Movie Review: Kingsman: The Secret Service

Kingsman: The Secret Service
Directed by: Matthew Vaughn.
Written by:  Jane Goldman & Matthew Vaughn based on the comic book by Mark Millar and Dave Gibbons.
Starring: Colin Firth (Harry Hart / Galahad), Taron Egerton (Gary 'Eggsy' Unwin), Samuel L. Jackson (Valentine), Mark Strong (Merlin), Sofia Boutella (Gazelle), Michael Caine (Arthur), Sophie Cookson (Roxy), Samantha Womack (Michelle Unwin), Mark Hamill (Professor Arnold), Geoff Bell (Dean), Edward Holcroft (Charlie), Nicholas Banks (Digby), Jack Cutmore-Scott (Rufus), Fiona Hampton (Amelia), Bjørn Floberg (Scandinavian Prime Minister), Hanna Alström (Princess Tilde).

The James Bond movies have left a big mark of cinema history – almost as soon as they became popular, rival studios came out with knock offs and parodies of the series – and that hasn’t really let up in the 50 years that the Bond films have been going on. The recent Bond films starring Daniel Craig have been among the best the series has ever had – and also among the most serious. So perhaps a film like Kingsman: The Secret Service is needed at this time. It is yet another in a long line of knock offs of the Bond series – but while the recent Bond films are serious, this one is more a throwback to the goofy days of Roger Moore's Bond –with outrageous gadgets, weird villains and outlandish plots. The result, while nowhere near original, is a hell of a lot of fun – at least for the most part.

The film opens in 1997 somewhere in the Middle East – where a young agent throws himself on a bomb, saving the life of Galahad (Colin Firth) – a veteran agent of the Kingsman, a super-secret spy organization. Galahad feels bad about the younger agent's death, and tries to make it up to his widow, and young son Eggsy. It isn’t until 2014 that he really gets that chance however – when another Kingsman agent dies, and Galahad selects Eggsy (Taron Egerton) to be his replacement. But every other Kingsman agent has selected a candidate as well – so Eggsy, who is rough around the edges, doesn’t come from a great family, and is immature, will have to beat them all out if he wants the job. Meanwhile, a tech billionaire with a horrible lisp named Valentine (Samuel L. Jackson), and his assistant with blades for feet, Gazelle (Sofia Boutella) have some sort of horrible plan up their sleeve – that involves kidnapping all the famous and brilliant people around the world – and it’s up to the Kingsman to stop it.

The film is directed by Matthew Vaughn (Layer Cake, Stardust, Kick-Ass, X-Men: First Class) who has never been a subtle director – but knows how to direct an action sequence with flair. When you're making a movie like Kingsman, over-the-top is what is called for, and over-the-top is exactly what Vaughn delivers. The action sequences are top notch – exciting, violent, funny, well shot and edited. There is a fight sequence set at a church that will likely be in the running for best action sequence of the year that is brilliant fun.

Firth is not the first name you would associate with an action film – in fact, he may just be the last actor you would think of, and the film uses that to its advantage. Outwardly, Galahad (his code name, like every other Kingsman comes from the Arthur legend) is the typical, refined, snooty Colin Firth milquetoast – which is what makes it so surprising (and funny) to see him in full kick ass mode – something Firth pulls off pretty much seamlessly (he is, after all, at the center of that church sequence). Other veteran British actors – like Michael Caine as the head of the Kingsman and Mark Strong as the trainer of the new recruits – are on hand to class up the movie a little bit. Jackson seems to be having great fun trying to sound badass with a lisp – but it’s a one joke performance that wears itself out fairly quickly. Newcomer Egerton is pretty good in the role – he especially settles into it as it moves along, and it requires more subtlety from his performance, which he does well.

Unfortunately, the movie does kind of wear out its welcome after a while. The film clocks in at nearly 130 minutes, and the last act is a mess of action sequences, while well handled, all feel anti-climactic after the church battle and eventually I just felt like I was being beaten over the head with it. One thing missing from the movie almost entirely – surprising for a James Bond clone – is sex. We assume that Eggsy and another recruit, Roxy (Sophie Cookson) may well be love interests – but the movie never develops that way. This makes it a little jarring at the end when a Swedish princess offers herself up at the end of the film in a scene that left a bad taste in my mouth.

Those gripes aside, Kingsman is overall a fun time at the movies – lots of action, lots of rude fun, and well made to boot. The film moves so quickly that you don’t have time to consider how ridiculous it gets (but also, it doesn’t have time to examine some of the interesting stuff it touches on either). Kingsman is far from a great movie – but it's a lot of fun, and really, what else do you want from a late February release.

Movie Review: Still Alice

Still Alice
Directed by: Richard Glatzer & Wash Westmoreland.
Written by: Richard Glatzer & Wash Westmoreland based on the novel by Lisa Genova.
Starring: Julianne Moore (Alice Howland), Alec Baldwin (John Howland), Kristen Stewart (Lydia Howland), Kate Bosworth (Anna Howland-Jones), Shane McRae (Charlie Howland-Jones), Hunter Parrish (Tom Howland), Seth Gilliam (Frederic Johnson), Stephen Kunken (Dr. Benjamin).

Julianne Moore is one of the greatest actresses of her generation. That she doesn’t have an Oscar already is embarrassing considering just how great she has been in films like Short Cuts, Vanya on 42^nd Street, Safe, Boogie Nights, The Big Lebowski, Magnolia, The End of the Affair, Far From Heaven, The Hours, Savage Grace, I’m Not There, Blindness, A Single Man, The Kids Are All Right, What Maisie Knew and Maps to the Stars. Look at that list of films, and consider the filmmakers she has worked with over the years. Even in projects that were not very good, Moore has always been solid. She looks to finally win an Oscar this weekend for her performance in Still Alice as an intellectual who discovers she has early onset Alzheimer’s, which progresses rapidly over the course of a year – taking her for an intelligent, articulate woman who loves her husband and three grown children, to someone who has no idea what is going on around her. It is a great performance – as you would expect from Moore. It is also the only reason to see the film at all – which is dramatically flat, rather dull and really doesn’t do anything other than show her descent – in scenes that are sometimes awkward in the extreme. Without Moore, there would be no reason to see the movie – with her you see the movie simply to watch a great actress deliver a great performance in an otherwise unremarkable movie.

In the film, Moore stars as Alice Howland – a linguistic professor at Columbia – one of the leaders in her field about how children learn language (which of course, sets up the irony later in the film when she can no longer remember words no matter how hard she tries). Her husband John (Alec Baldwin) is also a professor at Columbia – doing medical research. She has three children – Anna (Kate Bosworth), a married lawyer looking to start a family, Charlie (Shane McRae), a medical school student, and Lydia (Kristen Stewart) who has gone to L.A. to start an acting career. Alice gets her diagnosis early in the film, and the rest of the movie is basically her slow descent. She tries to maintain her teaching career for a while – but she gets lost easily. She wants to spend time with her family – hopes that her husband will take a sabbatical to spend her final months of lucidity with her, but that never happens. She tries hard to connect with her children – making the most progress with Lydia. But for everyone else, no matter how supportive they are, they have their own lives to live – and Alice deals with her descent on her own terms.

It truly is a great performance by Moore – who navigates the series of subtle changes as her mental state deteriorates from one scene to the next. It is a performance full of sadness, as she knows there is no going back, but she fights for as long as she can to maintain some degree of her old self. I admired the movie for following her descent all the way down – many movies would have stopped at a moment where she delivers a heartfelt speech about trying to maintain her life – but this one follows her all the way down. It also doesn’t take the easy way out, as was setup early in the film, so the ending is even more tragic than it otherwise would have been.

 
The film itself is nowhere near as great as Moore is in it. Written and directed by Richard Glatzer and Wash Westmoreland, based on a novel by Lisa Genova, the film doesn’t attempt to do anything other than follow Alice`s descent. That, in itself, is somewhat daring – but it does make the film a rather dull sit at times (especially when the film hits on pretty much every note you expect it to). This isn’t a great film – like Michael Haneke`s Amour, which was also about a woman with Alzheimer’s, which looked at a range of issues, and was a masterpiece. Still Alice doesn’t have the ambition for that. It is precisely what it appears to be. Moore is brilliant – and she will likely win an Oscar for her role, and given her career there are few more worthy of an Oscar win. It’s just a shame that no matter how great Moore is in the movie, she has been just as good, if not a better, in any number of films that are much, much better than Still Alice.

Movie Review: The Last Five Years

The Last Five Years
Directed by: Richard LaGravenese.
Written by: Richard LaGravenese based on the musical play by Jason Robert Brown.
Starring: Anna Kendrick (Cathy Hiatt), Jeremy Jordan (Jamie Wellerstein).

Anna Kendrick is the not-so secret weapon of The Last Five Years – an adaptation of an off-Broadway musical about the end of a marriage. The movie, like the stage play, alternates between Kendrick's Cathy and Jeremy Jordan's Jamie, her husband – with her starting at the end of their relationship, where he has left her a Dear John letter and walked out, and he starting at the beginning of their relationship, when they were both younger and couldn’t keep their hands off each other. It’s an interesting structure – and helps keeps the movie interesting. The problem with the movie is that both Cathy and Jamie seem like rather insufferable people – he becomes a successful novelist in his mid-20s, and a literary star who everyone loves, and who has young women throwing themselves at him – she, who wants to be a Broadway actress, but who can never find success – having to spend her summers in Ohio doing regional theater, and who notices that on every audition she goes to, the actresses she is competing with keep seeming younger and younger. He gets a swelled head – buys into his own hype as a genius, and gives into temptation of all those younger women. She becomes fragile and insecure – she doesn’t want to be dragged on behind Jamie, but cannot find the same success in her career that he has in his, so she becomes resentful of him and everything he does.

Perhaps this was the point of the musical – in which the characters hardly ever shared the stage together, instead they each sang alternating songs by themselves, telling their version of events – the ultimate point may be that the two of them just aren’t right for each other, both have their flaws, and it’s smart to walk away. But in the movie version, Anna Kendrick is great in her role that whatever balance there is supposed to be in the movie is thrown out the window. She opens the film with a brilliant song – Still Hurting – in which she hits all the right notes, cries and delivers an emotionally devastating performance. Even as Cathy reveals herself to be a little bit petty, and unreasonable, we never lose sympathy for her – because Kendrick is so lovable, and charming. Perhaps this could be offset if Jeremy Jordan was her match as Jamie – but he isn’t, and seems to go out of his way in making Jamie as big of an asshole as humanly possible.

It's a good thing though that Kendrick is as great as she is in The Last Five Years – because the film itself isn’t nearly as good. The musical numbers are fine – enjoyable while they are playing, but other than the opening and closing numbers, aren’t very memorable (okay, there is a number where Jeremy sings a story about a tailor named Schmul that is also memorable – but not in the way you want it to be). The direction by Richard LaGravenese is fine – his camera is constantly moving, seemingly like another character, eavesdropping on the characters.

But it's Kendrick who is the reason to see the film. This her third musical in recent years – following Pitch Perfect and Into the Woods – and in all three she has transcended the material, and delivered performances better than the movies themselves. Musicals are a rarity in Hollywood these days – they seem to have forgotten how to make them for the most part. If there is hope that there will be another great musical coming from Hollywood at some point in the near future, than it’s Kendrick. She can deliver a great performance in a great musical – someone just needs to give her the chance.

Movie Review: Black or White

Black or White
Directed by: Mike Binder.
Written by: Mike Binder.
Starring: Kevin Costner (Elliot Anderson), Octavia Spencer (Rowena Jeffers), Jillian Estell (Eloise Anderson), Bill Burr (Rick Reynolds), Mpho Koaho (Duvan Araga), Anthony Mackie (Jeremiah Jeffers), André Holland (Reggie Davis), Gillian Jacobs (Fay), Jennifer Ehle (Carol), Paula Newsome (Judge Cummins).

A few decades ago, Black or White may have seemed like a rather daring look at race relations in America. Unfortunately, this isn’t the 1980s anymore, so now Mike Binder’s film simply seems dated. It is a well-intentioned movie to be sure – with some fine performances. It is a film that tries very hard to be relevant to the state of race relations in America today – but is so far removed from what is really going on right now that the whole thing seems misguided at best. I wanted Black or White to be a better movie – because there are some things in the movie that work quite well.

The film stars Kevin Costner as Elliot Anderson – a rich lawyer, living in the posh area of Los Angeles. His teenage daughter died in childbirth with her mixed race child – Eloise (Jillian Estell). Elliot and his wife, Carol (Jennifer Ehle), have been raising her ever since – since Eloise`s father, Reggie (Andre Holland) is a drug addict and petty criminal who has no interest in raising his own daughter. The movie opens in the hospital, where Elliot finds out that Carol has been killed in a car accident. This means Elliot now has to raise Eloise on his own. Or does it? Eloise`s other grandmother, Rowena (Octavia Spencer) didn’t have a problem with the Andersons raising Eloise when Carol was around – but she knows Elliot is an alcoholic, and doesn’t trust him to raise her by himself. While Rowena lives in South Central L.A. – she is a success. She runs several businesses, owns several homes, and has a large family all of whom, except Reggie, seem to be on the right path. Her younger brother, Jeremiah (Anthony Mackie) is a high powered lawyer – and she decides to sue for custody from Elliot – but only after he refuses to joint custody. He wants Eloise right where she is – and to be fair, Eloise seems to want that as well, no matter how much she loves her grandma.

So, the whole thing sets itself as a courtroom drama – which isn’t overly surprising. Hollywood has a history of turning complicated issues like this into a genre they understand – and courtroom dramas also give the actors the opportunity to deliver long speeches, and have dramatic reveals on the stand that makes everyone gasp in surprise. All of this happens in Black or White, of course. Some of these scenes in court are awkward to say the least – but some of them work. One of the best performances in the movie is actually by Paula Newsome as the no-nonsense judge. When Elliot’s law partners first tell him that have a `black lady judge` they think they are screwed – but she defies stereotypes in the way she oversees the case. Unfortunately, she is perhaps the only character who does defy stereotypes in the movie – try as writer-director Mike Binder may to ensure that everyone defies them.

There are parts of Black or White that work quite well. Kevin Costner delivers another fine performance as Elliot – a man drowning in grief and alcohol, who can never admit he actually has a problem (or that his problem is similar to Reggie’s – something the movie conveys visually, by putting them in the same frame indulging in their vices). Costner has gotten to be a better actor with time – after his misguided efforts in the 1990s where Hollywood mistook him for a movie star, when really he`s more of a natural character actor. Elliot means well – and genuinely doesn’t believe he’s prejudiced, but the movie shows otherwise. Octavia Spencer has a more difficult role – the movie bends over backwards to paint her as almost too perfect – except for the blind spot she has for her son. Still she does an excellent job with the role.

The movie itself though isn’t up to these performances. It tries way too hard to be relevant, to give every side a speech that seems at least a little reasonable, to give everyone flaws. The film gets many of the smaller moments right, but it drops the ball in most of the big ones. Costner delivers his big speech in court well – but it’s a misguided speech, at the wrong time, and I have a tough time believing it would have the impact it would. Andre Holland tries very hard with his role of Reggie – but his character changes in pretty much every scene depending on what the plot needs of him – he isn’t a character, so much as a plot device.

The movie is well intentioned – it genuinely has its heart in the right place, and wants to examine race – still a very relevant factor in America – in an interesting way. It doesn’t succeed in doing that however. I admire the effort, but didn’t care for the result.  

Oscar Winner Predictions: Acting

The third post is on the four acting categories - three of which are pretty much gimmes, but Best Actor is a tough one.

Best Actor

5. Steve Carrel in Foxcatcher
For Him: They love it when beloved, big comedy stars go serious in the movie – and I have trouble thinking of any comedian who went so damn serious as Carrel did here. They also love physical transformation, which Carrel also does here as well.
Against Him: After being touted all year as a frontrunner, he faded a little down the stretch, so much so that it was touch and go for him even getting a nomination. He’s the only nominee for in a Best Picture nominee. For him, the nomination is the reward.

4. Benedict Cumberbatch in The Imitation Game

For Him: He has a huge following, he got praise for the movie all season long, and he’s in a film that will be pushing very hard to win the Best Picture prize – and could surprise there. You know Harvey is pushing this hard.
Against Him: He hasn’t gotten the precursor support he really needs to pull off a victory. This really is breakthrough as a movie star – he may well win at some point, but I doubt it will be this year.

3. Bradley Cooper in American Sniper

For Him: This is his third nomination in three years, so many will think he’s overdue. Even those who don’t love the film have basically had nothing but praise for Cooper’s subtle performance in the film. The film has become a huge hit – and his win would be popular with the audience. The passionate support for American Sniper started late – too late to him in some of the precursors, so this could surprise.
Against Him: The film has become a right wing hit – and even if I don’t think it’s quite the film they think it is – that may not sit well with the more liberal Academy. His nomination was somewhat a surprise, so he’s fighting an uphill battle. He is almost assured to win at some point – but I’m not sure it’s this year.

2. Eddie Redmayne in The Theory of Everything

For Him: He won the Golden Globe for Best Actor in a drama. More importantly, he upset Keaton at the SAG Awards, which is usually a good indicator. The Academy does love it when actors play hugely famous icons – and love it even more when actors play someone with disabilities. Even those who don’t much like the film, think he was excellent in it.
Against Him: The youngest nominee, many will see the nomination as the award – and look to give him the actual win a little bit down the line. I just don’t think the film is well loved enough for him to take it.

1. Michael Keaton in Birdman

For Him: He is a much loved actor – who has done solid work for decades – who has finally been given the role of his life, and grabbed hold with everything he had. The film requires him to do a hell of a lot of acting, with wild swings sometimes in the same scene, and he nails it. He has the precursor support he needs.
Against Him: While he may be beloved, but he has never been nominated before, so it’s hard to say he’s massively overdue a win. It is a comedy – and they don’t much give Oscars for that. 

Who Will Win: Michael Keaton for Birdman. Again, the smart money is probably elsewhere – namely Redmayne who won the SAG and BAFTA. Still I cannot help but think Keaton is pulling this one out.

Who Should Win: Bradley Cooper in American Sniper. It’s a tough call between him and Carrel – but what gets Cooper my vote is the fact that of the five nominees, he has the least showy role – and did the most subtle acting. This type of thing usually doesn’t even get nominated, so I’ll pick him.
Least of the Nominees: Benedict Cumberbatch for The Imitation Game. This really is a one note performance – which Cumberbatch delivers ably, but nothing too inspired.

Who Should Have Been Here: Ralph Fiennes for The Grand Budapest Hotel. Really, they nominated this film for practically everything, and couldn’t find room for Fiennes? Ridiculous.

Best Actress

5. Marion Cotillard in Two Days, One Night
For Her: She got into the final five with very little campaigning, for a foreign language film no less. She has won before, but that was a while ago, and she has come close a few times since without getting a nomination. 
Against Her: The fact that she got in with barely a campaign speaks more to the weakness of the competition. She is brilliant – but winning for a foreign film is never easy, and she probably cannot drum up the support.

4. Reese Witherspoon in Wild

For Her: A comeback role of sorts – and the Oscars love a comeback – the role is Witherspoon as we’ve never seen her before, as she reinvents herself onscreen as the film goes along. She is a huge movie star, who took a chance, and pulled it off.
Against Her: She may have been able to challenge had the film become more popular with the Academy, or if she didn’t already have an Oscar at home – but those aren’t true, so she cannot win.

3. Felicity Jones in The Theory of Everything

For Her: The film really is her story – and Jones carries the film, without the disability that her co-star Redmayne, has to lean on. A well respected young actress, who is also the only nominee for a Best Picture contender.
Against Her: She is probably too young – and doesn’t have the precursor support to really, seriously challenge. She hasn’t been nominated before, so the nomination is the reward.

2. Rosamund Pike in Gone Girl

For Her: Was there a more talked about female character – or performance – this year than Rosamund Pike’s Amazing Amy? Didn’t think so. It is a brilliant performance, a breakthrough role for an actress who has been doing solid work for a decade now. Undeniably the most popular role in the category.
Against Her: For some reason, the Academy didn’t embrace Gone Girl – this is the film’s only nomination, so I cannot imagine her really pulling this off.

1. Julianne Moore in Still Alice

For Her: People have not been high on the movie, but no one has not praised Moore’s great work as a young with early, onset Alzheimer’s. This is Moore’s fifth nomination stretching back to 1997 – and she has not won yet, making her perhaps the more overdue for a win than any other actor or actress working right now.
Against Her: The movie isn’t as loved as her performance – and has barely been seen by audiences.

Who Will Win: Julianne Moore for Still Alice. She should win this in a cakewalk – no serious threat has emerged to her, even if audiences haven’t had much of a chance to see it.

Who Should Win: Rosamund Pike for Gone Girl. It truly is an iconic performance, and some day people will wonder why she wasn’t a more serious threat.

Least of the Nominees: Felicity Jones for The Theory of Everything. For all the talk of how weak a category this was, all five nominees are actually quite strong – but Jones a little less than the other four.

Who Should Have Been Here: Anne Dorval for Mommy. If the Academy was going to embrace a foreign performance, I wish it would have been the great Anne Dorval for her amazing, operatic performance in Xavier Dolan’s Mommy.

Best Supporting Actor

5. Robert Duvall in The Judge
For Him: He is a much loved veteran – so loved that he survived the critical beating the film took to land himself his 7^th Oscar nomination. While he has won before, it has only been once, and that was more than three decades ago. When you get up to this point, some will think he should have his second.
Against Him: Does anyone really like the film? The fact that Duvall got in at all speaks more to the weakness of the crop of potential nominees this year than passion for Duvall himself. At this point, the nomination is the award.

4. Mark Ruffalo in Foxcatcher

For Him: This is his second nomination, and he is a critical favorite who could well have scored a couple of other nominations over the years – meaning some will think he’s due. After Foxcatcher struggled through much of the award season, it came on strong with the Academy – meaning they like it more than others.
Against Him: I just don’t see the film as having enough support to push him in. It is a quiet film, a subtle film, a dark film – and it is a subtle performance – and subtle doesn’t often win acting Oscars. He’s on the list for “next time”.

3. Ethan Hawke in Boyhood

For Him: This is Hawke’s second acting nomination – and his fourth overall (counting two screenplay nods he shared with Boyhood director Linklater and Julie Delphy for the Before movies). He has been a fine actor for well over two decades now, and his performance in Boyhood is quietly impressive and natural.
Against Him: Like Ruffalo, his performance may be too subtle to get many votes. He doesn’t have the big moments his co-star Arquette has, which is going to push her into the winner’s circle. He is probably overdue for an Oscar – but like Ruffalo, he’s on the list for next time.

2. Edward Norton in Birdman

For Him: Birdman has come on strong in Phase II – it is arguably the frontrunner now – and Norton has received some of the best reviews of his career here. He also gets bonus points for playing an egotistical, asshole, method actor – which is precisely how many see him. It is a great performance in a film they love.
Against Him: The problem is, many still do see him as an asshole. While he has three nominations in his career – the last one came 16 years ago, and many just plain don’t like him. If he was going to take this prize, you would have to assume he would have stolen a precursor – which he hasn’t done.

1. J.K. Simmons in Whiplash

For Him: Simmons probably became the frontrunner for this prize a year ago – when the film debuted to rapturous reviews at Sundance. Since then, he has fought off all comers, pretty much winning every award he could. They obviously loved the film – it did get into the Best Picture field – and the response to his work has been ecstatic. He is the type of well-loved character actor finally given the role of the lifetime, that they will reward in the supporting category.
Against Him: He is clearly the least famous of the four nominees – and the only one who has never been nominated before. Will they give an Oscar to someone who is working as an insurance pitchman at the same time he’s campaigning for an Oscar? (yes, they will).

Who Will Win: J.K. Simmons for Whiplash. Earlier in the season, many thought that this could be a fight down to the wire between Simmons and Norton – but Norton has yet to breakthrough and steal any major prize from Simmons. He wins this one in a walk.

Who Should Win: J.K. Simmons for Whiplash. It is clearly the best, most memorable, most terrifying performance nominated here – and for those of us who have loved him since his days on Oz, it is gratifying to see him knock a role like this out of the park.

Least of the Nominees: Robert Duvall for The Judge. It may well be the best thing in the movie – but it’s still an average performance in a forgettable movie. No one will remember this one.

Who Should Have Been Here: Josh Brolin for Inherent Vice. I understand why the Academy didn’t respond to one of my absolute favorite films of the year – it is very complex and dense – but I don’t get how they didn’t fall for Josh Brolin’s brilliant, over-the-top at first, then growing deeper, performance. This should have been an easy get in a weak field – and for some reason it wasn’t.

Best Supporting Actress

5. Laura Dern in Wild
For Her: She is a well-respected actress, a previous nominee (for 1991’s Rambling Rose), who has done solid work for nearly 30 years now. She’s at an age where unfortunately all Hollywood thinks she can play is mothers (which she did here) – but she finally got a good role, and a second nomination.
Against Her: She isn’t the type of actress who people think are overdue for a win. Wild wasn’t a big hit with the Academy this year, and her nomination was somewhat a surprise. It isn’t her year.

4. Meryl Streep in Into the Woods

For Her: She’s Meryl Streep – and although she has three Oscars already, never doubt how much they love her. The movie isn’t well loved, but people really loved her in the showcase role.
Against Her: But she does have three Oscars already – the third fairly recently – and there is no rush to give her a fourth any time soon. No one really loves this movie.

3. Emma Stone in Birdman

For Her: She is a big, young star – the type that they often go with in this category. Add in the fact that she’s in the arguable frontrunner, got career best reviews, and does have some of the most memorable moments in the film – including the final shot – and she just may pull off an upset.
Against Her: But if she was going to pull off an upset, there would have been some sign of that to this point – and there hasn’t been. She’s been nominated for everything, and won nothing for this performance.

2. Keira Knightley in The Imitation Game

For Her: A well respected, beautiful young actress – a former nominee (for Pride & Prejudice), who has come close to a couple other nominations – there will be some who think it is her time. She has a (slightly) more complex role than the typical supportive female in these movies. If the Academy really likes The Imitation Game, this is perhaps their only chance to give it a major prize.
Against Her: Where is the evidence that they truly love the film enough to want to do that? She has been a player all year, but came up short in all the major precursors to Arquette. She’s entered the realm of “next year” winners – and this isn’t her year.

1. Patricia Arquette in Boyhood

For Her: She has won pretty much all the major precursors she can for the role. She has been the frontrunner since the summer, and nothing has seriously challenged that status so far. She is a respected actress – although she has never been nominated before, people like her. It’s a rather brave performance – and she has the big moments her co-stars don’t that gets her the win.
Against Her: Their isn’t much really – she has won everything, she is well respected, she’s in the frontrunner. She has been genuine and humble during the campaign. This is probably the safest bet in this year’s race.

Who Will Win: Patricia Arquette for Boyhood. Arquette wins this one in a walk – no one really made a case for themselves this year.

Who Should Win: Patricia Arquette for Boyhood. It is a very subtle performance throughout – that has a few bigger moments. It was a weak year in this category – and no one really came close.

Least of the Nominees: Meryl Streep for Into the Woods. I love Streep – and she is campy good fun in the movie. But really, did she need a 19^th nomination for this?

Who Should Have Been Here: Rene Russo for Nightcrawler. This was a genuine comeback performance for a woman who was a star in the 1990s, and pretty much forgotten since. It is a great performance – and dark one – and easily should have found her way into this category.

Oscar Winner Predictions: Foreign, Animated and Documentary

The Second post, focuses on the three other "Best Picture" categories - Foreign (a very tight race this year), animated and documentary (both fairly easy to call).

 

Foreign Language Film

5. Tangerines
4. Timbuktu
3. Wild Tales
2. Ida
1. Leviathan

Analysis: You never really know what direction the Academy is going to go in this category – something made worse by the fact that few of us actually get to see all of the nominees before the ceremony (this year, for instance, I haven’t had a chance to see Tangerines, Timbuktu or Wild Tales). They really could go any way here.

Who Will Win: Leviathan. After seeing the film, I cannot imagine the Academy hating the film – it is well made, dramatic, darkly comedic – and gives them a real opportunity to say screw you to Putin and Russia – by giving the film that insults them, from their own country, an Oscar. But it will be close – and wins for Ida or Wild Tales wouldn’t shock me.

Who Should Win: Leviathan. I’ve only seen two – this and Ida – and this was my favorite, so for now, it’s my choice.
Least of the Nominees: N/A. I’m refusing to answer this one – because while of the two Ida is my least favorite, it’s still a hell of a film and I’m not going to insult it.

Who Should Have Been Here: Force Majeure. I understand them not voting for my favorite foreign film of the year – the three hour, twenty minute Winter Sleep from Turkey, but how they didn’t nominate Force Majeure – a darkly comedic family in crisis drama is beyond me. It even got shortlisted, and couldn’t make it in. Too bad.

Documentary

5. The Salt of the Earth
4. Finding Vivian Maier
3. Last Days in Vietnam
2. Virunga
1. Citizenfour

Analysis: With the documentary Oscar, you never really know which way it’s going to go. Last year, The Act of Killing won practically every critics award (and many others besides) and then lost to the more inspiring 20 Feet from Stardom. Citizenfour is in The Act of Killing slot this year – the difference being I’m not sure I see something to knock it out.

Who Will Win: Citizenfour. Truly, nothing would surprise me here – the Academy always goes its own way with the documentary Oscar. Still, I think Citizenfour has the inside track – especially since the branch snubbed the film that I think the Academy as a whole would have voted for.

Who Should Win: Citizenfour. I haven’t see The Salt of the Earth or Last Days in Vietnam (they never came close to me, so it’s not my fault), so out of the three I have seen, Citizenfour was my favorite – and Laura Poitra’s is a fine documentarian in general, so it would get my vote.

Least of the Nominees: Virunga. I feel bad putting Virunga here – it did make my personal top ten for documentaries this year (out of the 40 I saw) – but I like it just slightly less than Finding Vivian Maier (and haven’t seen Last Days in Vietnam or The Salt of the Earth), so here we are.

Who Should Have Been Here: Life Itself. Once again, the documentary branch snubs Steve James. All this stretches back 20 year, to when they didn’t nominate his Hoop Dreams – and the kerfuffle that started. The documentary branch has never forgiven James for their own embarrassing omission of his masterpiece – so he keeps getting left out. That’s a shame because James’ film about Roger Ebert was my favorite doc of the year – and one I think the Academy as a whole would have voted for. Also, the shortlisted The Overnighters is better than any of the nominees I saw.

Animated Films

5. Song of the Sea
4. The Tale of the Princess Kaguya
3. The Boxtrolls
2. Big Hero 6
1. How to Train Your Dragon 2

Analysis: The frontrunner somehow didn’t even get nominated, which has created a bizarre situation, where I wouldn’t really count out any of the five nominees. But that Academy has basically always gone for a big film, so I think it comes down to Big Hero 6 and How to Train Your Dragon 2.

Who Will Win: How to Train Your Dragon 2. It will be close, but I think respect for the original, which didn’t win, will push this one over the top – but it’s an interesting five way race.

Who Should Win: Song of the Sea. None of the nominees moved me as much as this simple, beautiful Irish fable.

Least of the Nominees: How to Train Your Dragon 2. I really like the film – just a little bit less than the other four.

Who Should Have Been Here: The Lego Movie. I mean, seriously, right. This should have won, not just been nominated.

Oscar Winner Predictions: The "Below the Line" Categories

Over the next few days I’ll do a series of posts picking this year’s Oscar winners (except for the shorts). I have no idea how good I’ll do this year – I’m sticking with my gut over my head on a few, and that usually leads me into being wrong. But I’ll stick with it anyway.

Cinematography

5. Ida – Ryszard Lenczweski & Lukasz Zal
4. Unbroken – Roger Deakins
3. Mr. Turner – Dick Pope
2. The Grand Budapest Hotel – Robert D. Yeoman
1. Birdman – Emmanuel Lubezki

Analysis: The bad news here is that Roger Deakins, arguably the best cinematographer working today, will lose yet again – for the 12^th time. The good news is that Unbroken is the weakest work he’s ever done that got nominated – so when he eventually wins (and he will, won’t he?) it will be for something better. As for who will this year, I think we’re looking at an Emmanuel Lubezki repeat – he won for Gravity last year, and arguably the long tracking shots in Birdman is even more complicated. Yes, I could see The Grand Budapest Hotel sneaking in – but I think it’s safe to win a few of the other awards, so there will be no need. Mr. Turner would be a great choice – I’m just not sure they like the movie enough.

Who Will Win: Birdman. This is probably a fairly easy win here – he has dominated the precursors, and when he hasn’t won, no one can really agree on who should win instead.

Who Should Win: The Grand Budapest Hotel. I always love the way Anderson films look – and that starts with Yeoman’s great work – never better than here.
Least of the Nominees: Unbroken. I love Roger Deakins – but for the man who shot Fargo, Kundun, The Assassination of Jesse James, No Country for Old Men and Skyfall among many, many other, this isn’t exactly his best hour.

Who Should Have Been Here: Inherent Vice or Nightcrawler – Robert Elswit. Robert Elswit shot two very different movies set in L.A. – in different eras, with different styles, one digitally, one on film – and both are equally brilliant. Surely they could have found room for one of them, no?

Costume Design

5. Inherent Vice
4. Maleficent
3. Mr. Turner
2. Into the Woods
1. The Grand Budapest Hotel

Analysis: As fine as the work on Inherent Vice, Maleficent and Mr. Turner is – I think this is a two horse race. Into the Woods may well be able to pull it off – despite the embarrassing work on Johnny Depp’s costume (which, it is my understanding, wasn’t done by the nominee here – but by Depp himself). But I think the bright colored costumes on Grand Budapest will rule the day here. It could be close though.

Who Will Win: The Grand Budapest Hotel. A number of Wes Anderson films probably should have won this award – or at the very least been nominated here – and they look to finally get their due here.

Who Should Win: The Grand Budapest Hotel. A really easy decision here – no matter how much I love the work on Inherent Vice and Mr. Turner.
Least of the Nominees: Maleficent. It is fine work to be sure – but I just didn’t see much that deserved a nomination.

Who Should Have Been Here: Snowpiercer. Strong work, deftly divides the different classes, with some inventive work in this movie – which could have used a push to get in.

Film Editing

5. The Grand Budapest Hotel
4. The Imitation Game
3. Whiplash
2. American Sniper
1. Boyhood

Analysis: This award will depend on what they define as great editing. If they want flashy editing, then American Sniper or Whiplash could easily win this. If they want editing that moves like clockwork, than The Imitation Game wins. But if they look at what a mammoth undertaking it must have been to assemble 12 years of footage into one, three hour movie, than Boyhood has to win.

Who Will Win: Boyhood. I think Boyhood wins this one fairly easily – if it doesn’t, then I think we will know it’s in trouble for the Big One.

Who Should Win: Boyhood. Again, just the thought of taking all that material and crafting a coherent movie is mind boggling.
Least of the Nominees: The Imitation Game. Much as I have said before for this film – its fine work, but not particularly great or memorable.

Who Should Have Been Here: Birdman. It is odd that they nominated Birdman everywhere except here – probably because the editing work in the film is made to look invisible so the film could look like one continuous take. That just makes it even more impressive to me though.

Makeup & Hairstyling

3. Guardians of the Galaxy
2. Foxcatcher
1. The Grand Budapest Hotel

Analysis: Guardians of the Galaxy is fine work – but it’s the type of fantasy, comic book work that gets nominated but doesn’t actually win. The nose in Foxcatcher is great – and the most memorable makeup in the film, but I don’t think it’s enough. Meanwhile, the work on Grand Budapest is brilliant – they could win for Tilda Swinton alone, and there is a hell of a lot more to the film than that.

Who Will Win: The Grand Budapest Hotel. I have Grand Budapest winning quite a few below the line categories – but this is probably the one I feel most confident of.

Who Should Win: The Grand Budapest Hotel. Just look at Swinton – that alone should win it.
Least of the Nominees: Guardians of the Galaxy. Fine work to be sure – but Oscar good.

Who Should Have Been Here: Inherent Vice. Especially since the category is now Makeup and Hairstyling, I have a tough time not thinking the work on Inherent Vice should not have squeezed in here.

Original Score

5. Mr. Turner – Gary Yershon
4. Interstellar – Hans Zimmer
3. The Imitation Game – Alexandre Desplat
2. The Theory of Everything – Johan Johansson
1. The Grand Budapest Hotel – Alexandre Desplat

Analysis: Alexandre Desplat got nominated for his 7^th and 8^th Oscars this year, and is well overdue for an Oscar. Vote splitting isn’t a real problem in this category, and I think his memorable work on The Grand Budapest Hotel will end up winning. But Johan Johansson's work on The Theory of Everything was constantly praised, Desplat himself could win for The Imitation Game instead – and Zimmer's score for Interstellar was also praised. And they often go their own way here, so really, it could be anyone.

Who Will Win: The Grand Budapest Hotel. I think Desplat finally gets his win – but it’s going to be tight.

Who Should Win: The Grand Budapest Hotel. It really is the best work nominated this year – and could hardly go to a better, more overdue composer.
Least of the Nominees: The Imitation Game. Having said that, I thought Desplat's work on The Imitation Game, like the movie itself, was safe, predictable and not very memorable.

Who Should Have Been Here: Gone Girl – Trent Reznor & Atticus Ross. After winning this award for The Social Network, the Academy has failed to nominate their two follow-up scores for David Fincher – for The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo and Gone Girl – despite the fact that they were both the best of their respective years. Gone Girl is stunning work – and I have a feeling if they liked the movie more, this would have got in.

Original Song

5. Beyond the Lights- Grateful
4. Begin Again – Lost Stars
3. The Lego Movie – Everything is Awesome
2. Glen Campbell: I’ll Be Me – I`m Not Going to Miss You
1. Selma – Glory

Analysis: I have a feeling that the moment the nominees were announced – and everyone saw how few Selma got (just here, and for Best Picture), the win for Glory was pretty much secured. Yes, Everything is Awesome is the catchiest song, Glenn Campbell is a legend and a sentimental favorite, and John Carneys last film, Once, won in this category – but all would considered an upset.

Who Will Win: Selma – Glory. The only thing that could derail Glory’s win here would be if the Academy is angry at all the accusations of racism thrown at them since Selma’s disappointing nomination haul (and there is some evidence that they are) – which could allow something else to sneak in.

Who Should Win: The Lego Movie – Everything is Awesome. Nearly a year later, the film is still stuck in my head – and I don’t mind at all.
Least of the Nominees: Beyond the Lights – Grateful. I loved the movie, and most of the music in it. I did not like this song.

Who Should Have Been Here: Beyond the Lights – Masterpiece. The studio decided not to muddy the water, and only submitted Grateful to be considered. What’s most disappointing about this is that Masterpiece – the song that opens the movie – is wonderful.

Production Design

5. The Imitation Game
4. Interstellar
3. Mr. Turner
2. Into the Woods
1. The Grand Budapest Hotel

Analysis: The Imitation Game is safe, unspectacular work. While the work in Interstellar is strong – they usually do not go with sci-fi films here. Mr. Turner is very good – but I don’t think they like the film enough. Into the Woods probably doesn’t quite have enough to push through. And The Grand Budapest Hotel is the best work this category has seen in years.

Who Will Win: The Grand Budapest Hotel. I really do not understand how anything else could win – but then again, I don’t understand how no other Wes Anderson films have been nominated here before, so what do I know.

Who Should Win: The Grand Budapest Hotel. Both versions of the hotel – the brightly colored 1930s version, and the drab 1960s version – was brilliant, and this really is the best work in a long time.
Least of the Nominees: The Imitation Game. There is nothing wrong with the work done in The Imitation Game. It’s just not all that great either.

Who Should Have Been Here: Snowpiercer. One train car at a time, each brilliantly designed, and immensely different, as it helps to tell the story. For some reason this never got much serious consideration in this category –despite several critics groups singing its praises.

Sound Editing

5. The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies
4. Unbroken
3. Birdman
2. Interstellar
1. American Sniper

Analysis: A three way race, that could go any which way. But here, they usually go loud - action movies, war movies, special effects laden spectacles, etc. Guess accordingly.

Who Will Win: American Sniper. A genuine three way race – there is no appetite for another Oscar to Peter Jackson’s Middle Earth team, and no one really likes Unbroken. The could go with Birdman here if it’s on its way to a Best Picture win – but I consider that a longshot. I think Interstellar and American Sniper are neck and neck – with American Sniper winning by a nose – the urge to give the Best Picture nominee something will be too much.

Who Should Win: Interstellar. This really is stellar work, and would get my vote – although American Sniper does come close.
Least of the Nominees: Unbroken. Sorry, I don’t really see why this one made it into the race.

Who Should Have Been Here: Godzilla. I have no idea how Godzilla’s brilliant sound editing didn’t find its footing here – it’s great when Godzilla is onscreen, but perhaps even better when he’s not. It may well be the best of the year.

Sound Mixing

5. Interstellar
4. Unbroken
3. Birdman
2. Whiplash
1. American Sniper

Analysis: I really do think this is a genuine three way race. Count out Interstellar – people had complaints about the mix, and Unbroken – since no one really likes it enough. But Birdman, Whiplash and American Sniper are all fine contenders, and it really could go anyway.

Who Will Win: American Sniper. The often go with action films or war films in this category – so American Sniper gets my vote. But they also like music – so perhaps Whiplash could sneak in. And if they are really going hard for Birdman, who knows. But American Sniper is the safe choice.

Who Should Win: Whiplash. Out of the nominees, I loved Whiplash’s sound mix – particularly in that frenzied finale – more than others. But it’s close with American Sniper.
Least of the Nominees: Unbroken. I really don’t see what was so memorable about the sound work on Unbroken. Really, it’s solid work – but nothing compared to another WWII movie – Fury.

Who Should Have Been Here: Under the Skin. There are quite a few films I could have put here – Fury and Godzilla come immediately to mind. But no film had a more complex, brilliant sound mix this year than Under the Skin – the type of film that never gets nominated, but should.

Visual Effects

5. X-Men: Days of Future Past
4. Captain America: The Winter Soldier
3. Guardians of the Galaxy
2. Dawn of the Planet of the Apes
1. Interstellar

Analysis: Interstellar was, sight unseen, the favorite to win this category all year. Yes, the film underwhelmed somewhat, but no one questioned its visual effects – and of the nominees, it had the most support within the Academy. I could see Dawn upsetting, but probably not.

Who Will Win: Intetstellar. No one really questioned the visual effects in Interstellar – everything else, yes, but not those, so it probably holds off the competitors.

Who Should Win: Dawn of the Planet of the Apes. The first film in the series was also nominated here – but lost to a Best Picture contender (Hugo). To me, the work here is even more impressive, as more ape characters had more to do – and it would get my vote.  
Least of the Nominees: X-Men: Days of Future Past. They have not usually embraced this series in the past, and the inclusion this year was kind of curious. Yes, it’s fine work, but I don’t see why it was Oscar worthy.

Who Should Have Been Here: Godzilla. Come on people – the work on Godzilla was brilliant. It may even had gotten my vote had they nominated it. I have no idea how this got left out of the final five.