Movie Review: The Invisible Man

The Invisible Man **** / *****

Directed by: Leigh Whannell.

Written by: Leigh Whannell based on the novel by H.G. Wells.

Starring: Elisabeth Moss (Cecilia Kass), Oliver Jackson-Cohen (Adrian Griffin), Harriet Dyer (Emily Kass), Aldis Hodge (James Lanier), Storm Reid (Sydney Lanier), Michael Dorman (Tom Griffin).

 

Leigh Whannell’s ingeniously clever horror film The Invisible Man does just about everything right – but its smartest decision was the first one made – to not concentrate on the monster, but instead to focus on his victim. All versions of the invisible man are basically creeps – whether it’s in the H.G. Wells novel, the James Whale film from 1933 or even copies like Hollow Man – people who turn themselves invisible inevitable become creeps, perverts, abusers, etc. And so Whannell makes the brilliant decision to take that as its starting point, and instead focus on that abusers target – his wife Cecilia (Elisabeth Moss) who he has terrorized even before he became invisible, and now that she has finally found the strength and support to leave him, has taken that terrorization to a new level. The Invisible Man becomes a horror movie for the #MeToo era – and a brilliantly executed one at that.

 

The films tense opening scene is Cecilia escaping from her husband Adrian – and their massive Bay area home, that Adrian owns because he is a leader in the field of optics. There are is a high-tech security system and surveillance system, as well as low tech system – like a very high wall. Cecilia sneaks away in the middle of the night – rescued by her sister Emily (Harriet Dyer) as the getaway driver, and then staying with her old friend James (Aldis Hodge) – a cop and single father raising a teenager (Storm Reid). Even as Cecilia is able to escape, she cannot really escape – she is paranoid to leave James’ house, paranoid that Adrian will find her as he always threatened to do. A temporary relief comes when Adrian apparently kills himself – she is called to his brothers office, Tom (Michael Dorman) who tells her that she will receive $5 million, $100K per month for just over four years, as long as she is not convicted of a crime, and deemed mentally unfit. And then, the real terror starts – Cecilia believes Adrian has found a way to make himself invisible – and is slowly ramping up the level of terror he is inflicting on her. And, of course, no one believes Cecilia – because that sounds insane.

 

This was another potential stumbling block – the “everyone thinks woman is crazy” in a horror film, when we, in the audience, know she is not, is an old trope – and yet, in this case, it works brilliantly. Part of this is because of Elisabeth Moss – this is another great performance by one of the best actresses on the planet, particularly if she is required to slowly spin out of control and be broken down piece by piece as she is here. And part of it is because it’s a narrative that fits nicely in the timeliness of the narrative as conceived by Whannell – what have we learned from the #MeToo era if it isn’t that too often society doesn’t believe women. It took dozens to take down Cosby or Weinstein – and men with “only” a few alleged victims more often than not skate away clean. And what Cecilia is accusing Adrian of really does sound insane – everyone believes he is dead, and she says that not only is he not, he is invisible. Adrian is brilliant in the way he makes his presence known to Cecilia – but not to anyone else.

 

As a director, Whannell has improved with each passing film. The writer behind the Saw and Insidious franchises, starting directing a few years ago with one of the Insidious films, moved on to the very strange sci-fi/horror/action film Upgrade (that I kind of feel I should see again – I may have underrated it at the time). Here, the camera moves slowly around the large house Adrian and Cecilia shared, and increases the sense of claustrophobia in the smaller places the narrative goes. You may well find yourself thinking of Fincher (Zodiac, for the foggy portrait of San Francisco, perhaps Panic Room for the interior scenes) or even Hitchcock at points. The special effects in the movie are excellent – and never overused. They are creepy – even when we start to get to the scenes we expect – with paint or flour or water, etc. showing us at least part of the “invisible man”.

 

All of this leads to a climax that is earned for once. We think we’re going to get to an special effects and action laden finale, but the film keeps going (and even that is better than they normally are) to an ending in which Cecilia doesn’t just use what has been held against her, and women in general, but weaponizes it. It’s a twist on the final girl image – and one finale clever twist on the expected in a film that is full of them.

Movie Review: Beanpole

Beanpole **** ½ / *****

Directed by: Kantemir Balagov   

Written by: Kantemir Balagov and Aleksandr Terekhov.

Starring: Viktoria Miroshnichenko (Iya Sergueeva), Vasilisa Perelygina (Masha), Andrey Bykov (Nikolay Ivanovich), Igor Shirokov (Sasha), Konstantin Balakirev (Stepan), Kseniya Kutepova (Lyubov Petrovna), Alyona Kuchkova (Stepan's Wife), Timofey Glazkov (Pashka), Veniamin Kac (Sasha's Friend), Olga Dragunova (Seamstress), Denis Kozinets (Sasha's Father), Alisa Oleynik (Katya), Dmitri Belkin (Shepelev), Lyudmila Motornaya (Olga). 

 

The two main characters in Kantemir Balagov’s remarkable Beanpole are not the kind of characters we have seen on screen before – at least as played by women. This is a film that takes place in the Soviet Union, in the immediate aftermath of WWII, in Stalingrad, and concentrates on two female soldiers, returned from the war, suffering from PTSD as much as any man would – but basically are told that they have to suck it up and deal with it. Much of the early action takes place at a hospital where Iya (Viktoria Miroshnichenko) works as a nurse, tending to the war wounded – who the government officials who come through make a big deal of calling “our heroes” – but little attention is paid to Iya. Even less is paid to her friend Masha (Vasilisa Perelygina), who suffered even longer as a soldier for the motherland – who returns is basically a cleaner at the hospital. It is winter, it is bleak – and the two women don’t know how to deal with their pain, their trauma – and find little help.

 

We meet Iya first – the opening scene begins in blackness, and we just here Iya’s labored breathing – before the image comes up, and someone asks if she’s still frozen – she is – and this will happen throughout the film – Iya simply unable to move, unable to do anything, but just stare straight ahead. She is raising Pashka (Timofey Glazkov), a very small boy, who looks malnourished, and perhaps has other issues as well. She lives in a communal situation – has her own room with Pashka – but shares everything else. In the first of many unforgettable scenes in Beanpole, tragedy occurs – a drawn out tragedy that goes on minute after agonizing minute in an unbroken shot that refuses to look away. When Masha returns, it is at night, Iya is in darkness, until Masha lights a candle – and the two begin to talk of Pashka, in another wonderful, unbroken take that lasts minute after agonizing minute – when what has transpired eventually becomes clear to Masha.

 

The two women are friends, but they couldn’t be more different. The film gets its name because Iya is tall and lanky – she is also traumatized beyond words, and while able to function, is clearly not quite normal. Masha is shorter, more outgoing, more outwardly cheerful – if no less traumatized. What Masha will do to deal with her own trauma will be disturbing – at times downright cruel – and yet you understand it in a way, even before the films best scene – late in the film, where she lays out everything for the wife of a government official, whose pathetic, privileged son Masha has wrapped around her finger makes everything excruciatingly clear, in all their painful details.

 

Both Miroshnichenko and Perelygina are first times actors – but they both deliver extraordinary performances, especially Perelygina, whose work will be tough to top this year, even it is so early. They are women in pain, who deal with that pain very differently. There will be a number of scenes throughout the movie where that pain is laid bare – and more often than not Balagov used long, unbroken takes to show it – whether it’s that first  death, that conversation where it is revealed, the long explanation late in the film, or in one of the most painful sex scenes you will ever see in the film – one where both women are seen, both experiencing it in radically different, painful ways. That one of them is responsible for the others suffering is undeniable – but that doesn’t make things less painful.

 

Beanpole is, as you may have guessed, a rather depressing film. For some reason, it seems like most Russian films – and Soviet films before that – that get international attention are depressing. I’m sure that’s not the entirety of their film industry – although it can feel like that at this remove. But it’s a powerful film about these two women and their trauma – about the unfeeling society they return to, and how the men are basically clueless or just don’t care. They must pick up the pieces and move forward themselves – however they can. You may even think there is some faint hope there at the end – but faint it certainly is.

Movie Review: Tread

Tread *** ½ / *****

Directed by: Paul Solet.

Written by: Paul Solet.

 

Marvin Heemeyer believed his adopted hometown of Granby, Colorado screwed him over big time – a grand conspiracy by the town’s wealthy people, the town council and the media just to get to him, so in 2004, he decided to get his revenge on the town itself. He spent months inside a small garage, retrofitting a bulldozer he had purchased, to make it virtually impossible to stop. He then proceeded to methodically get his revenge on the people he was convinced had screwed him, by destroying their businesses, their home and everything else in his path. Miraculously, the only person who ended up dead that day was Marv himself – but not until he had accomplished much of what he set out to do.

 

Paul Solet’s documentary Tread tells this story – and is basically divided into three acts. Act one is built around the many hours of tapes that Marv left behind before going on his rampage – where he lays out how Granby tried to royally screw him over. It all started, according to Marv, when he purchased a plot of land at auction to build his muffler shop. Another man was interested in that land to build a concrete plant – and left angry. That man would eventually buy a piece of property adjacent to Marv’s – and went about getting the permits to build there. This angered Marv – as did the requirement the city that he had to connect with the town’s sewer’s system. It gets kind of bureaucratic – but essentially, Marv thinks that everyone was out just to screw him over personally – and that everyone was against him. We hear as much from him on the tapes – and from some of his friends, who remain sympathetic to Marv.

 

To hear the people who “screwed” Marv over however, nothing could be further from the truth. And while you know that they are telling their version of the story, the one that will make them look blameless, and Marv isn’t around anymore to counteract that – it’s hard to argue with them. Marv was able to build a business on that plot of land that he purchased for $45,000. It made him good money for a decade. He could have sold that land at a hefty profit a number of times – and did indeed sell it the year before his rampage for $400,000 (the new owner then promptly connected to the town’s sewer without complaint). The town council did take his complaints about the concrete plant seriously – seriously enough that restrictions were put on it to try and appease Marv, and others who weren’t happy about it. But to Marv, it all amounts to a conspiracy to screw him over.

 

The final 30 minutes is dedicated to the rampage itself. We have some footage of what happened that day – and most of the people who were there are interviewed about what precisely Marv did. It was a systematic destruction of everything he could in that town. His bulldozer what outfitted with metal sheeting – there was nowhere to shoot that would get him. He had a gun – a 50 caliber – that he could shoot out though, keeping people back. It really is like something out of a horror movie – an unstoppable machine of destruction.

 

Director Paul Solet has mainly made horror movies before tackling this documentary. He builds slowly, laying the groundwork in the first hour, so you understand what you’re going to see in that last 30 minutes. He doesn’t strain for political points – because he doesn’t have to – it’s all right there. What drove Marv is the same type of anti-government hatred that drove incidents like Ruby Ridge, or what drives people like the Bundy’s – who occupy a piece of government land because they feel it’s their god given right, that they are the true American patriots, and that America has become, essentially, a fascist state. It’s an incredibly sad story – mainly because Marv couldn’t see past his own anger, his own rage to see, really, how good he had it. You can’t fight City Hall – but Marv couldn’t even see he didn’t need to fight it at all.

Movie Review: Blood on Her Name

Blood on Her Name *** ½ / *****

Directed by: Matthew Pope.

Written by: Don M. Thompson & Matthew Pope.

Starring: Bethany Anne Lind (Leigh Tiller), Will Patton (Richard Tiller), Elisabeth Röhm (Dani Wilson), Jared Ivers (Ryan Tiller), Jimmy Gonzales (Reynoso Dias), Jack Andrews (Travis), Chandler Head (Young Leigh), Tony Vaughn (Nathan Parrish), Joshua Mikel (Reed).

 

Blood on Her Name is a classically structured, old school noir – where a normal person makes one bad mistake, then ends up compounding that mistake with others, although based on good intentions. Leigh (Bethany Anne Lind) is not a bad person – she is trying to raise her teenage son, who has already had issues with the law, by herself after her husband was arrested and sent to jail for running stolen cars out of their repair shop, Now, the business is struggling and she is just trying to survive. We meet her when the first mistake has already been made – a man is lying on the floor of the repair shop, dead, blood pouring out of his skull that has been bashed in my wrench. Her son, Ryan (Jared Ivers) saw the man at least – but she is trying to pass it off as a random break-in – just some junkie, looking to score some money. We get the sense however that this isn’t the whole story – and over the course of Blood on Her Name, that story will come out.

 

In many ways, Blood on Her Name would feel at home with any number of noirs from the 1940s – except, of course, it wouldn’t be a female at the center of the narrative. But Leigh has a lot in common with those noir protagonists – normal people who get themselves in over their heads, and then cannot get out of it. If she was a worse person, she’d probably be okay. But she has a conscience – and when looking at the dead man’s phone, right before she intends to dump him in a swamp, from which he probably won’t be discovered,  she sees message from the man’s son – and decides she cannot let his people wonder what happened to him for the rest of their lives. Her act of “kindness” is to leave the dead man in his family’s shed – where at least they’ll know what happened to him. That, of course, turns out to be a massive mistake. And the noose starts to tighten.

 

Blood on Her Name doesn’t do anything particularly new or novel in its narrative. It is a film about this normal woman, who gets in over her head, and cannot find a way out – each action rippling with more consequences that she didn’t foresee coming when she does them. It is a small-town film – but not quite one of those small towns where everyone knows everyone. This is one where people keep to themselves – and don’t want to get involved. It is a film full of rundown buildings, trailer parks, seedy motels, and ramshackle homes. There is a certain degree of class here – but the “haves” and the “have-nots” aren’t very far apart. The only cop in the film, played by Will Patton, is Leigh’s father – and their past indicates perhaps just why there are lines she will not cross, even if logically speaking, she should. He seems representative of the type of cops they have in this town – ones that don’t seem to try very hard to solve crimes, if the victim isn’t someone they care about.

 

Lind holds the movie together with her excellent performance as Leigh – who more than anything, just comes across as tired. This is writer/director Matthew Pope’s directorial debut – and he’s smart with it. He doesn’t try to do too much, doesn’t try and push things too far. He gets the feeling of this town right, of these people – desperate people doing what they can to get by. This is when mistakes are made.

Ranking the Decade's Best Supporting Actor Oscar Winners

A pretty solid list all told – the top 3 were actually my choices in those years – easily the highest of any category.

 

10. Jared Leto, Dallas Buyers Club (2013) – I’m not much of a Jared Leto fan, and so even if I do think this is his best performance, it’s still not one that I think really deserved the Oscar. I will say that it deserves some credit as really was the last time a Cis actor could get away with playing a trans character, without major pushback (there was some during his awards run, but the chorus has grown). It is a cliché riddled role, that verges on tragedy porn, and Leto is fine in it – but my opinion has been downgraded over the years, and I didn’t think he should have won at the time.

Who Should Have Won (Of the Nominees): For my money, the best performance nominated was Michael Fassbender in 12 Years a Slave, who is able to make his slave owner a complex character, while maintaining that he is a terrible human being at the same time. This was his first Oscar nomination – and appeared like it was going to beginning of him becoming a perennial nominee – which hasn’t quite happened (too many blockbusters since then) – but he should have won here.

 

9. Mahershala Ali, Green Book (2016) – Ali’s second Oscar is one that he led all season for. Ali is the best thing about Green Book – it is a fine performance, in a problematic movie, but he is witty and charming, and has his big Oscar moments, and is essentially a lead in the supporting category. The Academy clearly loved the film – it won Best Picture of course – but this kind of felt like the Academy pushing back on the criticisms of the film by saying – look, we’re not racist, we gave the black guy an Oscar. I didn’t envy Ali going through the season – and he I wish he hadn’t won this one.

Who Should Have Won (of the Nominees): I thought that Adam Driver in BlackKklansman made what could have been a one dimensional cop character into a complex character, discovering his own identity, through his interactions with the Klan. One of Driver’s best performances.

 

8. Christopher Plummer, Beginners (2011) – You’d have to be a monster to not love the well-over 80 Plummer winning for his charming performance in Beginners – playing a man who finally comes out as gay when his wife dies. The film is perhaps a little too quirky for my liking – by Plummer, a great actor, delivers a great performance – the best thing about the movie, but it’s in a movie that isn’t among my favorites.

Who Should Have Won (of the Nominees): Seriously, maybe Plummer? It wasn’t exactly a banner year for this category in terms of their nominations – they had so many great performances they could have nominated (Brooks in Drive, Pitt in The Tree of Life and many more) and they ignored them all.

 

 

7. Christian Bale, The Fighter (2010) – This performance hits pretty much all the Oscar winning clichés – a major movie star, stripping down for a raw performance, losing weight, playing an addict, and yet still in an inspirational sports movie. And yet, even with all of those clichés, Bale nails the role – he really is terrific in the film, and makes those clichés work so much better than they probably should.

Who Should Have Won (of the Nominees): Bale was a fine choice out of the nominees (again, I kind of think they overlooked a few great performances) – but part of me now wishes that John Hawkes won for Winter’s Bone – a great character actor, and the kind that doesn’t win as much anymore.

 

6. Christoph Waltz, Django Unchained (2012) – I really do love Christoph Waltz in Django Unchained – a funny, charming performance – and yet I think you can argue that he’s using some of the same tricks he used in Inglorious Basterds, which won him his first Oscar, and that both DiCaprio and Jackson are better in this very same movie. Still, a performance I love – but context matters.

What Should Have Won (Of the Nominees): This was one of those strange years where all five nominees had won an Oscar before – so no one was overdue. Still, I think one of the very best performances of the decade was Phillip Seymour Hoffman in The Master – which would end up being their last chance to give a second Oscar to one of the best actors of his generation.

 

5. Sam Rockwell, Three Billboards outside Ebbing, Missouri (2017) – Sam Rockwell has been a talented actor for a long time, and yet he didn’t always get the roles that would lead to Oscars. Here, he plays the racist, violent cop, but with a sensitive side, which is what drove critics of the movie insane, but is what made the performance complex – a horrible person, that Rockwell still makes you like. Personally, I still like Harrelson in the same film more – but I get this one, and Rockwell is terrific.

What Should Have Won (Of the Nominees): I already mentioned Harrelson – and it’s a shame he hasn’t won an Oscar yet – but in particular, I would say Willem Dafoe in The Florida Project – who gives perhaps his most sensitive performance of his great career, and yet again, why has he won an Oscar already?

 

4. Mark Rylance, Bridge of Spies (2015) – I think a lot of people dismissed Spielberg’s Bridge of Spies as an old fashioned film, without realizing that what Spielberg does in this film, old fashioned or not, is something very few directors could do. And Rylance, as a Soviet spy being held by the Americans, is fantastic in the film – funny and wry, somewhat tragic, and emotional – he shows why he is considered a great actor, to movie audiences who may not be familiar with him.

Who Should Have Won (Of the Nominees): Rylance was my choice over the emotional favorite, Sylvester Stallone in Creed, who is great, but come on, he’s been playing that role for 40 years. Rylance was the right one.

 

3. Mahershala Ali, Moonlight (2016) – Ali’s first supporting actor Oscar win for the decade, and by far the more deserving, was in Barry Jenkins’ masterful Moonlight. Ali is only in the first of three segments – a drug dealer, but also a mentor to the main character, whose absence in the later chapters is felt by that character – he leaves a deep impression on the film, and the audience. A great performance, by a great actor, which propelled him to larger stardom.

Who Should Have Won (Of the Nominees): Ali dominated the category for the entire season, and there was a reason – it was a great performance, and nothing else really came close this year.

 

2. J.K. Simmons, Whiplash (2014) – J.K. Simmons performance in Whiplash has already become legendary and iconic – and with good reason. Simmons has always been a great character actor – in all sorts of projects (HBO’s Oz was probably my favorite pre-Whiplash role). This is a great performance as a teacher, who pushes his student to greatness, no matter what the cost- going all the way into abuse, and well beyond. Simmons commands the screen from beginning to end – and dominates. I love the film itself, and Simmons is even better than the film.

Who Should Have Won (of the Nominees): Simmons was head and shoulders above the rest of the nominees – even though it was a very strong field (both Ethan Hawke in Boyhood and Mark Ruffalo in Foxcatcher are excellent) – but Simmons was clearly the right choice.

 

1. Brad Pitt, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) – Pitt has been a movie star for over two decades now, and one of the most versatile ones out there – fully capable of delivering the type of movie star performances that few can, and also a character actor in other roles. His performance in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is a combination of those two aspects of his talent. He carries half the film (he probably should have – and could have – been considered a lead). It is a truly great performance, by one of the best actors around.

Who Should Have Won (of the Nominees): This was one of the hardest decisions I ever made – because as great as Pitt is, Joe Pesci in The Irishman is just as good – either winner would have been my favorite of the decade.

Ranking the Decade's Best Actress Oscar Winners

This is a much stronger list than the list of Best Actor winners – perhaps because they seem to like men to GO BIG in order to win most years, and they (smartly) don’t require than of women. They have their own blind spots when giving Oscars to lead actresses – but it’s a solid list.

 

10. Meryl Streep, The Iron Lady (2011)- Look, I love Meryl Streep – she is a legend, and one of the best performers in movie history, and is certainly deserving of three Oscars. But for this film? Really? Seriously every one of her other 8 nominations this century was better than this. The movie is bad – really bad – and I still cannot believe that the filmmakers thought the story of Margaret Thatcher – one of the most complicated and controversial figures of the 20^th Century – needed to spend so much time with her in her final years suffering for Alzheimer’s, literally the least interesting thing about her. I get wanting Streep to get a richly deserved third Oscar – but for this?

Who Should Have Won (of the Nominees): Can we talk about how Michelle Williams still doesn’t have an Oscar, and how embarrassing that is? Her performance in My Week with Marilyn truly is great – taking an iconic figure, and making her human. It isn’t her best work – but it was the best of the nominees this year.

 

9. Julianne Moore, Still Alice (2014) – Julianne Moore should have several Oscars at home – at bare minimum for Safe, Boogie Nights and Far From Heaven – and you can probably make a case for several others. So, they clearly felt a need to make up for that egregious mistake by finally giving Moore an Oscar. But Still Alice is a bore – the only thing worth watching it for is Moore’s performance, who is very good as a women slipping into early onset Alzheimer’s. But it is just a very dull movie – I cannot imagine ever watching it again.

Who Should Have Won (of the Nominees): I would have liked to see Marion Cottillard win her Oscar for her amazing work in Two Days, One Night instead of the not so great La Vie En Rose last decade. But the truly best performance nominated – and the most iconic – is Rosamund Pike in Gone Girl – which was one of the best performances of the decade, and is that rare case of an Oscar nominated performance being criminally underrated.

 

8. Renee Zellweger, Judy (2019) – This was that rare biopic performance that really did bring together subject and performer, illuminating both, but perhaps more Zellweger than Judy Garland. It was a great comeback story for the Oscar winning actress, and it is the type of showy performance that wins. And she is good in it – better than the film itself. When I watched it a second time, I liked it less, but as a one off Zellweger is very good in a mediocre movie.

Who Should Have Won (Of the Nominees): Saoirse Ronan should easily have an Oscar by now – and her work in Little Women is excellent. My favorite though was Scarlett Johansson in Marriage Story – who delivers a wonderful performance, and fights an uphill battle in the narrative, and comes out great.

 

7. Emma Stone, La La Land (2016) – Stone is the heart of La La Land, the wonderfully romantic musical love story, and clearly the most sympathetic character (Ryan Gosling is a little bit of a jerk in the film – and I think the movie knows it). But with Stone, you simply fall in love with her here – she is utterly charming and wonderful throughout. It isn’t the deepest performance, but Stone plays it as good as it can be played.

Who Should Have Won (Of the Nominees): You can make the case that Isabelle Huppert is the best actress in the world, and her brilliant performance in Paul Verhoeven’s controversial Elle is one of the very best of the decade, and one of the very best of her amazing career – and sadly, the only time she’s ever even been nominated.

 

6. Brie Larson, Room (2015) – To many, Room was probably Brie Larson’s breakthrough role – a wonderful performance of a kidnap victim, and mother, protecting her young son from the man who has imprisoned and repeatedly raped over the years. It’s a great performance by Larson –both inside and outside of the room – and it made her into a major star, which she deserved. A terrific performance.

Who Should Have Won (Of the Nominees): One of the best years for nominees in a while – Larson is great, as is Cate Blanchett in Carol, but I am torn between Saoirse Ronan in Brooklyn, who is wonderful, sensitive, subtle in this dreamy, romantic Brooklyn, and Charlotte Rampling in 45 Years – as a woman blindsided when she realizes her marriage isn’t quite what she thought it was.

 

5. Jennifer Lawrence, Silver Linings Playbook (2012) – This was a decade that Lawrence became one of the biggest movie stars in the world with The Hunger Games – and an Oscar favorite with her work in Winter’s Bone, American Hustle and Joy – as well as this one which won her the Oscar. She is excellent in the movie – too young for the role, sure, but she’s so charming, so funny, so direct, that you don’t care. This is what movie stars can do given the right role. A great performance that makes this movie as good as it is.

Who Should Have Won (Of the Nominees): I would have loved to see Jessica Chastain win for Zero Dark Thirty – which I think is her best performance to date. But I really think that the best performance nominated was by Emmanuelle Riva in Amour – a career capping performance for a legendary actress.

 

4. Frances McDormand, Three Billboards outside Ebbing, Missouri (2017) – I loved Three Billboards when I saw at TIFF 2017, before the controversy really started, and while my feelings have cooled a little bit since then (I still think it’s wonderful- just maybe not as good as it appeared at first look) – none of that cooling has to do with Frances McDormand’s fiery performance, a great bookend to her first Oscar win for Fargo in 1996 – because the two are very different performances. McDormand is one of the best actresses in the world – and this is a performance that will be one of the performances she is remembered for.

Who Should Have Won (of the Nominees): McDormand’s is probably the right choice out of what they nominated (I think the best performance this year may have been Vicky Krieps in Phantom Thread) – but I’ll also say that Saoirse Ronan for Lady Bird would have been a fine choice as well.

 

3. Cate Blanchett, Blue Jasmine (2013) – Cate Blanchett’s performance in Blue Jasmine is one of her absolute best – a brilliant take inspired by Blanche DuBois, but moved to a modern day, in San Francisco, and has Blanchett go all out from beginning to end. When she won for The Aviator (2004) she was overdue – when she won here, she was overdue for recognition in the lead category – one of the best performances of her career. The black mark on it is that it’s the film where the Woody Allen controversy really exploded, and the tide really started to turn against him. That doesn’t distract from home brilliant Blanchett is here.

Who Should Have Won (Of the Nominees): Blanchett was far and away the best performance nominated – and it really isn’t close – even if there were some wonderful performances this year that didn’t get nominated.

 

2. Olivia Colman, The Favourite (2018) – You can argue – not without merit – that Colman is really a supporting player in The Favourite – but I always thought she was a lead. And no matter what, Colman is brilliant as the petulant, childlike queen, who has numerous people trying to manipulate her – and as she slowly comes to realize her own power. She is also absolutely hilarious at the centre of this really dark film. A brilliant performance by a character actress getting her chance.

Who Was the Best (Of the Nominees): Colman was the best choice here – you could make a case for Yalitza Aparicio in Roma – but Colman is absolutely the right choice.

 

1. Natalie Portman, Black Swan (2010) – Natalie Portman is a great actress, and she is perhaps at her best when her characters spiral downwards into insanity – which she has done several times over the years. But her performance in Black Swan is the best performance of her career – a dark descent, wonderful dancing, and the look of a horror film from Darren Aronofsky. Portman is stunning in this film – and the best winner this Academy had all decade.

Who Should Have Won (Of the Nominees): Oddly, even though this is the best winner of the decade, I do think that I would have picked Michelle Williams in Blue Valentine even above Portman, but they both really are two of the best performances of the decade.

Ranking the Decade's Best Actor Oscar Winners

It was only when I saw my final ranking of the Best Actor winners this year when I really realized how weak this decade’s winners were – really only the top two are truly great performances. The rest are ones that either caught the wave at the right time (Malek, Redmayne, Dujardin) or great actors, overdue for wins, that finally won for not their best work (Oldman, DiCaprio, Phoenix, McConaughey, Firth). This is not a strong list.

 

10. Rami Malek, Bohemian Rhapsody (2018) – I remember walking out of Bohemian Rhapsody, on the Thursday screening before it opened Friday, and thinking that it wasn’t winning anything all season. So it was mystifying to me that he started to waltz through the season, winning everything. I don’t really think Malek is to blame for how bad this movie is – he played the role as written as good as it was possible – it’s just so badly written, directed and edited, that there is nothing there for him to play. Truly, one of the worst winners of all time.

Who Should Have Won (of the Nominees): I remain mystified as how the Academy ended up not giving the award to Bradley Cooper for A Star is Born. He does Malek one better by doing his own singing, and he delivers a far better performance in every other aspect. Plus, he wrote, directed and produced the film – and is overdue for a win. Truly bizarre for me.

 

9. Eddie Redmayne, The Theory of Everything (2014) – Another example of the Academy rewarding someone in a lame biopic, this one with the added bonus of playing someone with a disability. That’s Oscar bingo. But there really isn’t all that much to this performance – no real depth or feeling, and the film is dull and boring. Not one of their finer moments.

Who Should Have Won (of the Nominees): Not of my favorite year for nominees (where was Ralph Fiennes for The Grand Budapest Hotel) – but I remember rooting for Michael Keaton for Birdman – which isn’t a favorite film of mine, but Keaton was great in that film, so none of the problems were his – and it would have been great to see him win.

 

8. Gary Oldman, Darkest Hour (2017) – Gary Oldman probably should have won a long time ago – Sid & Nancy, Prick Up Your Ears, JFK, The Contender, Tinker, Tailor, Solider, Spy – but of course, he needed to play a famous person – Winston Churchill, and get buried under a lot of makeup to win. Yeah, he’s damn good in the film - but it’s hardly a great film, or that deep of a performance.

Who Should Have Won (of the Nominees): My personal choice would have been Daniel Day-Lewis for Phantom Thread – although he didn’t really need a fourth win, so how cool would have been had Daniel Kaluuya won for Get Out?

 

7. Leonardo DiCaprio, The Reverent (2015) – There is absolute no doubt that Leonardo DiCaprio should have an Oscar – perhaps several. But The Reverent doesn’t strike me as anywhere near his best performance – physically challenging to be sure, but the character is one note. Compare that to his work in The Departed or The Wolf of Wall Street or many, many others (seriously, I don’t think this would rank in my top 10 DiCaprio performances). He’s good here to be sure – the role just isn’t all that interesting – one track mind of vengeance. He won because he was due, and for some reason, the Academy loved this grim slog of a film.

Who Should Have Won (of the Nominees): Sorry, but they really screwed the pooch here in terms of nominees – it’s one of the few years where none of the nominees would have been in my top five – maybe 10. Of those they nominated, perhaps Michael Fassbender in Steve Jobs – who was convincingly an asshole – or Matt Damon in The Martian – who was quite charming and funny. Not a banner year.

 

6. Jean Dujardin, The Artist (2011) – An impressive physical performance by Dujardin, who does a good job of being a silent film star, is funny and charming and plays the role to perfection. It is a surface level performance – a lot of style, without a lot underpinning it. That’s by design – and not a knock on Dujardin, who is wonderful – just not quite the type of performance I’d like to see win awards.

Who Should Have Won (Of the Nominees): We could have killed two birds with one stone here and give the Oscar to Gary Oldman for Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, a masterful performance by the great actor, one of his best, and then it would free up the year he did win this decade for something with less bluster than his turn in Darkest Hour.

 

5. Joaquin Phoenix, Joker (2019) – Like DiCaprio, I have no problem with Phoenix – arguably the best working actor today – having an Oscar. I would have rather he win for one of his very best performances – The Master, Inherent Vice, Her or You Were Never Really Here. Phoenix is excellent as the Joker – he saves the movie from being awful, which it could have been since the screenplay is rather odious. Still, it hurts to see a great actor like Phoenix winning for this instead of one of his best performance – especially since DeNiro didn’t win for either Taxi Driver or The King of Comedy – and Phoenix essentially copied those performances, and eliminated all the subtlety.

Who Should Have Won (Of the Nominees): If Phoenix isn’t the best working actor today, then it’s Adam Driver – and his performance in Noah Baumbach’s Marriage Story is truly one of his best performances – a gut-wrenching one at that. Also, I would have loved to see Antonio Banderas for Pain & Glory win – those two performances are masterclasses of subtlety, something Phoenix’s certainly is not.

 

4. Matthew McConaughey, Dallas Buyers Club (2013) – At the height of the McCoanaughesance (sp.?) – McConaughey won for his performance as manly man – who competes in rodeos, at the height of the AIDS crisis, who contracts the disease, and tries to save himself – and others. He is great in the film – the best thing about it by far (sorry Jared Leto – and spoiler for the supporting actor list, he won’t rank anywhere near this high). I think the film is flawed, but none of that has to do with his performance. Is it his best? No – but it’s close enough that this isn’t an injustice.

Who Should Have Won (Of the Nominees): As much as I like McConaughey – I’d take three of the other nominees over him (sorry Christian Bale) – but I’m split between Bruce Dern for Nebraska – a great performance, by a legend who has never won, and Leonardo DiCaprio for The Wolf of Wall Street – which I think may just be his best performance.

 

3. Colin Firth, The King’s Speech (2010) – You can dismiss The King’s Speech as typical, safe, Oscar pablum if you want (I wouldn’t necessarily disagree, but I’d push back a little) – and still admire just how good Colin Firth is in the lead role. Perhaps it’s just because I have a stutter myself (it was much worse as a kid)- and Firth simply nails it. I felt for him, and oddly for someone playing a King, related to him. Firth is terrific in this film – way better than the movie itself – and his career is good enough that an Oscar doesn’t seem out of line. Is he better in A Single Man, the previous year? Probably – but he’s great here.

Who Should Have Won (Of the Nominees): For my money, Jessie Eisenberg in The Social Network delivers one of the great performances of the decade – and one of the few that I think has defined a real life person, who has simply become less and less likable ever since.

 

2. Daniel Day-Lewis, Lincoln (2012) – Before his retirement (we’ll see if this one sticks), Day-Lewis would get my vote for the Best Actor in the world, and Lincoln is one of his best performances. It’s very difficult to play a towering historical figure like Abraham Lincoln, and yet make him human at the same time. Tony Kushner’s immaculate screenplay does some of that work, but Day-Lewis absolutely nails the performance. One of the best performances of a legendary career – fully deserving of a third win.

Who Should Have Won (Of the Nominees): Day-Lewis was always winning this one, but one of the very best, most enigmatic performances of the decade was delivered by Joaquin Phoenix in The Master, which for my money is the best performance of the decade that was nominated for an Oscar in this category – and he would been my choice, easy.

 

1. Casey Affleck, Manchester by the Sea (2016) – I know Affleck has become a complicated figure – and with good reason – and yet I have to admit that his performance in Manchester by the Sea absolutely destroyed me – a performance full of grief and longing – and yet with a little humor. He has big moments in the film, and he underplays them all brilliantly making the moments absolutely devastating. Affleck is one of the best actors in the world – and this is his crowning achievement.

Who Should Have Won (Of the Nominees): The one year they actually picked by favorite nominee – and best of the year – this decade. Of the other nominees, only Denzel Washington in Fences even comes close.