprise nominee here before with "Zus & Zo" before, I always look for repeat nominees here, but, there's been a weird trend, where when a country, seems to go against the obvious choice, and it gets all the way here, it usually gets in. So, I'm going with both Georgian films, "Corn Island" and "Tangerines" getting in.


DOCUMENTARY FEATURE
CONTENDERS
"Art and Craft"
"The Case Against 8"
"Citizen Koch"
"CitizenFour"
"Finding Vivian Maier"
"Keep On Keepin' On"
"The Internet's Own Boy"
"Jodorowsky's Dune"
"The Kill Team"
"Last Days in Vietnam"
"Life Itself"
"The Overnighters"
"The Salt of the Earth"
"Tales of the Grim Sleeper"
"Virunga"

Well, let's start with, the big one, if "Life Itself" doesn't get nominated then heads are gonna roll, so that's in. (If you know Steve James's history with the Documentary Branch of the Academy then you'll understand why) The only one of these I've seen so far was "Citizen Koch", which I'm actually a little surprised to see here; I think that made the shortlist because it was supposed to be a PBS broadcast, but one of the Koch Brothers was on the PBS board, and blocked it's viewing over most PBS stations, so they moved it into theaters, since it was getting publicity. It's not a bad movie at all, but I'd be shocked if that was nominated. Eh, other than something way out of leftfield, "CitizenFour" seems like a lock, "Life Itself" better be a lock. There's a few others getting acclaim, "Finding Vivian Maier", "The Internet's Own Boy", "Jodorowsky's Dune", that probably has a filmmaker appeal, and filmmakers are the ones voting? "The Overnighters" is has gotten some acclaim. "Art and Craft" has shown up here and there, "Virunga"'s on Netflix, that's popular. "The Salt of the Earth", that co-directed by the great Wim Wenders, he's been nominated twice before in the category; I know the Academy wants to try to get him a win (And as one of my favorite filmmakers, I'd like to see him get in). Same kinda goes for Nick Broomfield; his film "Tales of the Grim Sleeper", like "Virunga" has a 100% on rottentomatoes.com, he's made some great documentaries in the past. That said though, this is a committee category, so you do wanna look around a bit to find the obscure bait film, "The Kill Team" seems to have that to me, but there's "Last Days in Vietnam" with a bigger push as well, for war documentaries. You never fully know with this category, you hope there's no surprise here, but their usually is at least one.

PREDICTIONS
CitizenFour
Last Days in Vietnam
Life Itself
The Overnighters
Virunga

Don't be surprised if "Keep On Keepin' On" which is probably the lightest piece in the bunch sneaks in, or possibly "The Case Against 8" that might steer a vote or two in that film's direction, based on the subject being Proposition 8 in California, but I'm not sure that's gonna sway as many votes as people think; especially in what looks like a very good documentary year; I mean, there's a legitimate shot that "CitizenFour" and "Life Itself" probably are getting Best Picture votes, so the nomination is the award this year, and I think subject matter's gonna take a backseat temporarily in the category.


CINEMATOGRAPHY
CONTENDERS (Longlist)
"American Sniper"
"Big Eyes"
"Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)"
"Exodus: Gods and Kings"
"Foxcatcher"
"Gone Girl"
"The Grand Budapest Hotel"
"The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies"
"The Homesman"
"Ida"
"The Immigrant"
"The Imitation Game"
"Inherent Vice"
"Interstellar"
"Into the Woods"
"Mr. Turner"
"Nightcrawler"
"Selma"
"The Theory of Everything"
"Unbroken"
"Under the Skin"
"Wild"

Cinematography has a tendency to follow the ASC Guild pretty closely they have "Birdman...", "The Grand Budapest Hotel", "Mr. Turner" and "Unbroken", and those four have pretty much gotten everywhere they've been eligible in the category so far. They also nominated "The Imitation Game" however, and that didn't even get a BAFTA nomination and even "Mr. Turner" got in there despite them notoriously, traditionally snubbing Mike Leigh, there and everywhere else for that matter. The obvious missing one from that group is "Interstellar", but that's been under-performing all award season. Just thinking a bit outside-the-box, "Big Eyes", Tim Burton movie, can't completely ignore that possibility, "Under the Skin" if somebody liked it at the Academy, it might get in here; it might also get into musical score also, but the one I think is a dark horse is "Ida". I wasn't the biggest fan of the film, but it was beautifully shot, the black-and-white cinematography is gorgeous and that is a film that's big enough and has enough of a fanbase that it's one of those foreign films that can sneak into a technical category like Cinematography.

PREDICTIONS
Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)-Emmanuel Lubezki
The Grand Budapest Hotel-Robert D. Yeoman
Interstellar-Hoyte von Hoytema
Mr. Turner-Dick Pope
Unbroken-Roger Deakins

Even with "Unbroken" slipping everywhere else, Roger Deakins, still yet to win, should be nominated again, this would be 12th; he was nominated last year for "Prisoners" when the film got nothing else, so there's precedent. The precedent is that he'll lose again. Anyway, I'm worried a bit about "Ida" sneaking in late and taking that "Interstellar" slot, or perhaps even "The Grand Hotel Hotel" falling out, but I think I gotta stick with "Interstellar"; it's tempting to be cute with some of the technical awards, but I don't think that's what's gonna happen here though.


COSTUME DESIGN
CONTENDERS (Longlist)
"Belle"
"Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)"
"Boyhood"
"Exodus: Gods and Kings"
"Gone Girl"
"The Grand Budapest Hotel"
"Guardians of the Galaxy"
"The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies"
"The Hunger Games: Mockingjay, Part 1"
"The Immigrant"
"Inherent Vice"
"Interstellar"
"Into the Woods"
"Maleficent"
"Miss Julie"
"Mr. Turner"
"Noah"
"Selma"
"The Theory of Everything"
"Unbroken"
"Wild"
"Yves Saint Laurent"

If you're looking for a longshot nomination that could sneak in, the French biopic; "Yves Saint Laurent", it was France's submission for the Foreign Language film category this year, and it's about the legendary fashion designer; if enough people in the branch saw it, and it eligible in the category, it could be a spoiler here. It's a bit unusual when they go against the Guild choices entirely, but a foreign film with an emphasis on fashion could do it, again I worry about being too cute here, but it's tempting to see that title on there and think, "It's gotta have a reaction from the Costume Designers at least, if nothing else, just to honor him." That's the one that's throwing me into a bit of a loop 'cause I just easily see that sneaking in there. Another one that the Guild missed was "Mr. Turner", that got the BAFTA and Critics Choice nomination, and I have a feeling the screener came late to the Guild or something; I think that's in. A fifth nomination out there, seems a little tricky, but this might be where "Selma" sneaks in, 'cause it did get into the CDG Awards, but there's a couple other out there, "Inherent Vice", "Birdman...", "Interstellar", "Guardian of the Galaxy", I don't think "Unbroken" should be dismissed either here, and-eh, a lesser-known film called "Belle", didn't get into the Guild, but small budget period piece, that has caught on with other awards; this might be the spot at the Academy to honor it.

PREDICTIONS
The Grand Budapest Hotel
The Imitation Game
Into the Woods
Maleficent
Selma

I think it's either "Selma" or "Mr. Turner" for the last spot, but since it didn't get into the Guild, I gotta go with what got in, and say "Selma" sneaks in here, but it's gonna be close for that slot; Awardscircuit.com interestingly has "Maleficent" out; I can't figure that scenario out at all, but this is one of those, there's six or seven deserving spots, and five nomination problems. I think I get their process, you have the fairy tale with "Into the Woods", you don't need to nominated "Maleficent", but this is the same set of Costume Designers that nominated two version of "Snow White..." for Oscars and for the Guild awards before too.


EDITING
CONTENDERS (Longlist)
"American Sniper"
"Big Hero 6"
"Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)"
"The Boxtrolls"
"Boyhood"
"CitizenFour"
"Dawn of the Planet of the Apes"
"Edge of Tomorrow"
"Finding Vivian Maier"
"Foxcatcher"
"Fury"
"Glen Campbell: I'll Be Me"
"Gone Girl"
"The Grand Budapest Hotel"
"Guardians of the Galaxy"
"The Guest"
"The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies"
"The Imitation Game"
"Inherent Vice"
"Interstellar"
"Into the Woods"
"The LEGO Movie"
"A Most Violent Year"
"Nightcrawler"
"Selma"
"The Theory of Everything"
"Unbroken"
"Whiplash"

The Eddie Awards added a sixth nomination for their Dramatic Feature category this year, so there must've been a tie at some point. The Best Editing Oscar has traditionally been the award that has matched up with Best Picture, at some points, even more often then the Best Director Oscar, although the exception is usually a movie that involves a lot of chase sequences. by far the hardest scenes to cut. That makes me a little surprised that "Edge of Tomorrow" hasn't shown up at any major Editing awards, including the A.C.E.s this year. That said, assuming "Boyhood", "Birdman...", and I'm leaning towards  "The Grand Budapest Hotel" being in, but maybe not, there's "Interstellar" which also strangely missed a Guild nomination, along with "Selma", there's "American Sniper", there's "Whiplash", there's "Gone Girl", there's something like "Inherent Vice" that could sneak in. "The Imitation Game" could keep riding it's wave as well here. Hmm. Tough category.

PREDICTIONS
Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)"
Boyhood
Gone Girl
Interstellar
Whiplash

I'm going with a hunch on "Whiplash", the use of combining music and editing probably grabbed their attention enough to nominate it. "Interstellar", taking a shot on that one. After "Birdman" and "Boyhood", there's about 12-15 films that legitimately take the editing spots; this is really down to a guessing game at this point.


MAKEUP & HAIRSTYLING
CONTENDERS (Shortlist)
"The Amazing Spider-Man 2"
"Foxcatcher"
"The Grand Budapest Hotel"
"Guardians of the Galaxy"
"Maleficent"
"Noah"
"The Theory of Everything"

And the annual dartboard of the Acaedemy Awards, the Makeup & Hairstyling Oscar; last year was the first time I ever completely whiffed on a category last year, when I got all three of these nominations wrong, but I'm hardly the only one with that problem either, and they're guild is actually giving awards out this year, although they don't always and frankly, they've been notably inconsistent anyway. Sometimes incredibly inconsistent. Anyway, "The Amazing Spider-Man 2" a very strange admission to this shortlist, although there's a couple characters with impressive makeup job, they were mostly special effects, and frankly it didn't get a single Guild nomination, in either of the five hair/makeup categories. Neither did "Noah" btw, but the makeup was relatively interesting in that film. "The Grand Budapest Hotel" and "Guardians of the Galaxy" got two nods apiece, so let's tentatively assume they're in, that leaves one spot, (Remember there's only 3 nominees in this category; why that is, I have no fucking clue; there's absolutely no reason this shouldn't be five nominees.) eh, "Foxcatcher"'s an interesting option; it's mostly one character, but not entirely, there was some good makeup work all around, and even if it is, just one character that's extensive, that's often enough for this group; I can point to "Jackass Presents: Bad Grandpa"'s nomination last year as evidence of that."Maleficent"'s makeup overall is impressive, maybe not the most flattering at times, but still pretty interesting. "The Theory of Everything" also got into both categories, but it was in Period Makeup, not Special Makeup Effects, that's a little disconcerting 'cause that opens a door for a "Maleficent" or "Noah" to sneak in actually, 'cause there's a great amount of elaborate makeup in those films, and maybe not as much in "The Theory of Everything." Most of Goldderby btw has "Foxcatcher" ahead, and frankly, this is such an erratic category, that guessing and predicting are two in the same here, no matter how educated your viewpoint is.

PREDICTIONS
The Grand Budapest Hotel
Guardians of the Galaxy
Maleficent

I'm still tempted to take "Noah" actually, but I'm just gonna think, more elaborate and greater amount of work, involved in "Maleficent" will shut down "Foxcatcher" sneaking in, despite it's makeup getting being looked at in high regard.


PRODUCTION DESIGN
"American Sniper"
"Belle"
"Big Eyes"
"Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)"
"Captain America: The Winter Soldier"
"Dawn of the Planet of the Apes"
"Foxcatcher"
"Fury"
"Exodus: Gods and Kings"
"Gone Girl"
"The Grand Budapest Hotel"
"Guardians of the Galaxy"
"The Hobbit: Battle of the Five Armies"
"The Imitation Game"
"Inherent Vice"
"Interstellar"
"Into the Woods"
"Maleficent"
"A Most Violent Year"
"Mr. Turner"
"Nightcrawler"
"Noah"
"Only Lovers Left Alive"
"Selma"
"Snowpiercer"
"The Theory of Everything"
"Unbroken"
"Under the Skin"

For those wondering how "Big Eyes" probably got overlooked by the Art Directors Guild, while it is a Tim Burton film, it's not his normal production and set designer team of Dante Ferretti and Francesca Lo Schiavo lately, so it might be that they didn't want to blindly nominate the Burton film if they weren't nominating them. That said, that's the one longshot I'm a bit worried about. That and "Maleficent", a bit of a shocking omission from the Guild, but that was a lot of special effects.

PREDICTIONS
Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)
The Grand Budapest Hotel
The Imitation Game
Interstellar
Into the Woods

Maybe "Mr. Turner" can sneak in late and steal "The Imitation Game"'s slot, but I don't see too many other possibilities here; this category looks pretty clear-cut to me.


ORIGINAL SCORE
CONTENDERS (Longlist)
"Big Eyes"-Danny Elfman
"Big Hero 6"-Henry Jackman
"The Book of Life"-Gustavo Santaolalla and Tim Davies
"Dawn of the Planet of the Apes"-Michael Giacchino
"Exodus: Gods and Kings"-Alberto Iglesias
"Finding Vivien Maier"-J. Ralph
"Fury"-Steven Price
"Godzilla"-Alexandre Desplat
"Gone Girl"-Trent Reznor & Atticus Ross
"The Grand Budapest Hotel"-Alexandre Desplat
"The Homesman"-Marco Beltrami
"How to Train Your Dragon 2"-John Powell
"The Hunger Games: Mockingjay-Part 1-James Newton Howard
"The Imitation Game"-Alexandre Desplat
"Inherent Vice"-Johnny Greenwood
"Interstellar"-Hans Zimmer
"The Judge"-Thomas Newman
"Maleficent"-James Newton Howard
"The Monuments Men"-Alexandre Desplat
"A Most Violent Year"-Alex Ebert
"Mr. Turner"-Gary Yershon
"Nightcrawler"-James Newton Howard
"Noah"-Clint Mansell
"Rosewater"-Howard Shore
"Selma"-Jason Moran
"Snowpiercer"-Marco Beltrami
"The Theory of Everything"-Johann Johannsson
"Unbroken"-Alexander Desplat
"Under the Skin"-Mica Levi

Jesus, Alexander Desplat did a lot of musical scores this year.  Everytime I looked up a film who's score I remembered, it was Alexander Desplat, strangest fucking thing. Anyway, for you "Under the Skin", myself included, this is probably your best shot at a nomination, but it's probably a longshot here. There is an unpredictability to these awards though, so you never completely know what'll happen, but I think "Interstellar" is the one to beat. Zimmer hasn't won in a while, and even his critics have been giving props to him for this one. Other than that, there's room, for a surprise or two, but "Birdman..." and "Whiplash" won't be the surprise, but didn't make the Oscar eligibility list, and there's a lot of dispute, especially regarding "Birdman..."'s omission, but it's the crazy music branch remember; there's always something.

PREDICTIONS
The Grand Budapest Hotel-Alexander Desplat
The Imitation Game-Alexander Desplat
Inherent Vice-Johnny Greenwood
Interstellar-Hans Zimmer
The Theory of Everything-Johann Johannsson

Under than "Under the Skin", the other one I was kinda thinking might come up here was "Rosewater", Howard Shore's score for that film, That or "Nightcrawler", but they've gotta be tired of James Newton Howard by now, so I'll take a shot and say "Inherent Vice" and hope for "Under the Skin" to get in.


ORIGINAL SONG
CONTENDERS (Longlist)
"It's On Again"-"The Amazing Spider-Man 2"
"Opportunity"-"Annie"
*"Lost Stars"-"Begin Again"
"Grateful"-"Beyond the Lights"
"Big Eyes"-"Big Eyes"
"Immortals"-"Big Hero 6"
"The Apology Song"-"The Boxtrolls"
"The Boxtrolls Song"-"The Boxtrolls"
"Ryan's Song"-"Boyhood"
"Split the Difference"-"Boyhood"
"Let Me In"-"The Fault in Our Stars"
"Not About Angels"-"The Fault in Our Stars"
"Until the End"-"Garnet's Gold"
"Ordinary Human"-"The Giver"
"I'm Not Gonna Miss You"-"Glen Campbell: I'll Be Me"
"The Last Goodbye"-"The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies"
"For the Dancing and Dreaming"-"How to Train Your Dragon 2"
"Afreen"-"The Hundred-Foot Journey"
"Yellow Flicker Beat"-"The Hunger Games: Mockingjay-Part 1"
"Everything is Awesome"-"The LEGO Movie"
"We Could Be Kings"-"Million Dollar Arm"
"A Million Ways to Die"-"A Million Ways to Die in the West"
"Way Back When"-"Mr. Peabody & Sherman"
"America for Me"-"A Most Violent Year"
"I'll Get You Everything You Want (Cockatoo in Malibu)"-"Muppets Most Wanted"
"We're Doing a Sequel"-"Muppets Most Wanted"
"Mercy is"-"Noah"
"What is Love"-"Rio 2"
"Glory"-"Selma"
"Battle Cry"-"Transformers: Age of Extinction"
"Miracles"-"Unbroken"
"We Will Not Go"-"Virunga"
"Heavenly Father"-"Wish I Was Here"

Boy, if Best Score is unpredictable, Best Song, is a minefield. Don't go by the Globes or Critics Choice's by this one, just because there's no Guild Award for it, doesn't mean there's an easy way out. I've learned that one over and over again, and it's still a minefield, so I'm almost done listening to every one of these songs that I could find. Hopefully that'll be enough and that there's no voting irregularities like last year but, maybe not.

PREDICTIONS
"Split the Difference"-Boyhood
"Yellow Flicker Beat"-The Hunger Games: Mockingjay-Part 1
"Everything is Awesome"-The LEGO Movie
"Glory"-Selma
"Miracles"-Unbroken

I'm tempted to take a couple of the funnier songs up there like "A Million Ways to Die" from "A Million Ways to Die in the West" and a couple of the Muppets songs, but I think "Everything is Awesome" has that slot nailed; they usually don't do two comedy songs in a year. If you're looking for something off the board, Alanis Morissette's song, "The Morning" from the film "A Small Section of the World", that could sneak; I'm a little surprised there's not a lot love for Alicia Keys's song "It's On Again" from "The Amazing Spider-Man 2". I'm not sold on Lana Del Ray's song; I like it from "Big Eyes", but her material is probably not as universal, even among musicians. "I'm Not Gonna Miss You", from the Glen Campbell documentary, that's a possibility. "Yellow Flicker Beat" came very close to me voting for it; actually I'm still kinda leaning towards it. J. Ralph's song from "Virunga" is also really good, and he's been nominated in this category before, and this is a better song than that one. "Way Back When", from the "Mr. Sherman and Peabody" movie was pretty good too."Mercy Is" from "Noah", that's Patti Smith, it'd be nice to see her get in too; I doubt it though. Any of the songs from "Rudderless" were pretty good too. "Chariots" from "The Hornet's Nest" was also notable to me. I don't know, throw a dart or two at the list; you'll probably do just as well since it's the Best Song category.


SOUND EDITING
CONTENDERS (Longlist)
"American Sniper"
"Annie"
"Big Hero 6"
"Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)"
"The Book of Life"
"The Boxtrolls"
"Captain America: The Winter Soldier"
"CitizenFour"
"Dawn of the Planet of the Apes"
"Edge of Tomorrow"
"The Fault In Our Stars"
"Fury"
"Get On Up"
"Glen Campbell: I'll Be Me"
"Godzilla"
"Gone Girl"
"The Grand Budapest Hotel"
"Guardians of the Galaxy"
"The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies"
"How to Train Your Dragon 2"
"Human Capital"
"The Hunger Games: Mockingjay-Part 1"
"The Imitation Game"
"Interstellar"
"Into the Woods"
"Jersey Boys"
"Jodorowsky's Dune"
"The LEGO Movie"
"The Liberator"
"Maleficent"
"Noah"
"The Raid 2"
"RoboCop"
"Selma"
"Snowpiercer"
"Still Alice"
"Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles"
"The Theory of Everything"
"Transformers: Age of Extinction"
"Unbroken"
"Under the Electric Sky"
"Whiplash"
"X-Men: Days of Future Past"

The Golden Reel Nominations, finally got announce this morning, (Finally, why so slow,  MPSE! [Sound Editors Guild]) Anyway, I'm still sorting through them, but it looks like "Birdman..." is a definite. We good through this but Sound Editing, is the creation and capturing of sounds, for the movie, Sound Mixing, is the placing of those sounds on the film's final track, the combining to create the effect, so this is Sound Editing, the capturing of the sounds themselves. This is why, saw a war movie or a musical, might not show up here, but show up and possibly win in Sound Mixing, per se. Anyway, I'm gonna play it safe with these, and follow the Guild mostly.

PREDICTIONS
Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)
Dawn of the Planet of the Apes
Guardians of the Galaxy
Interstellar
Unbroken

Each of these got at least 2 nominations with the Golden Reels, so it's fairly reasonable to predict these; there might be one or two like "The Grand Budapest Hotel" or "Fury" or "American Sniper" that might sneak, maybe "Captain America..." maybe on the far, far outside, "The Raid 2", might get in here; they did recognize it for Foreign Language Films; that's one that the Sound plays a huge factor, that would be the longshot guess I might stab at.

SOUND MIXING
CONTENDERS (Longlist)
The Amazing Spider-Man 2
American Sniper
Begin Again
Big Hero 6
Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)
The Boxtrolls
Captain America: The Winter Soldier
Dawn of the Planet of the Apes
Edge of Tomorrow
Fury
Get On Up
Godzilla
Gone Girl
The Grand Budapest Hotel
Guardians of the Galaxy
The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies
The Homesman
How to Train Your Dragon 2
The Hunger Games: Mockingjay-Part I
The Imitation Game
Interstellar
Into the Woods
Jersey Boys
The LEGO Movie
A Most Violent Year
Noah
Penguins of Madagascar
Snowpiercer
Transformers: Age of Extinction
Unbroken
Whiplash
Wild
X-Men: Days of Future Past

Checking the CAS Society Awards (Sound Mixers Guild) the only one that I didn't predict for Editing that they did name for the CAS Awards was "American Sniper" to, it's reasonable to think that can take, maybe "Dawn of the Planet of the Apes"'s spot. There's also a couple music-based projects on the board though, "Into the Woods" and "Whiplash" most notably. Usually the nominees between Sound Editing and Sound Mixing are close, but could be a year where there's 3 or 4 different ones however.

PREDICTIONS
American Sniper
Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)
Interstellar
Unbroken
Whiplash

I'll throw "Whiplash" in there; I don't really think "Into the Woods" has as great a shot at technical awards as some think it does, and if they want to throw a music-based one, they can put "Whiplash" there instead.


VISUAL EFFECTS
CONTENDERS (Shortlist)
"Captain America: The Winter Soldier"
"Dawn of the Planet of the Apes"
"Godzilla"
"Guardians of the Galaxy"
"The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies"
"Interstellar"
"Maleficent"
"Night at the Museum: Secret of the Tomb"
"Transformers: Age of Extinction"
"X-Men: Days of Future Past"

I can't imagine any scenario where "Night at the Museum..." gets nominated. Anyway, the Visual Effects Society Awards, (Not a Guild, btw; there's still struggling to unionize last I checked) didn't nominate, or "Captain America..." or "Godzilla" or surprisingly "Transformers" anywhere. They did make it a little complicated by having six nominees in the Visual-Effects Driven Live-Action Film category, and they're all on the Oscar shortlist, so,.... eeney, meany, miney, mo, catch a tiger by the toe....

PREDICTIONS
Dawn of the Planet of the Apes
Guardians of the Galaxy
The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies
Interstellar
X-Men: Days of Future Past
I just don't think that many people really cared that much for "Maleficent", so I'll go with "X-Men..." for the last spot.


LIVE ACTION SHORT
CONTENDERS (Shortlist)
"Aya"
"Baghdad Messi"
"Boogaloo and Graham"
"Butter Lamp (Le Lampe au Beurre de Yak)"
"Carry On"
"My Father's Truck"
"Parvaneh"
"The Phone Call"
"SLR"
"Summer Vacation (Chofesh Gadol)"

The key to winning your Oscar polls, know your Short categories. People dismiss those, they don't realize how critical they become.

PREDICTIONS
"Aya"

"Baghdad Messi"
"Boogaloo and Graham"
"Carry On"
"The Phone Call"

I actually was able to see, "SLR", and it's very good, not great, but don't think it's gonna be a nominee. "The Phone Call", Sally Hawkins is in that, they always want to vote for at least one that a star's in. "Boogaloo and Graham" was honored at "BAFTA", "Ava" and "Baghdad Messi" have been getting awards everywhere it seems. "Carry On" is the only one, I'm really taking a gamble on based on content.


ANIMATION SHORT
CONTENDERS (Shortlist)
The Bigger Picture
Coda
The Dam Keeper
Duet
Feast
Footprints
Me and My Moulton
The Numberlys
A Single Life
Symphony No. 42

PREDICTIONS
The Bigger Picture
The Dam Keeper
Feast
Footprints
The Numberlys

"Feast" is Disney's latest, from Patrick Osborne who did "Paperman" a couple years ago, winning the Oscar for that, and this looks adorable, btw; "The Bigger Picture" is probably in cause of experimentality, but other than that, I actually did see "Duet", the only one I did see, it was cute; I don't know if it will blow anyone away though. "Footprints" is where Bill Plympton will find a way to get in, since "Cheatin'" will probably not get into feature, and "The Dam Keeper" got a BAFTA nod, I believe, and nobody else I've seen is predicting "The Numberlys", but that's looks an interesting one; it's an homage to Fritz Lang's "Metropolis", but with a story about a world just numbers and no letters. I have to believe that's gonna get some votes.


DOCUMENTARY SHORT
"Crisis Hotline: Veterans Press 1
"Joanna"
"Kehinde Wiley: An Economy of Grace"
"The Lion's Mouth Opens"
"One Child"
"Our Curse"
"The Reaper (La Parka)"
"White Earth"

Alright, finally, the last category! Whew! I hope you all appreciate how much I put into these things. It took awhile, but anyway, it's always a mix of emotional films and artistic films in this bunch, and this year's not too different either.

PREDICTIONS
Crisis Hotline: Veterans Press 1
Kehinde Wiley: An Economy of Grace
The Lion's Open Mouth
One Child
The Reaper (La Parka)

HBO did "Crisis Hotline..." you know that's in. PBS did "Kehinde Wiley..." film; Wiley's a famous pop art painting known for redoing classic paintings but with African American in place of some of the more famous images, btw. "The Lion's Open Mouth" seems like the favorite to me, Lucy Walker, great documentarian who hasn't won yet, they want to give her something, but it's a film about an actress, Marianne Palka, so it's got both of those things going. "White Earth" interests me, but I don't know if it's gonna interest everybody. The rest are a couple student films, that look good; I'd be sorta surprised if they got in, although "Our Curse", does feel like a sleeper to me, might take "The Reaper"'s spot, but eh, it's a battle for the other three slots really, "Crists..." and "The Lion's Open Mouth"; if either of them aren't nominated, I'll be shocked.

Monday, January 12, 2015

THE PG-13 ERA: IS IT TIME TO END IT? A look at the real use of the PG-13 rating.



Recently the MPAA gave out their rating for the much-anticipated "Fifty Shades of Grey" movie, and they gave is an R rating; I'm not sure you've all heard, yet, but most of you know that, while I normally try my best not to focus my attention on future released films, this was an exception. Not for the reasons that most people were paying attention though. The reason I was making a point about this, was because I was hoping the movie would be rated NC-17, and finally break the typical walls down regarding that rating, considering the interest and fanbase the book of the film has, and therefore national chain theaters would begin setting the precedent of allowing NC-17 films to screen. I wrote about this almost two years ago as the film was still in the early pre-production stages, you can read that blogpost at the link below:

http://davidbaruffi.blogspot.com/2013/01/fifty-shades-of-fed-up-grey-book-yes-i.html

Now, I'm not gonna reiterate what I wrote there, and we all know, the MPAA, is, at a minimum flawed, and at worst incompetent, and worst than that, the theater chains have been gutless as we've seen recently when they made their early decisions not to screen "The Interview" last month, 'cause of threats from the Sony hackers. (Not that I completely blame them for that, but it led to the studio pulling the movie, maybe moreso than even the threat, and that part of the story has not been emphasized enough btw) The studios however, whether because of or in spite of the MPAA, they don't want to release NC-17 movies in general, and frankly they aren't crazy about R's either, but the movie is gonna be, R, hopefully that means it's still capable of closely equating the tone and subject matter of the book but, I questioned whether that was possible then, and I question it now, unless the MPAA has suddenly shifted from their traditional trends, behaviors and decisions in the recent past, probably not.

That said, I've been thinking about the ratings lately, in fact, they keep coming up in conversation in general lately. In fact, there's a been more than a few fellow bloggers that have recently posted their dissatisfaction with one particular rating, the PG-13 rating. Frankly, I've been considering a post on the detriments of the PG-13 myself for months, but...-, well, the problem with the rating, other than the fact that, it's really arbitrary; I mean, the line between PG and PG-13 is practically- I honestly don't know what it is anymore frankly. That's part of the problem, PG-13, isn't really a rating it's a marketing ploy. Get the teenagers in the theater (Like the teenagers aren't sneaking into R's but, whatever) they have the money; they go see the movies, and- I don't know, no excessive sex or nudity, just a bunch of superheroes blowing stuff up, so you know, teenager won't have sex then? I don't know, frankly, Not that I even really pay attention to the ratings, nor do I think parents or anybody should either, but it is, really just an advertising point, more than anything else. PG-13, is the magic words really, I don't know exactly why really, but....

You see, I was thinking about this, believe it or not and bare with me on this, 'cause I'm gonna talk about professional wrestling for a minute here, but I want to compare this, 'cause this is actually sorta relevant, but it's gonna take a little explaining. The WWE, has over-the-years, continued to redefine their product depending on, what they want to focus on, who the audience they want to attract is, the storylines they want to tell, etc. Yes, it's pro wrestling, but for instance, in the '80s/early nineties, they tried to attract more kids. Larger than life characters, sort like a comic book character, Hulk Hogan telling kids to say their prayers and take their vitamins, and they refer to that time as the Hulk Hogan years or era, and then the steroid scandal broke, so they didn't focus on the more artificially-enhanced bodies, and they called that era, "The New Generation" cause they were focusing on a different group of wrestlers and whatnot, kinda like when "Saved By the Bell" did "The New Class", which lasted about as long. (Correction: Actually "Saved By the Bell: The New Class" lasted a lot longer than I thought, which is sad) Anyway, that didn't completely work, they were losing ratings and money, so eventually they switched to more adult material. The violence became more graphic and extreme, they started to have more sexual content, the storylines became more adult oriented and serious and true-to-life, etc. They called this time period, "The Attitude Era", you might have heard of it, and it was the biggest time for pro wrestling ever. Ratings were, off-the-charts, it was seriously competitive against Monday Night Football for awhile at one point. This was over a decade ago, and while there's other factors that I'm not including here that somebody else can bring up if they're really interested, eventually, people stopped watching the WWE as much. People got tired of all that over-the-top stuff from the the attitude era and that idea ended, and now, the ratings for pro wrestling across the board, are fairly pitiful. Now matter how you slice them, even if you adjust the ratings to today's standards they're not what they were at that time, and frankly it's because pro wrestling sucks now, and not just because it's wrestling, it's bad 'cause it's bad, now. The booking and writing, the talent, the way it's used, the storylines, they're pretty lousy. Now, they're trying to redefine themselves, and get the kids audience, they're in the middle of another era now, the WWE, and they're calling it "The PG Era", because that's the television rating they're aiming for, for most of the attitude time period and even afterwards, they were TV-14, now they're TV-PG and they're trying to attract younger viewers with their show now.

Anyway, some think, eh, the WWE should go back to attitude era, but, you know, and this is what got me thinking though, having bad ratings or not being as big as they once were is one thing, but why is it so much worst, the product itself, than it used to be? Again, I'm genaralizing here, but the rating change shouldn't be a factor, in fact conventional wisdom has always shown that having limitations like having to be PG can lead to more creativity, television has a long history of examples like that, including in pro wrestling in the past. But, going back to PG-13 though, this is why the comparison is worth noting, because that's the way television works in general, but that's not necessarily the way movies work, and this is the problem with the PG-13 rating. Most people, when they're writing a movie, they don't think about the rating, they just create, it doesn't matter what it is; they don't have a standards and practices division, really; you don't traditionally set out to write or direct or create a PG-13 movie. Yet, the studios do aim for that rating, but that's not the natural inclination of film. Normally you're just creating and then, you get the ratings, and then there's cuts and maybe re-shoots and story considerations, it's then that the rating starts getting adjusted. The creativity aspects of aiming for PG-13, it isn't really significantly different the way, you'll try to get other ratings it seems.

So, this is the studios doing. Yeah, it started originally as a way to distinguish a middle-ground between material that could be excessive and over-the-top for older kids but not quite the graphic nature of R-rated movie, but now, it's basically a world where PG-13 is as much a product as the film is itself; it's Coca-Cola, goes down easier, and attracts more of the audience that supposedly the studios want. So let's look at the PG-13 era of film, and what have got, what have we learned. Well, you look at the top-grossing PG-13 films, there's few unexpected films on that list, as in films that weren't tentpole films that were planned to be major blockbusters in order to make money. In fact, "Independence Day", "The Sixth Sense", "Inception" and "Gravity" are the only four films in the Top 50, that weren't sequels to other films, and weren't based on an original source material of any kind. Basically, this rating is most used, specifically for films where, hypothetically a built-in audience for the film already exists, which is a bit odd considering.- You'd think that'd be the last thing you'd have to keep track of since hypothetically a built-in audience for the material, would seek out and watch the film no matter the rating. So what of these movies? Most of them, as you would suspect are comic book movies, or other action franchise features, most involve battles and/or some kind of, usually it's of the fantasy kind, but most of the time, it's a major centerpiece, climax or selling point on the film. There's a few comedies, fewer romances, and almost no nudity of any kind, although "Titanic", the #2 highest-grossing PG-13 film, is a very notable exception. (People think nudity means R, but traditionally, if you can argue the nudity is sensuality and not sexuality, they have been known to let it slide for a PG-13 film; yes you read that right, that is the nudity standard) Curiously, there's a lack of one other subgenre and that's animation, only "The Simpsons Movie" breaks the Top 200, and that's actually surprising considering how big animation is, even more adult-oriented animation, having been mainstream for a few decades now, Even if you look recently, it's clear that PG-13, is often a style of movie, for the major Hollywood studios, almost a genre in of itself. The Top 10 PG-13 grossing films last year, were all tentpole movies, all remakes or sequels or apart of a franchise, and only when you dig into the ratings do you come across the other movies that receive the PG-13 rating, and you find that most of the movies were films where the ratings was not much of a selling point at all.

You know the other thing weird about the PG-13 rating? It's, not really a rating that, changes the audience. R and NC-17, are definitely ones where most theater chains will, well, restrict. Maybe some theaters are more successful than others at it, but still, PG-13, only means "Parents Strongly Cautioned", it doesn't require that a teenager be around an adult; it doesn't even really technically require that you be 13 to watch the film in the theater or make you go through any additional process before seeing the film. Hell even most televisions nowadays have the thing that sets the ratings, if somebody really wanted to, they can simply limit the programming that somebody wanted to see, there really isn't a process in which PG-13 does that. Now, granted, most moviegoers under the age of 12, probably have a parent with them anyway, but still a mature nine-year-old, can easily and without any fear of any retribution of any kind, go and watch a PG-13 film on their own. So, when you really look at it, that way, it becomes harder to justify the rating, 'cause at least there's a guidelines and restrictions that are enforced for R and NC-17 to some degree, but PG-13 has none of that. Which really begs the question of why bother?

What would be so problematic, or even different if they simply eliminated the PG-13 ratings? Most of those films would simply be lowered to PG, (Which frankly, is already pretty close to a G at this point, and they never give out G ratings anymore, even BoxOfficeMojo has an option of statistics that just combines G and PG.) and frankly, there's nothing wrong and no reason why a superhero movie can't be R-rated either frankly. I can't imagine the next "Iron Man" movie losing that much money because of it.

Honestly, I don't know if it's really time to end PG-13 entirely, but the way it's used is a reflection of the faults of the film industry as a whole, and should be looked at like that at this point, instead of as a real strength of a true guide or rating, until something changes anyway.

Wednesday, January 7, 2015

MOVIE REVIEWS #101: "THE IMITATION GAME", "THE WIND RISES", "THE GRAND BUDAPEST HOTEL", "CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE WINTER SOLDIER", "GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY", "OBVIOUS CHILD", "BLUE RUIN", "A MILLION WAYS TO DIE IN THE WEST", "ABUSE OF WEAKNESS", "VENUS IN FUR", "DRAFT DAY", "FADING GIGOLO", "THE LAST SENTENCE", "ROB THE MOB", "THE ANGELS' SHARE", "MENTAL" and MORE!

Hope you're all having a Happy New Year, Everyone! As you can see, we did a little bit of redesigning on the website, it's minimal, but I think it's an improvement, and we're gonna little more periodically, I hope you enjoy it. And we are in the process of re-working the focus of the website as well. Right now, I'm gonna start putting out feelers, and am working on having other writers contribute to the blog periodically; I know some of you may get sick of me, but I also want to bring in some other point of views and thoughts anyway, possibly some other areas of focus as well. Right now, it's Oscar season, we'll have full coverage as we approach the nominees announcements. So film has been a primary focus for us and will be in the future, but we'll be working out of that in due time. If you're interesting or have an idea of something to write for this blog that might be in my milieu, let me know, and if I think I'll let you guys post here, give you credit, give you props, maybe advertise your own projects, etc.

Anyway, we got a huge set of new reviews to kick off the new year and the new look, starting with a SPECIAL REVIEW of "The Imitation Game", and finally, (Whew!) a review of the Oscar-nominated feature, "The Wind Rises", so let's get to it folks; pedal to the medal, and get to the RANDOM WEEKLY MOVIE REVIEWS!


THE IMITATION GAME (2014) Director: Morten Tyldum

✰✰✰✰1/2



I had read slight blurbs about Alan Turing (Benedict Cumberbatch) every-so-often on Facebook over the years, his story has become a- I don't know what you'd call it, actually, some sort of a warning or whatnot, but it's been passed around like a chain letter. It was Turing's mind, who helped create a machine with the same thought processes that would become computers today, and he did it, in order to decode and unbreakable code, the Enigma machine. He would end up committing suicide a few years later after he was outed as a homosexual back when that was illegal. I wondered more during the movie, "The Imitation Game" if he was autistic in some way. Perhaps Asperger's more than autism, but still, it was clear that he had a complete inability to really connect with people. He's one of those people for instance, doesn't understand sarcasm, and when he talks with others, if he can, they're abrupt with him, and clearly don't understand. In flashbacks to school, Alan (Alex Lawther as a child) is the victim of really bad bullying, including once being thrown under the floorboard, and then having the floor nailed shut below him. His lone friend, Christopher (Jack Bannon) saves him from that horrible fate, and they begin a close friendship and it's him that introduces him to a code book that leads to him focusing on and sharpening his problem-solving skills. As Alan notes, "Isn't that just like people though, they say things but it's not exactly what they mean and you have to translate it?" The movie shows Turing, at three different parts of his life, first this school friendship he has with Christopher, which is what he ends up naming the machine that he builds during the second part, in the early '40s when him and a bunch of the other great minds in the mathematics and other problems-solving skills like grandmaster chess players are hired by the military to break the enigma machine codes; his idea, since it's impossible to break the machine with human skills alone, that a machine could be built instead that can be design to break the code, an undertaking which gets lots of resistance from his co-workers, especially his antagonistic second-in-command, Hugh Alexander (Matthew Goode), and then after the war, as a professor at Manchester University, after a break-in in his house spawns an investigation into his military past by one cop, Detective Robert Nock (Rory Kinnear) which he finds nothing, but he does end up finding out about his homosexual activities, which were illegal at the time in the United Kingdom. The best section unquestionably is seeing him struggle and eventually succeed with the Christopher machine, and how he manages to build this monstrous machine and teach it, to decode. For those who don't know about the Enigma machine, it really was an enigma, it was a machine who's got millions of code combinations which were changed daily and was used by the Nazis in order to send messages to their troops. Once they cracked the code, they then had to keep that fact secret ironically, so that the Germans wouldn't catch onto that fact, which meant having decoding possible attacks, and then having to let them happen. His one close acquaintance who was fascinated and in-a-way understood his approach to the problem was Joan (Keira Knightley) who solves a crossword puzzle challenge he puts out to find more codebreakers for the enigma team, and then has to struggle to convince her to stay and join the team. She visits him at the end, after he's been arrested and fired, being force to go through hormone therapy in a failed attempt to rid himself of his homosexuality. (Homosexuality was listed as a medical disorder in the medicine book, during my lifetime) I don't know how accurate the film or Cumberbatch get to creating the real Alan Turing, like I said before, if I hadn't known his story previously I might've suspected autism before I suspected homosexuality based on the performance, and maybe he was a little of both, but the homosexuality I'm sure had little to do with him being able to essentially develop, what would become computers and eventually evolve into machine learning technically, which,- basically he probably foresaw the IBM WATSON computer that won on "Jeopardy!" that time, but whatever he's doing it's definitely an acting challenge. I'm still debating on it's success though. Keira Knightley's also getting some Oscar buzz, which surprises me a little bit, actually; normally I think she doesn't get enough acclaim for her roles, but she's fine here, not quite special to me, and she's got some tricky speeches that came off a bit clunky at times. I don't think it's her fault though, the movie's flaw is that, is it a unsure of itself. The director is Morten Tyldum, a name I admittedly didn't recognize offhand, although I had seen his film "Headhunters" which was a confusingly elaborate but entertaining con movie that I liked; compared to that movie, this film is as simple to understand as Dr. Seuss, but it does kinda all work together. Turing work on the enigma machine was so secret, it wasn't revealed until a couple years ago, and since he didn't live to really tell about it, I suspect a lot of inference going on and probably some fictionalized characters at play that are more symbolic than based on real people, which is fine, there's nothing wrong with that, but it does make the film feel a little more, legend than truth at times. Part of the time, the movie feels like "A Beautiful Mind" and the other times, it feels like, some other movie altogether. It's all a good movie actually; I'm definitely recommending it and there's some strong work here, but I think this is a very complex human that we're getting told a story about, and I just am not sure the movie knew best how to go about explaining his life. I think we got the best we could hope for, but I still feel like I get this sense of having something missing from this story, perhaps because Turing's life ended so early and tragically that maybe the reason something feels missing is because his life is incomplete and that's the tragedy though.


THE WIND RISES (2013) Director: Hayao Miyazaki

✰✰✰✰



Miyazaki's always been fascinated with flying. Apart of that is the medium of animation  It's always used in his films and airplanes are also a big source of inspiration for him. Here's a story about, a fictionalized biopic based on Jiro Horikoshi, a man who designs some of Japan's greatest fliers for WWII, although he notes that none of those planes ever came back. For his latest last film, (I know the claim, but retired more times than Brett Favre so I won't be convinced until it really is, but let's say it is) I think he wanted to one last exploration, not just of, flying, but I have a feeling he sees a lot of himself in Jiro. Jiro is a single-minded genius, who like all geniuses, see the world differently. He's nearsighted which makes him incapable of flying airplanes, so he decides to become an engineer and focus on building them instead, and focus he does. Focused to where it seems like daydreaming. When he mentions to his co-workers a potential girlfriend, half of them are shocked he has emotional urges at all. He often dreams of a legendary Italian airline designer Caproni, sorta like,- hmm, I wouldn't say he's channeling him, it's more like he's looking over Jiro, like a guardian angel or a fairy godmother, one that's not exactly the most angelic of angels, but as some sort of guide and protector passing on his genius from his generation to Jiro spiritually. He can fascinate over a mackerel bone, and we realize before anybody that he's talking about airplanes not fish. The girl he becomes in love with, he saves after the Kanto Earthquake of 1923, Naoko, but he doesn't give his name and doesn't run into her again for years afterwards. He's started work for Mitsubishi, had some failed designs and flights, and heads off to Germany to see their metal plane designs to study and report back after too many failed wood experiments, showing Japan, who's heading towards war, is behind the time. That's one of the undercurrents of this movie, that Jiro knows that in order to work on the things he loves, airplanes, he knows that he has to design and build them for them to be used as weapons. "One way we can reduce the weight is to get rid of the guns," he once ponders as his design isn't quite working as well as it should be at one point. He's able to reconcile this, but he's not as easily able to deal with Naoko's illness. She's dying from tuberculosis by the time they reconnect, and she takes great care of her, but she knows she holds him back. Eventually, she leaves a note and heads off to a sanitarium, and Jiro wonders why she would do that. This is definitely Miyazaki's most personal film, as some have noted already, and this struggle between caring for his family and his craft, from a guy with seven noted retirement from animation already is probably something he's more-than-familiar with. I think that's why this films lack a bit in the Miyazaki canon though, it's definitely more of an emotional film as oppose to a great story, which Miyazaki's more-than-capable of giving. I have to infer that, this is essentially, if this is his last gasp, it's, done this way as one last cry of who Miyazaki is. An emotional cry, and it's powerful as that. Like emotions it's a bit muddled and random too; it's more adult than anything he's ever really done, done in a while anyway; even Disney decided to use Touchstone to distribute this film instead of putting their name on it. As always, nobody can touch Miyazaki visually; his animation is absolutely, beyond stunning; as a film, it's trying to get a lot of complex ideas that aren't really that visual, into a art medium that is, and that's where it falters, but this is still worth watching, and if it finally does become his swan song, it's an appropriate one for him to sing, maybe the most appropriate of any of his work.



THE GRAND BUDAPEST HOTEL (2014) Director: Wes Anderson

✰✰✰✰1/2



I suppose to some degree, all Wes Anderson movies, to be really appreciated, need to be seen twice, at least, possibly more times than that. I must confess something here, that for reasons that are too droll to explain, I had a troubled copy of "The Grand Budapest Hotel", at least it was somewhat troubled when I finally got ahold of it, and it was tricky to tell sometimes admittedly though, but occasionally the smoothness of the film would be interrupted, and sometimes, it became difficult to see if I had missed two seconds or five minutes, before I realized it. Normally I am cautious enough to wait, but in this case, I wasn't able to fully do that, so instead, I had to take another a more unscrutable path to finding out just what I might have been skimmed, and how important it was, 'cause I knew I was watching special, but I couldn't tell how special, and I'm still not quite sure I will figure out how special it may be 'til later. That frustrates me slightly, but I suspect there's more to this movie than meets the eye. I never heard of the writer who's given an Inspired by credit, Stefan Zweig at the end of the film, and with the movie, being a book, told by an author, who tells about a time in the past, in which he's told a story by someone else himself, I was assumed that the author was probably a fake name, similar to how "The Royal Tenenbaums" is intentionally, if you're paying attention, a book in the movie that doesn't exist, (And it's an exploitative bad book at that [purposefully so of course) but no, the wry and poignant Austrian writer really does exist, and that's when something struck me about Wes Anderson, how books and novels, literature itself is a key source of inspiration for his work. "Moonrise Kingdom" not only had numerous fictional and possibly real young adult adventure novels within it, the movie felt and played out like one. "The Life Aquatic..." is clearly a play on Herman Melville's "Moby Dick', and I'm sure I'm missing a major literary inspiration for "The Darjeeling Limited", (Maybe Agatha Christie) but now that I think back on that movie, which also involved a short story writer who wrote his short stories based on his own personal experiences and events, I now realize that Anderson is attempting to explore the secondhand nature of storytelling through his movies. We're told by the Author (Tom Wilkinson) that some stories, are indeed just told to you once you become an author, and that this story is told exactly as it was told to him, but can we be sure of that? Even if we are, clearly the insinuation is that the story itself is also secondhand, and only somewhat trustworthy,.... Of course, by the end, the fact that the story is secondhand doesn't matter, and maybe that's Anderson's point. The story is told to Author (Jude Law at the time of the telling) by the owner of the once-famous "The Grand Budapest Hotel" in the Republic of Zubrowka, Mr. Moustafa (F. Murray Abraham). The hotel at this time, is a shadow of it's former self, aging, decaying, empty, yet Moustafa spends a couple weeks there yearly, and still seems unwilling to alter or change the hotel too much. He's usually reclusive, but for some reason he opens up to Author about his first days as a orphaned refugee that led him to Zabrowska and then to work at the hotel as a concierge under the hotel's previous concierge M. Gustave (Ralph Fiennes). He's then known as Zero (Tony Revolori), and he quickly learns the ways of the hotel concierge trade. What happens after that is gonna take a lot more explanation, but basically, one of Gustave's most appreciative dowagers, Madame D. (Tilda Swinton) passes away, and wills to him a Gustave painting, "Boy with Apple". This pisses off Madame D's son Dmitri (Adrien Brody) but while he's busy swearing to make sure the painting stays with him, Zero and M. Gustave take it. However, they are then arrested for Madame D's murder, meanwhile Dmitri has sent out an assassin (Willem Dafoe), to get the both of them, or short of him, the proprietor of the will, Deputy Kovacs (Jeff Goldblum) who's also the connection between the hotel's then-owner, who was anonymous and M. Gustave. He also slightly learn about Zero's relationship with the hotel's shy but talented pastry chef Agatha (Saorise Ronan) and there's more other interesting and strange characters after that, way too many to really go into their roles in what ends up being this strange adventure filled with Anderson-esque twists, turns, logic and just all around silliness. They pack a lot into this barely 90+-minute film. Anderson's experimenting a bit with changing the frame sizes and look at certain points too, but, you can spot a Wes Anderson movie by frame at this point; he didn't need to do that, but since he's already playing with literature using film, you might play with film too. If you can get past, how circular the story is as it's being told, it's entertaining as it is, but I think it might go one or two steps too far that direction, and without a real reason for it, in terms of the story, but besides that, we're basically in a classic screwball comedy told through Wes Anderson-colored glasses, and that's just fun in general. Cary Grant could've been in this Ralph Fiennes role at another time, maybe with Sam Jaffe as Zero, but that's too simple for Anderson as the eclectic cast keeps introducing us to some new wrinkle into the story and world, always keeping us guessing, and at level, it's just pure comedic delight. He doesn't make fun of the literature he uses, references and takes inspiration from, but I think he likes using the elements and conceits from it to introduce us into his worlds and then tell the stories within them that he wants. You never know what he'll tackle next, but I'm realizing now that there's few filmmakers out there who's take on subjects I look forward to more than Wes Anderson. 


CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE WINTER SOLDIER
(2014) Directors: Anthony Russo & Joe Russo


✰✰



(Yawwwwwwwwn!) I swear I'm trying, I really am, but I am just too tired of all this now. the movie after movie of all these different superheroes, and then the movie with all of them, and then the-, I don't know, whatever the hell else I have to care about- I'm trying but Jesus Christ. Why is this Marvel Universe thing such a good idea anyway? Seriously, why? I have to watch six movies to know what's happening in the seventh, and then that doesn't even matter, since there gonna end with the hint of what comes in seventh or eight or 12th I supposedly have to look forward to (Which btw, I know a lot of people do those "Most Anticipated Movies lists" and whatnot, especially for the new year, fuck all of you! Really, don't get excited at least until the reviews come out, then maybe, care or give a shit; you're just setting yourself to be disappointed. There is no movie I am looking forward too, so don't expect me to have a list, until it's in theaters, and I hear it's good, then I'll put it on a to-watch list, and it will wait it's turn; if it's good today, then it'll be good tomorrow, no need to get excited or jump ahead until after you see it.) Anyway, back to this,- which one is this, oh, "Black Widow",- oh I'm sorry, "Captain America: The Winter Soldier". Shouldn't it be Black Widow (Scarlet Johansson), really? Captain America (Chris Evans) was the worst and most boring of the first set of Avenger origin films to begin with, he's not much better here, and in case you think that, him coming up to modern time, after decades being frozen under the Earth would be an interesting contrast, well I'd like to see that movie actually, but he's slightly more educated at this point, thanks to the internet on his cellphone, to modern ways, and yet, he's fighting a Soviet. Yeah, Soviet, it's still the Cold War apparently. S.H.I.E.L.D. has been compromised, and they suspect Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) is, if not behind it, he's at least given knowledge to Steve Rogers, aka Captain America about what he knows, but he's been attacked by a mythical fighting machine called "The Winter Soldier" (Sebastian Stan) Except he's not that mythical, and as an assassin, he's quite powerful; Black Widow has met up with him before. With Fury laid out, and Alexander Pierce (Robert Redford, for some reason) as some head of S.H.I.E.L.D. is now out for Captain America, who's on the run, and Black Widow's helping him hideout. And apparently this has something to do with HYDRA, and apparently the Nazis are still involved in this incredibly elaborate paranoia thriller, sorta. There's also a former Iraqi soldier, Sam Wilson (Anthony Mackie) who is apparently also an Avenger named Falcon, who's becoming a running buddy of Steve, and he's also helping him out as they dig into S.H.I.E.L.D.'s past, and therefore, Captain America's past as well. Apparently HYDRA's spent post WWII, infiltrating S.H.I.E.L.D. and causing the world to devolve into the kind of chaos that would need a group of superheroes. (Which, reminds me, why aren't the other Avengers looking for Captain America; you'd think that would've been interesting having to go after one of their own, and again, they really should just be called for everyhing at this point?) "Captain America: The Winter Soldier" isn't entirely bad, it's compelling seeing an Avenger on the run, and we actually dig into Black Widow for awhile, and her arc is most interesting as her mysterious past starts to get revealed more than normal. Still though, the more of these movies they make, the less and less impactful they are. We know there's gonna be, god-knows how-many-more-of-these, so nothing overly dramatic or shocking is gonna happen here, and we all know that, so this is more or less, an aberration than it is a superhero movie at this point, and basically I just feel jerked around now, by all these Marvel Universe projects now. They're like pieces to a jigsaw puzzle that's never getting solved. As to, whether the puzzle piece is entertaining or not, it's got it's moments; I went through it twice, just to be sure, but it's still a bit too messy of a story to really be that engaging.


GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY (2014) Director: James Gunn

✰✰✰



Normally when I composed these movie review blogs, I actually have a method to arrangement to how I position the movies I've seen that week, for instance, Oscar nominated films from earlier in the year, get moved to the top in most cases (Today an exception for films out in theaters that I happened to have a chance to see, on that rarest of occasions), then the most important or essential-movies-that-I-had-to-watched from this year, or at least the year before, (Maybe from two years ago depending on the time of year) come next and then of course, anything 3 years or older go on the bottom in same terms, how important and essential they are and usually I don't even list those reviews in the title since they're so ancient but in this case, if you happen to be reading these movies in order, you'll note my rant about the Marvel Universe in the review of "Captain America: The Winter Soldier" above. It was purely coincidental, but I did happen to see "Captain America..." first and then immediately wrote that scathing retort, and then literally the next day, I watched "Guardians of the Galaxy" which is hardly great by any means, and I'm informed that they are in fact apart of the same Marvel Universe, but hopefully they won't become apart of it, 'cause it is something different, slightly more witty, almost a parody of these films actually, that I frankly enjoyed. Now, clearly I'm not a comic book person, but usually I've at least heard of the superheroes and characters involved in these films, at least the big ones that they've made movies about, but I hadn't even heard of "Guardians of the Galaxy" until the movie came out. Apparently a major character is a mix-tape of wildly familiar and overused-in-movies pop songs. The tape is Peter Quill's (Chris Pratt) aka Starlord, who's a famous space outlaw from Earth, which is called Terra, in whatever part of the heavens this film takes place in, The cassette is his mother's favorite songs that he was listening as he watched her pass before being taken up to wherever. His latest crime is to get ahold of a powerful orb that apparently can help some disreputable people destroy the galaxy. The most evil, at least in this movie is Ronan (Lee Pace) who's a warlord who's slaughtered numerous tribes already, including the family of Drax (Former pro wrestler Dave Batista) The others three in this ragtag group is Ronan's adopted daughter Gamora (Zoe Saldana) and a genetically mutated tree and raccoon, the tree is Groot (Vin Diesel, who literally only has four different words in his vocabulary it seems) and the Raccoon is Rocket (Bradley Cooper) who talks enough for the both of them and is generally a narcissistic smartass, who does happen to make good points here and there. The movie is a little frustrating in that only seems to go, about half the way towards comedy and it deals with a lot of these double and triple crosses between many of these characters. Michael Rooker's a criminal-for-hire as well who Starlord owes a debt to after he saved his life years earlier, and Thanos (Josh Brolin) is orchestrating Ronan's terror of destruction while playing politics with the head of the planet, or whatever the hell she is, Nova Prime (Glenn Close), I would've rather that stuff been more simpler and not be as intricate to the world, but at least this was a Marvel world and point of view that I haven't seen before, and so for the time being, I have some faith in these Marvel comic book movies. Hopefully the next one, which they promised us at the end will be better, and hopefully it won't have Howard the Duck in it. Why he was in it at all, I don't know, but oh well.


OBVIOUS CHILD (2014) Director: Gillian Robespierre

✰✰✰✰1/2



I think there might be a tendency to see Jenny Slate's performance in "Obvious Child" as. almost an extension of herself instead of an actual performance, but this is not that though, this is an absolutely great performance, not a comedic performance, just a great acting performance. She plays a New York stand-up comic named Donna Stern who, like many young comics that doing stand-up is easier and more fun than working for a living, and that goes along with her relatively simple job of working at a bookstore during the day, that's going out of business soon. Then we see Donna's life fall apart. After one performance, her boyfriend Ryan (Paul Briganti) breaks up with her, and she's crushed. The next time she performs on stage, she's wasted, in no condition to perform, and not really coherent enough to formulate a joke. I should mention that- there's a few different types of stand-up comics, as most of us, she's the kind who's confessional about her life, on stage. Baring, everything, whether it's as simplistic as a farting habit, or her hygienic problems to her sex life. She doesn't use a traditional joke structure either, it's written and formed, but it almost seems improvised, somewhat similar to when Janeane Garofalo, Margaret Cho and Kathy Griffin 30 years ago, when they would just go onstage and talk about what happened to them that week. So when shit happens in her life, it happens onstage too. Then, she has a one-night stand with a nice guy named Max (Jake Lacy) and now she's pregnant, and everybody from her mother (Polly Draper) on down to her roommate, Nellie (Gaby Hoffman, also really strong here, in only a few scenes; boy she's suddenly become one of the most interesting actresses out there), both of whom at separate points talk about their abortions. Donna's in her late twenties, but is nowhere near capable of taking care of a child and she knows it, but with Valentine's Day coming up, the ironic date of her abortion appointment, she suddenly confronted with numerous other paths and thoughts. Max, turns out to be a good guy, and a student of her mother who's a noted college professor, and he's a top protege, so ironically, she keeps running into him, when the last thing he wants to do is see the man whose child she's about to get rid of. Yes, the movie doesn't hide or shy away from abortion, and I'm gonna say right now that, she doesn't change her mind, however the feel about that, the movie isn't about the struggle over the decision, it's about the struggles of this girl as she has to deal with this decision she's made. She now has to make a grownup life decision, and ironically it's one that in theory allows her to remain in this childlike lifestyle, but just a little more mature about than she was before. She's still as confessional in her stand-up and she searches for the humor in her life, all the difficult moments in order to deal and conceive of these moments more clearly. She's goes from "If I can make fun of it, that's it's not a problem" to "If I can make fun of it, that doesn't mean it's not a problem, but that's okay." This is really one a great and surprising performance from Slate, and despite a few minor imperfections, "Obvious Chile" is a funny and smart film about a tough subject, and deals with it intelligently. It's a debut feature film from writer/director, Gillian Robespierre, and she's been working on this since her first short film five years ago, and she used that time to really tell this story, and the page is transformed by all the performances, particularly this performance by Slate who reveals herself here to be a true actress here, and not just somebody who can be funny occasionally. I'm looking forward to the next projects of Slate and Robespierre's in the future; this is a very strong first effort.


BLUE RUIN (2014) Director: Jeremy Saulnier

✰1/2



Watch "Blue Ruin" is kinda like watching an Anton Chigurh character, only without the abilities that Chigurh has, or for that matter, the logical and thoughtfully calculated plans of attack, and that joke gets old fast; if this was intended to be a joke. Jeremy Saulnier's breakout film is nominated for the Independent Spirit Award for best film made under half a million dollars, the John Cassavettes Prize, and it's getting comparisons to films like "Blood Simple", which I might as well confess this now, I never thought was that great a film either despite my admiration for the Coen Brothers. The main character is Dwight (Macon Blair, not a professional actor, he's a longtime friend of the filmmaker) who often seems like, nothing frankly. That's part of the point, he's not that educated, he's homeless, living out of his old Pontiac, (Which is where the title comes from), he's not even a particularly good shot with his shotgun, but he's out for vengeance to go after those who killed his parents years ago. Why's he doing this now, and why do we care- honestly I couldn't come up with an answer to that. The fact that he's not the typical character or actor and performance is interesting, and sometimes there's some intriguing situations that he gets himself in, and that dynamic works for a little while, but the character barely exists really, and frankly the movie barely does too. Saulnier's background is cinematography, so there's a lot of interesting sub-Malick, sub Kelly Reichardt-like shots, lots of them, and I think that's as much the problem as anything else frankly. At a certain point, a story is really not worth telling; it's too basic, and you can blame some of that on the budget, but I've seen complex thrilles on the same budget too; this is really somebody thinking, "If I shoot this with enough style, of some kind, than it'll make up for not having a decent story to tell." Well, it doesn't, and frankly, even when I liked the shot, I was so annoyed by the film's flimsy story and character, that I was actually yelling at the movie to hurry up after a while. This was a frustrating film. Saulnier can play some of the same notes as those filmmakers who he's clearly inspired from, but he doesn't have the music quite yet. The style should enhance the story, not replace it. There wasn't a character I cared about; I couldn't give a shit who lived or died at the end of this movie, This was a startling uncompelling movie that thinks it has everybody's attention, and even if it could've grabbed mine, it didn't do much interesting to keep me intrigued. After he kills his parents' murderer, he's left more than enough evidence around, so he's on the run again, and now he's got to kill everyone else, before they kill him, and everybody else- this is supposed like the Virginia Beach area, a little cross between Small town with a strip club, to- I don't know, the hicks from "Deliverance" or the family from "Winter's Bone" or something like, but everybody felt like a caricature. I was cheering when shots were fired, but I didn't really care who they hit, and that's a bad sign for a movie.


A MILLION WAYS TO DIE IN THE WEST (2014) Director: Seth MacFarlane

✰✰✰



If this was an attempt for Seth MacFarland to do his version of "Blazing Saddles", well, I think he'll even tell you that he fell short, but still, I laughed enough at "A Million Ways to Die in the West" to recommend it. It's pretty much inevitable though, you do a western parody and,- I'm sure MacFarlane new the waters he was jumping into here, but I think the real problem is that this is probably the wrong medium strangely enough for the comedy he's trying to do. I know that's an odd thing to say, but sometimes, his character, Albert, a sheep farmer and not a good one, often talks in long monologues about how horrible life in the west is. Some of the great humor is in that, but I think this might've been done a little better if it was a comedy album actually, sorta in the vein of the "2000-Year-Old-Man" perhaps. I will say that I laughed at most of the deaths, especially the cameraman getting killed at the fair. The story revolves around Albert getting in trouble, first with Foy (Neil Patrick Harris) the local moustachery owner, after his girlfriend Louise (Amanda Seyfried) left Albert for him. He gets shooting lessons from a new-in-towner, Anna (Charlize Theron) who unbeknownst to him, is the husband of Clinch (Liam Neeson) the most vicious and murderous outlaw in the west, and if the block of ice, syphilis, snakebites, or everything else doesn't kill him, after falling in love with Ana, Clinch will probably surely kill him. There's also a cute subplot with Albert's best friends, Edward (Giovanni Ribisi) and his girlfriend Ruth (Sarah Silverman) and how they're saving themselves for marriage despite her job as a prostitute, that was probably the one really good, physical joke, in terms of it needing to be visual that really kept working throughout the whole, and that's going back to my theory that this probably could've been better as a recording than it is a movie. Although it's good setup though for other movies. I'm expecting "A Million Ways to Die in the Time of Christ" or "A Million Ways to Die in the Middle Ages" or "... the Renaissance" or "...in King Arthur's Court"...., Seriously, Seth, I want you to do these in some way. Oh, "A Million Ways to Die in Space". Anyway, I laughed enough, so I'll recommend it, but disappointed 'cause I know he can do better. Hopefully he will next time.


ABUSE OF WEAKNESS (2014) Director: Catherine Breillat

✰✰✰✰1/2



Whew! Catherine Breillat is autobiographical and ballsy. Neither of those traits are at all surprising to anybody familiar with her work, but she's never been those things like this before. Breillat, a few years ago, suffered a paralyzing stroke over the left side of her body. It was sudden and shocking, and left this strongest of strong-willed artists and women, to need help in order to help overcome her vulnerable and lonely state. The next two things that happened are immensely shocking. The first is that she becomes fascinated by a con artist, and is interested in not only telling his story, but also casting him in his latest film. He would end up conning her out of $800,000, as he essentially helped take care of her while recovering from her stroke. The second thing that happened, is that she wrote a novel about it, and then went public, and in 2012, because of her help and testimony, he was sent prison, and forced to repay her. Breillat is a lot of thing, stupid is not one of them, yet, she thought that she could control and manipulate this master manipulator herself, and invited him into her life, despite her friends telling her not to do that. Most people who would be so duped like that, in her position, would probably keep their failure of humanity quiet, and on the down-low, maybe, once the shock and pain was over, turn it into a story to tell at expensive lavish dinners about how foolhardy she was, like in "Six Degrees of Separation" or something, make herself the butt of the joke, for being so dumb. But she's not dumb, and that's the little thing about con artists, it's not the stupid that gets conned, it is the people who think they are smarter than they indeed are that get themselves into this situation. A book wasn't enough though, and now, we get "Abuse of Weakness", maybe her most powerful personal film. Her stand-in character is named Maud Shainberg and is played by Isabelle Huppert, who amazingly I'm told, has never worked with Breillat until now, and in a career of amazing performances, this ranks right up there. I'm actually shocked that her name's not showing up right now on Oscar ballots, but if there are reasons for why it isn't than their are some good leading actress performances out there. Yeah, in some sense she's playing the director, but holy hell, how hard that must be. Not just, one who suffers a debilitating stroke, one that's still a smart woman, one who's more vulnerable than she normally is, one who's more lonely that she normally is, one who's cocky enough, and strong enough to think that nothing will happen to her, and what he, the conman, in this film, named Vilko Piran (A French rap artist named Kool Shen) of course, wouldn't try to con her, especially when he's so caring and nurturing with her, as he nurses her back to being healthy enough to make her next movie. Huppert has to play all these things, while the person she's playing is the one telling her how to do it. It might her best acting work yet, and that's saying something. "Abuse of Weakness" is a film about two people abusing Maud's weakness, Vilko and Maud. Vilko for taking advantage of her situation, Maud for letting him do it. It's not an apology from Breillat but a reality that shows that if it can happen to her, than it can probably happen to anyone.


VENUS IN FUR (2014) Director: Roman Polanski

✰✰✰1/2



After adapting Yasmina Reza's "God of Carnage" to the screen, and with him now adapted David Ives's "Venus in Fur", I'm starting to wonder whether Polanski's been hanging around catching Broadway plays recently. I'm kidding of course, I'm sure he saw the play in Paris or somewhere like that; he even made this one in French instead of English, a somewhat intriguing choice considering it's an American play, although it is, loosely inspired by the Austrian novel "Venus in Furs" by Leopold von Sacher-Masoch. Von Sacher-Masoch's work was the "50 Shades of Grey" for it's time, other films inspired by his work include "Devil in the Flesh" and "Seduction: The Cruel Woman" and if you haven't notice, yes, a-eh, pronunciation of name, is sometimes considered one of the origins of the word, "Sadomasochistic". Now, "Venus in Fur" though, is about a playwright/theater director who's auditioning actresses for the main role in a theatrical adaptation of the novel. The playwright is Thomas (Mathieu Alamric) and the entire movie. like the play is two performers, as Thomas suddenly has one last unannounced actress, Vanda (Emmanuelle Seigner) come in, dressed in a dominatrix outfit, and seeming scatterbrained, but she's mostly critical of the work and the writer's interpretation, yet, he's impressed with her acting as they continually switch between reading lines and arguing about the work and how the writer is inspired by it. Then this back-and-forth really goes back and forth as parts and sexual roles and of course, dominance and submissiveness gets changed and reverse multiple times over. I can totally understand how Polanski can be inspired from this material, one of his most common themes, is this, almost conspiratorial worry that, sometimes people get overtaken with the parts they're in some ways forced to play in their lives. That's a common obscure undercurrent, in some of his work, for instant, "The Tenant" which is one of his very worst film, but it tackles this subject head-on, or even a recent film like "The Ghost Writer" or even "Rosemary's Baby", and here's basically another version of that, but done in this very minimalist, theatrical way that we're not used to seeing from him much. He's always been involved in the theater as well as film, Polanski, really bringing that to film now more than ever, and this is a good mixing of the two, continues on his themes and motifs fine as well; it's not the greatest play to begin with, but it's a good adaptation. It's hard for me, to call it a special Polanski film, but it's certainly a good one; worth a viewing, recommendation. Good acting btw, also; I think I'd rather explore more of von Sacher-Masoch's work


DRAFT DAY (2014) Director: Ivan Reitman

1/2✰



Oh man is this film awful. I'm more than familiar with the NFL Draft; I remember being the only Eagles fan to not be booing Donovan McNabb when we drafted him 2nd overall in '98, because he wasn't a guy named Ricky Williams, who would retire a few years later to get high for a few years with Lenny Kravitz before becoming a #2 back in a 3-back system in a few different places while McNabb was leading us to a Super Bowl appearance, six or seven division titles and 5 NFC Championship game appearances, most of those happened, without having a receiver of any noteworthiness or talent, btw. Anyway, the NFL Draft is an interesting subject matter for a film, many films in fact, but not the kind of movie that's made here, and even if it was, frankly, this is not a good one. Ivan Reitman should know better. Sonny Weaver Jr. (Kevin Costner) is the General Manager of the Cleveland Browns. A team GM is the person who's basically in charge of drafting, signing, sometimes releasing players and coaches. He's the one who's essentially the head of football operations. When a team decides to go after a player and sign him to a huge contract, it's the GM who's negotiating that deal. It's the owner, this one's named Anthony Molina (Frank Langella) who hires (and fire) the GM and signs the checks. The first day of the NFL draft (There's actually three days; there should be two; it was better when it was all on a weekend) is the most pressure-intensive day for the GM, and under normal circumstances, analyzing talent, looking through every possible piece of game film and scouting reports and accessing all the needs and the players available, stressful enough in the war room. Here, his girlfriend, the team's salary cap guru Ali (Jennifer Garner) is pregnant; the owner is insistent that he make a splash, or else his job and everyone else's is pretty much on the line. He makes one hasty move, trading basically the future of the franchise to get the number one overall pick from Seattle, which is supposed to be a hotshot QB named Bo Callahan (Josh Pence). Everybody thinks he's the clear first number one pick, and he has all the talent and skills to boot. With such a move, naturally, he better be right about the guy, but he makes sure every available player is out there to be sure, as the draft continues to move up closer and closer.- I'm gonna get right to the point, this movie sucks. It's poorly written, knows, very, very little about the actual goings-on about the NFL Draft, and why it's important, other than it's important, and frankly, since it is the NFL Draft, without giving away how exactly this plays out, there's the other problem of, we don't really know how the hell this plays out at the end. "Ryan Leaf won everywhere, nobody said that about Tom Brady", to paraphrase one of the dozens of inane and most well-known and common pieces of draft trivia their is by the Garner character. It wants to be the football version of "Moneyball" but "Moneyball", A. we actually got to see the results, and B. it actually knows about the wheelin' and dealing behind-the-scenes world of sports, and really gets into the minutia of it, and it isn't simply, passion vs. talent as the movie makes it out to be, or simply knowing how to "Trust your gut". And there's a scene that really, especially when I thought about this later, that makes zero real sense, how the war room is looking over a football game involving two of their potential picks, Bo, and a linebacker named Vontae Mack (Chadwick Boseman) and both played incredibly well during the game, but Mack got thrown out after touching an official after celebrating after he got a fumble return for a touchdown after his fourth sack, and frankly, what they end up seeing and finding that they didn't see before, there's absolutely no way in hell they wouldn't have seen or known about until they looked closely at the footage, especially since this is an outspoken player who's known for speaking his mind on Twitter. The movie isn't even really focused on the draft anyway, it's about layering a bunch of shit on Costner's character to make us care about him. Having to fire his father two years earlier who passed the week before, his mother (Ellen Burstyn) insisting, for reasons, beyond any piece of logic that I can find, on today of all days, being the day that she must spread the ashes onto the practice field (And everybody but Costner's character, coming out to join her, literally a couple hours before the draft, apparently they had nothing better to do), the pregnant girlfriend/co-worker, the owner, the trade, the misgivings, the security P.I. guy, the new annoying intern, you're now, pissed off quarterback (Brian Drew), who is apparently in town close enough to go and destroy your office, the head coach (Denis Leary) who's he doesn't like and wants to quit...-, I mean, this is bad Robert McKee screenwriting, where they're told to build up the drama in your characters, and yet, you the movie doesn't realize how to do any of that correctly. It's the generic plot formula, it's- ugh everything we hate about the movies, and absolutely nothing that people like me, who religiously watch the NFL Draft on TV (When I have cable) every year tune in for. Fine, it was shot at the draft, it looks good, there's nice overhead shots of stadiums every time there's a phone call from a new team interested in a player or a trade or something, the acting is as good as it can be. I think Reitman knows it's a bad script, does what he can to try and save it, but it's so much worst than it even seems, 'cause it comes off as patronizing pretty much. Sam Raimi directed a similarly shitty sports movie with Kevin Costner called "For Love of the Game" years ago, which was basically the same bad generic plot movie; he's a character in the sports world, let's put all the shit possible on him, let's make everything else as generic as possible, maybe a few things unusual that actually happened (Although they're so commonly known to sports fans that they happened that we point at the screen and go "That happened to..." for the non-sports fan watching the movie, like they care.) and then, he'll against all odds succeed at the end; and this movie is even worst 'cause at least, the shit that happened to him in "For Love of the Game", was mostly character building, none of it is here. It's all written and done for the sake of adding reasons for us to care, as though, the NFL Draft, if handled correctly, wouldn't be enough for us to be interested in a movie about it, even though, the only reason the movie is being made is because the NFL Draft is interesting and popular to enough people that they might be interested in seeing a movie about it. We are, but not this one.


FADING GIGOLO (2014) Director: John Turturro

✰✰✰1/2



John Turturro has quietly become one of the more interesting actor/directors around. He's films are so unusual and strange and unpredictable from one to the next, that it almost seems like this great actor is simply directing and finding interesting stories to tell, simply to challenge his own skills and pique his own interests. "Fading Gigolo" is essentially his Woody Allen movie, and a light one at that. Turturro plays Fioravante, who's a bit of a do-anything kind of character, who's friends with Murray (Woody Allen, in a very rare acting appearance in a movie that he wasn't a writer/director on.) a now-bankrupt rare book store owner, who for reasons that are never fully explained, lives with a younger African-American women, Othelia (Tanya Pinkins) and looks after her four kids, when he's not at the store. He catalyst for this story involves Murray meeting with two different women, and one hairbrained althought not-that-hairbrained scheme. The first person is his doctor, Dr. Parker (Sharon Stone) who's married, but is interested in her and her girlfriend, Selima (Sofia Vergara) having a threesome. The other involve taking Othelia's kids to the Hasidic side of town to get their lice dealt with, that's where he meets Avigal (Vanessa Paradis) who's married to the Tony Soprano of the Hasidic Jew community Dovi (Liev Schreiber) but she's lonely and sexually frustrated. Murray suspects, correctly so, that Fiorvante would make a good gigolo, and after some convincing, he gets him to go along with this scheme. First, it involves being with the Dr. and her girlfriend, separately, as they both want to try the guy out separately, although this leads to some jealousy between them even before they get to the threesome, as both worry they'd rather have Fioravante all for themselves. Then, while easing Avigal into the arrangement slowly, he begins to fall in love with her, which is a terrible problem for a gigolo under normal circumstances, but also, her husband strongly suspects his wife's having an affair and is now zeroing in on Fioravante and Murray.  (He's actually more annoyed at Murray, for being a Jew who seems to be going against his own by helping Avigal supposedly break her vows. This leads to numerous absurd scenarios, that aren't treated that absurdly; actually there's a sweetness and tenderness to this film, especially in how love really does play such a huge role. The two stories actually parallel each other well, they're both about people looking for the love they can't get from their partner, and they go to extreme measures to try and get. Although some extremes are more extreme than others, but still, stuff happens, and you can have all these rules and customs but emotions, heart and nether-regions may try to supercede those. rules. Otherwise, the story is about a short-term although surprising successful money-making venture into male prostitution for both Fioravante and for Murray, who was working as his pimp for all of this. It's a quiet little nice indy, probably nothing more than that, but I enjoyed it; it was cute little fun thing to do for a little while, just like the gigolo business. 


THE LAST SENTENCE (2014) Director: Jan Troell

✰✰✰✰



Years ago, I read a book in middle school; I can't for the life of me remember the name of it, but it took place in WWII, in Denmark, I believe, which is a bit of a forgotten area piece of geography during the war to begin with, but Germany did occupy Denmark, and the book was about a family that trying to find a way to get out of Denmark and eventually into Sweden, which strangely, not only was still not taken over by Germany, it actually remained neutral and unoccupied entirely during the war, throughout the entire time, and I always kinda wondered why Hitler didn't particularly go after it, but actually, it was also Sweden's choice as well to stay neutral, and even though they weren't occupied and remained a safe haven for Jewish escapees and others, it was hardly a calm neutrality, and the war did divide the country. Jan Troell's latest "The Last Sentence" is his first attempt with a digital camera, which is a bit unusual consider Troell, who's subject matter is often the past, (And in his previous film "Everlasting Moments" the past and film.) The film is still shot in black and white and is about Torgny Segerstedt (Jesper Christensen), a journalist in Gothenberg who's one of the first to start criticizing and condemning Hitler, almost immediately as the Nazi party gained power, and then continued on even under pressure from the readers, advertisers, the politicians and even the King of Sweden, tried to lure him off the topic. And, he's personal life was one of peril. He was married to Pusta (Ulla Skoog) but was carrying on an affair with his publisher's wife Maja (Pernilla August) who was Jewish, which led some to think his rants against concentration camps were because of his affair. His publisher Axel (Bjorn Granath) would keep publishing his commentaries usually, although when he was told not to print one, he seemed slightly smarter than the government, by just leaving the section blank, making it seem worst than it really was. There is an inner conflict playing out within him, although that point gets a little too well-made, at one point, three people different people go and tell that to him in three straight scenes, but "The Last Sentence" gives us a slight glimpse into this complicated time and place in a country that's literally in the middle of everything and yet is at odds with itself as it struggles mightily to stay out of it. As Torgny calls for Sweden to take arms and fight, he's told about how the Swedish military wouldn't last ten days with either Russia or Germany and they're right about that. (Which always made it seem stranger that Sweden ended up missing out on the war entirely.) Troell has a tendency to drag on and he does here a bit too, but overall it's a very intense if uneven film, but still very strong.


ROB THE MOB (2014) Director: Raymond de Felitta

✰✰✰✰



LOL, oh I actually heard about these two in Mafia folklore before seeing "Rob the Mob". ([In my thickest Jersey-Italian accent, voice and arm movements] Hey, I'm Italian, my family's from Jersey, later on we moved to Vegas; I'm not saying that's anything more than a coincidence, or irony, but-eh, I hear things, sometimes, I may talk to a few people, who may know some things, but that don't mean nothing. I hear things; you know?") Anyway, (waves hand jokingly, referencing the bit) no, I am not a member of any organized crime family, but it's something we're familiar with, and during the Gotti trial, it's something that was an odd post-script on that trial was the sudden robberies of numerous Mafia social clubs in the New York area. The two unlikely folk heroes are Tommy and Rosie (Michael Pitt and Nina Arianda), a young couple of ex-cons. They both found each other and then spent most of their time, in and out of jail. This latest time, they actually succeed at going straight oddly enough. Rosie gets a job as a debt collector for another ex-con, Dave Lovell (Griffin Dunne, having a lot of fun) who enjoys giving ex-cons another chance. He's an interesting character himself too, but Rosie's a natural at debt collecting, and she gets Tommy a job too, and things start going well, although Tommy's still unable to really convince his family, especially his mother (Cathy Moriarty-Gentile, in a cute cameo.), Meanwhile, John Gotti's trial is going on, and they're paying close attention, as is everybody, but they're close to obsessed, even actually, and people don't always realize you can actually do this, they actually just go to the trial and watch the proceedings, and one thing they find out is that there's weapons allowed in those Mafia social clubs where those old time mobsters hang out, and eat and stuff like that. Little Rao's type-places, not that I've ever been there either, although if somebody's not using their table for that one day-, sorry nevermind. So, they realize, a bunch of mobsters, lots of big wallets, nobody with a gun, the last people, who'd want to call the police, and suddenly, they're back in the robbery business. Slowly the word of their actions catch on, as eventually the mob realize that it's not another family pulling off the heists, and eventually they start looking for the two Bonnie & Clyde-like robbers. Meanwhile, they enjoy the publicity and the riches and the case, which helps them come up with new places to his with each testimony. Eventually the mob reporter, Jerry Cardozo (Ray Romano, reminding us that he's quite a strong actor; we forget that about him sometimes, but nice to see him a good role) even starts reporting on it, and they end up calling him with the inaccuracies and they then get interviewed. They're full of passion these two, but they aren't bright. Eventually, they have an advantage, when it turns they steal the list with the order of hierarchy on it, the proverbial silver bullet, if you will, for the prosecution. Of course, they use it to try to call the members and extort more money from them. The leader, turns out to be Big Al (Andy Garcia, unrecognizable here behind the way; I had to look up that it was him) who actually owns the supermarker, he's a grocer and spends much of the time, spending it with his family, teaching his grandson how to make arancinis, fearing about the days when he realizes all the evils acts and deeds he's done. It's actually a striking performance Garcia here; I really felt like he embodies; every performance is really good here actually. This is actually about as good a movie as you could make out of this brief with note in mafia folklore. Pitt and Arianda, are incredibly good as young, ambitious, in love people, who can't conceive how in over their heads they are, and it's a romantic look at them. The ballsy genius really, of going into a mafia social club, and screaming for everyone to give them their wallets, and it takes them a minute to realize he's serious and how he embarrasses them; it's funny, it's observant, it's a little slice of the Mafia not talked about much, and there's some really good characters and performances here. Very strong film.  


THE ANGELS' SHARE (2013) Director: Ken Loach

✰✰✰✰



Steven Boone's review of "The Angels' Share" on rogerebert.com, takes a look at the at the film through the perspective of looking at Ken Loach's political perspective, and the film as some sort of socialist parable, or some other mumbo jumbo. Not that it's entirely wrong or irrelevant, Loach is certainly political in nature and in his films; Boone probably makes agood point or two, but frankly, but frankly I just watched a fun little movie about a group of British lower class hoods who get one over some upscale snobby whiskey connoisseurs. The social realism is there for sure, but the interesting parts come later. First, we meets these convicts as their rejoining society, led by Robbie (Paul Brannigan), who's the leader of the group out on community service. He beat someone up, fairly bad, and the confrontation is tense, and his family's not crazy about him either, but he's just had a kid with his girlfriend Leonie (Siobhan Reilly) but during his service, Harry (John Henshaw), the guy overseeing their service, takes them on some field trips, and one goes to a whiskey distillery, and it turns out, Robbie has an unusual stout pallette for tasting whiskey, and it's noticed by a collector Thaddeus (Roger Allum) who happens to be auctioning off later, an incredibly rare barrel of whiskey. The title refers to, the amount of whiskey that naturally evaporates when it's in the barrel, that's "The Angels' Share" of the whiskey supposedly, and this barrel is worth millions. A bottle or two would set them up, and Robbie's pallette gets Thaddeus interested in him possibly working at the distillery, but more than that, it gives him and his group of Albert (Gary Maitland), Rhino (William Ruane) and Mo (Jasmine Riggins) have an in to possibly the inner workings of the distillery, where they can bottle some of the whiskey and sell on the black market, without anybody even realizing it's gone. It's a smart plan, and the way it plays out, with the clash of these lower-class rapscallion-like characters with the more supposedly sophisticated group of whiskey experts. That was the more enjoyable part frankly for me; I usually find Loach, while his work's always good, there seems to be a denseness to it, and especially when it does dive headfirst into the social realism and just stays there; there was enough of that, but it was still just setup for this rather ingenius and fun little comedy of manners. I rather found myself thinking highly of "The Angels' Share," mostly 'cause of the joy of the story, and not so much that the group manages to find a way into a world which normally they wouldn't necessarily be invited to join. They came in through the back door, just out of prison, but it only takes the one thing your good at and you can start climbing the reigns, even if that one thing is an ability to taste whiskey better than others. (And frankly that's a pretty cool one thing to have.An ability to steal it is pretty good too though.)


MENTAL (2013) Director: P.J. Hogan

✰✰✰



I'm not sure what it is or why, but Australian comedies always seem to lean towards the exaggerated and grotesque, this almost surrealistic point of view of the world. Somewhere between Fellini and Dali lies Australia. I say this affectionately but it always seems rather bizarre to me, and I think Director P.J. Hogan, herself directly apart of this milieu with such films as "Muriel's Wedding", but she takes it on directly here in "Mental". "Mental" is a slang term for crazy, and in the town of Dolphin Head, everyone's crazy. But let's start with the one who gets sent to the hospital for being crazy, Shirley Moochmore (Rebecca Gibney) who begins the movie walking out to her backyard and singing "The Sound of Music", much to her five daughters' chagrin. All five of the daughters are supposedly a little mental too, each in their own different ways. The oldest, Coral (Lily Sullivan) tried to jump off the house, only to land her father's car as he was pulling into the driveway. Their father is the town Mayor, Barry (Anthony Lapaglia). He's a demanding, abusive philanderer who rarely comes home, and just doesn't want to deal with anything involving the family. Bad enough the rumors and the nosy neighbors, and with an election coming up, he hires a nanny off-the-street so he doesn't have to stay home and watch the girls. The Nanny, named Shaz (Toni Collette) is new in town, and doesn't necessarily buy into everybody being as mental as they seem, and she's got a medical dictionary to prove it. She's also got a knife, and hears voices from her daughter, who she suspects lives inside a shard that's on display at the shark exhibit that Coral works at and is owned by Trevor (Liev Schreiber) who's unusually frightening and sometimes overprotective of Coral, but frankly, somebody should be. Coral, quickly investigates, and realizes the problem isn't so much the family being crazy, it's that everyone is, to some extent. Eh, this is a country that was started as a prison colony, so actually it's probably not that strange, how out-of-whack everyone behaves. "Mental" is certainly not Hogan's strongest work, but I liked enough of it to recommend it. The set and costume design are pretty hilarious at times, and the absurdities I did find intriguing, and I liked the arch of Coral, who's also starting to date around this time, and through Shaz really does start guiding her messed-up family into a range of stability. Collette and Schreiver are particularly good here, Lapaglia is also believable as somebody who see himself as a Kennedy-esque figure but without really the insight to live up to him. "Mary Poppins" it's not, but I enjoyed "Mental" as a satirical look at Australian comedies, the country itself, mental illness and the perpetual overuse of psychological disorders,... there's more going on here than it looks and it's done well, could've been a little more focused, there's a few-too-many that end up going on, but other than that, enough moments, peeking out for me.


THE LAST TIME I SAW PARIS (1954) Director: Richard Brooks

✰✰1/2



I first came across "The Last Time I Saw Paris" years ago. Haven't seen it until now, but came across it. It's based on a short story by F. Scott Fitzgerald called "Babylon Revisited", a story I'm very familiar with 'cause I once went out looking to buy the rights for it 'cause I had an idea for a short film based on it. That's when I came across the film that I'm finally now getting around to. I never ended up writing the story or buying the rights, although I'm not particularly concerned as my interpretation is nothing like the version that's here. As we have here, it's not a bad movie in particular, but it's not a great one, and frankly for the fifties especially, it doesn't really compare all that well to similar movies and stories of that era, so for that reason I'm not recommending it, but I wouldn't dissuade anyone from watching it. In case you're wondering, most of the short story, basically is fifteen minutes of so of the last half-hour, with a tacked-on happy ending. The story revolves around a character named Charlie Wills (Van Johnson), he's the presumed Fitzgerald stand-in. The story was one of his later ones and looks back on those Jazz Age times in Paris. Charlie is back in town, and we see the excitement that he first has there after leaving the army and starts to try to build a career as a reporter. He meets and then marries Helen Ellswirth (Elizabeth Taylor) and their whirlwind romance is good while it lasts, but when children start entering the picture, both of their problems with booze and monotony, and eventually this gets in their way of trying to grow up in mature parents. Charles drinks heavily and Helen continues to go out partying like before, both of them get caught in their own traps of desperation and despair. When Helen arrives at her sister Marion's (Donna Reed) doorstep, she's about on her last ropes. Charles is sober now, Helen didn't survive it, but now James (Walter Pidgeon), Helen's brother, and Marion are raising their daughter, and Charlie wants a shot at being able to take care of her again, but Helen won't hear any of it. I'll tell you guys my version of this story some other time, as it is, it's a decent adaptation from the Epstein Twins and directed by Richard Brooks, a good technical director although he's a bit iffy in terms of getting the correct sentiment sometimes. especially for a tragic romance. The way this film is now, it's definitely what they would've called a "Woman's picture" back then, and that's kinda the problem, everybody's okay in the movie, good at times, but everybody's also a bit out of their element, and that's what really keeps it from being a truly special film.


MRS. DALLOWAY (1997) Director: Marleen Gorris

✰✰✰



It's pretty inevitable to run into some trouble trying to adapt Virginia Woolf to the screen, particularly "Mrs. Dalloway", a novel that's not only got controversial material in it, but is really at it's core about the inner thoughts of a character. The complete contrast between how one acts, and what one my think, or, for that matter, somebody may be somebody completely different than who they seem and are. I know the feeling, and I've tried writing screenplays with theme, and it's tricky, no matter the limitations- it's easier to get away with in a novel, where inner monologues and thoughts and first person storytelling is practically the norm, but on screen, you need a really skilled director, and the right one, assuming the script's even good enough. I don't know about the script but "Mrs. Dalloway" has a very good director in Marleen Gorris; this was her follow-up to her Oscar-winning masterpiece, "Antonia's Line", and strangely the two movies, are practically opposites. The title character is Clarissa (Vanessa Redgrave) although most people call her Mrs. Dalloway, and that's how they think of her. She's throwing a party and we see her going about that, and her day. We also see her, as she was in the past (Natascha McElhone) when she's being courted by both Peter (Alex Cox) and to some extent by her friend Sally (Lena Headey, although that's not as clear as the book is) and of course, she instead ends up with a bore of a political-minded character, Richard (Robert Portal). Of course Peter now, (Michael Kitchen) is back in town and is going to the party, but is in a bit of trouble at the moment. The movie continues to alternate between the past and the present, the past being countlessly more interesting until the party when people start attending, and we hear all of Clarissa's thought, while everybody comes up to arbitrarily meet Mrs. Dalloway, the host. I'm not sure how entertaining the film is, really; the book seems pretty unadaptable to begin with, even the very best one Stephen Daldry's film "The Hours" from Michael Cunningham's novel and that's a very aberrational reworking, and Gorris is a good director but it does seem to be against her strengths to begin with also. I'm on-the-fence, but I'll recommend it because it's a good introduction to the material, and the parts that do work, work really well.


THE FIRST TIME (2012) Director: Jonathan Kasdan

✰✰1/2


I don't know quite what it is with me, but I keep on waiting and hoping for one or more of the Kasdan siblings to finally burst through with something great or special, and it's not like, there films aren't that in their own positive ways, but, you struggle looking for the sense of greatness in them. Or this feeling of classical-ness that their father's films often have, that, they can really be films that survive the test of time, and feel more comfortable as you get older, but, maybe that's me, and frankly they should also find their own style and paths, but still, I struggle a bit with their work. There's nothing bad in "The First Time", in fact-, people are amazed when I say this, or say something like this, but I really don't consider whether I like a movie when I analyze a film, and I only judge whether the film is good or bad, and I take out or eliminate that bias as much as possible. Here's a movie that's very quintessential of what I'm talking about, I like "The First Time", I cannot recommend it though, 'cause it's not quite as good of a movie that it should be, but personally, I would enjoy movies like this, as I'm watching them. When I think back later, it becomes clear that, there isn't much here. The movie takes place, supposedly on a weekend and two teenagers, Aubrey and Dave (Britt Robertson and Dylan O'Brien, both very good) strike up a conversation outside of some party that neither one of them particularly wants to be at, but it's,- I don't know, the social expectation/convention or whatever-, don't look at me on this one, whatever everybody else did in high school, I did the opposite and that involved never go to parties I'm told. (Not that anyone ever invit- oh, wait, that's not true, I just said no usually. Alright, nevermind) Anyway, they're both, going through, rather pedestrian,- well,  not pedestrian but they're stuck in some very typical high school relationship-sorta problems and they start discussing them, and there's a bit of a connection between them. Then the party gets overtaken by police, and everybody starts scrambling searching for the next party. David and Aubrey decide to head home instead. Dave is in love with Jane (Victoria Justice) who's making out with,- I don't remember, some ripped guy who she'll likely sleep with and then forget soon after, before using Dave as her hook to talk to late at night about all her problems. Jane's dating some bad older musician guy, Ronny (James Frecheville) who she plans on sleeping with and, getting it over with, her virginity I mean. Not in a prudish way, just move on with it. The title is about, well the first time having sex, and inevitably, after some typical high school shenanigans, they do, and that's scene plays out both romantically and clumsily, it reminded me of that beautiful scene of Renee Zellweger and Tom Cruise on her front porch. That said, there's a lot of, ranting dialogue, that even I found a little too romantic for these high schoolers to be sprouting off, a lot of referential stuff for instance, and really,- I mean, we get to know these two characters a little bit, but it's hard to pinpoint exactly why we have to care for them, over any other pair of teenagers in any other film, and that brings the movie down a bit. I know it's a high standard to live up to, but because the movie is about them, isn't really enough when you think about it, and that's really what the movie comes down to. Again, I like it, but I can't quite recommend it.