The Blood of a Poet

Year: 1932
Genre: Experimental Short
Directed: Jean Cocteau
Stars: Enrique Rivero, Elizabeth Lee Miller, Jean Desbordes, Odette Talazac, Pauline Carton, Feral Benga, Lucien Jager, Fernand Dichamps
Production: Vicomte de Noailles

The Surrealist movement, as an artistic revolution has been utterly dominated by the name Salvador Dali at least in popular culture. Those in the know may be able to list a few other artists such as Roberto Matta or Max Ernst; perhaps make a tentative connection between Surrealism and Cubism and by extension Pablo Picasso. Even fewer people realize Surrealism has left an indelible impact on film which still seeps into the unconscious of many a-movie. Luis Bunuel's Un Chien Andalou (1929) stands as one obvious example but while Bunuel's career is infamous within cinema circles, many people don't consider French director, writer, and all around renaissance man Jean Cocteau to be part of the movement.

The Blood of a Poet is the first part of Jean Cocteau's Orpheus Trilogy (1932-1960); a loosely connected telling and re-telling of the well-known Greek legend. In this installment, our poet (Rivero) stands in a studio, painting on a canvas with the intensity seen in the most obsessive of human beings. His creations start to come to life, first the paintings then the sculptures. As he discovers the dreamlike dimensions of the room and it's contents, the poet goes into a fugue state falling through mirrors and peering through keyholes. The film ends with the destruction of a factory-type tower or smokestack precipitated by the constant appearance of a muse like figure. By the end she's lying in darkness with a lyre and a globe symbolizing Erato the muse of lyric poetry or maybe  Urania the muse of astronomy.

Jean Cocteau is arguably most known for his poetry though he's dabbled in theatre, novel writing and of course film. In the realm of cinema his crowning accomplishment is The Beauty and the Beast (1946) which showed remarkable economy in storytelling and in special-effects. The Blood of a Poet however is a 55 minute concentrated dose of Cocteau at his most creative. Few films today can catapult it's audience into the outer limits of cinematic artistry and with today's spreadsheet, bottom-line obsessed studios there is simply no room for experimentation. Yet in 1930, one man was seemingly given unlimited resources to play with the form and unlike Bunuel's aforementioned Un Chien Andalou and L'Age d'Or (1930), Cocteau's oeuvre concentrates on the sublime not on the grotesque. Interesting to note that Cocteau had been dubbed by his contemporaries "The Frivolous Prince," for his bohemian lifestyle and romantic view of poetry. It certainly shows here.

Those who lived prior to the films release accused it of being anti-religious and delayed its release by two years. Modern skeptics complain that the film is incredibly pretentious and others still, express it is aggressively political in nature. They're not wrong; all the above can be true and false depending on your attitude and disposition. If you're one to take artist intent into consideration Cocteau wrote an essay on The Blood of a Poet contending that it is not a surreal film at all! But rather an attempt to "...avoid the deliberate manifestations of the unconscious in favor of a kind of half-sleep through which I wandered as though in a labyrinth." As with all surreal artwork, the film is ultimately an exercise in personal interpretation.

Pretension: it's what's for dinner

What remains certain is The Blood of a Poet packs more themes, more story, more experimentation and more beauty in it's scant screen-time than most TV-series' put into their entire run. The ingenuity and raw emotional power embedded in this film is stunning and are sure to bedevil you in your daydreams and in your sleep. I truly, in my heart of hearts believe The Blood of a Poet to be the ideal first film for those wishing to delve into Surrealism. Of course that's just my interpretation; I suppose that's the point.

Final Grade: A-

Triple 9

Year: 2016
Genre: Crime Drama
Directed: John Hillcoat
Stars: Chiwetel Ejiofor, Casey Affleck, Anthony Mackie, Woody Harrelson, Aaron Paul, Kate Winslet, Gal Gadot, Norman Reedus, Clifton Collins Jr., Michelle Ang
Production: Open Roads Films

There comes a point about halfway through watching Triple 9 where I wondered "who should I be rooting for here?" Director John Hillcoat and screenwriter Matt Cook do a marvelous job enveloping the audience into their dark and cynical world of warring gangs, corrupt cops, and hastily executed heists. They attempt to evoke a visual vocabulary similar to Heat (1995) yet the proceedings end up feeling more like Takers (2010) lacking the basic pacing and characters that leave any lasting impact.

Seriously, I can't figure out who I give two s**ts about

The term triple 9 is police code meaning Officer down/urgent help needed. This is the plot element that hangs precariously in the air for nearly one hour of screen time as a congress of corrupt cops (Ejiofor, Mackie, Paul, Reedus and Collins) plan a heist for the Russian mob. Blackmailed and desperate, the group finds an unwitting patsy in rookie cop Chris Allen (Affleck); nephew to notorious Detective Jeffrey Allen (Harrelson). Chris's death would result in the entire police department hunting down a cop killer leaving the crew to pull their heist in peace. What they didn't count on was Chris being so...smart? Crafty? Resourceful?

Casey: the other white Affleck

Truth is the character of Chris does very little except absorb the myriad of coincidences that culminate in his setup. He's not admirable nor interesting nor particularly adept at police work and despite having comparable screen time to the rest of the ensemble, we know very little about him; other than he's into Black Sabbath. The mortality of his character is dependent not on cloak and dagger intrigue or a sense of indemnity but on blind, stupid luck. Only near the end does Chris have an opportunity to act on anything of consequence yet that heroes moment is robbed by Woody Harrelson who has pieced together everything and wraps it in a neat little bow for Chris.

Well if the movie isn't interested in Chris then surely it's interested in the corrupt cops, right? Yeah, not so much; only Ejiofor is given more than a cursory glance and even then the movie seems to hinge his character's motivation on extensive moments of exposition. Those moments are provided by Ejiofor sharing over-the-shoulder shots with the incredibly underutilized Kate Winslet. While every other character enters and exits the film with little fanfare, her Russian mob wife character is a scarlet draped exclamation point to the otherwise stodgy ensemble.

All the story elements that merge into the climactic final heist are lovingly pieced together for the audience. We are privy to all the information early on and watch as the unavoidable fates of all involved unravel; no one being wiser as a result. But to what end, is the million dollar question. The film seems poised to give an uncompromising view of brutality complete with dirty cops, ski-masked robbers, habitual drug use, poverty, degradation and lots and lots of grime. But while these images bombard the viewer, there's no depth to it. The editing, the story beats, the ever obnoxious shaky-cam, all work against this film to make a dirty, steamy hodgepodge of who cares.

Triple 9 is a barely passable crime drama with a decent movie struggling to break free underneath bad pacing and bad character development. Boasting an ensemble cast of one Emmy winner, one Academy Award winner and three nominees, you'd think this movie would be much better than it is. Sadly, it's purely a time-waster worthy of a rental tops. On a side note, for a city located in post-9/11 U.S.A., you'd think Atlanta would be a little more serious about its car-bomb situation.

Yeah, but did you die?

Final Grade: F

Gods of Egypt

Year: 2016
Genre: Action Adventure
Director: Alex Proyas
Stars: Brenton Thwaites, Nikolaj Coster-Waldau, Gerard Butler, Geoffrey Rush, Courtney Eaton, Elodie Yung, Bryan Brown, Chadwick Boseman, Rufus Sewell
Production: Summit Entertainment

The entire film industry has always had a fascination with sword-and-sandal action adventures. They're like the Velvet Underground of movie subgenres, they may never be popular in their own time but they inspire countless film professionals with their bountiful style, unorthodox special effects and simple but effective story-lines. Where would the world of special effects be without Ray Harryhausen's work on Jason and the Argonauts (1963)? Would we know the name Sergio Leone without the famed director first cutting his teeth on the peplum film The Last Days of Pompeii (1959)? I dare not put the ghastly Gods of Egypt in the same category as Conan the Barbarian (1982) or Clash of the Titans (1981) but I do put it a head above the 2010 remake of Clash of the Titans.

Gods of Egypt? More like Escape from Thebes

Mortal thief Bek (Thwaites) and his love Zaya (Eaton) are thrusted into a web of palace intrigue after benevolent God Osiris (Brown) is struck down by his brother Set (Butler) in a public display of brutality meant to keep mortals and other Gods in line. Osiris's son Horus (Coster-Waldau) attempts to take vengeance but his magical eyes are plucked from his skull and he's banished. Bek steals one of the eyes from Set's newly constructed vault thus turning the wheels of the plot, ultimately resulting in a rematch between Horus and his uncle.

As garish as the sets are and as conspicuous as the computer generated effects may be, the movie is not without its inner-logic which works if you forgive some minor missteps. The characters are weak and uninspired but they all have perfectly respectable character arcs. What's more the precious moments of mirth are genuine in a cheesy Flash Gordon (1980) kind of way. The first act borders on self-parody and the last act is a-clutter with mindless action yet in-spite of all this, I think I caught myself actually enjoying the movie a few times. Yes, believe it or not Gods of Egypt is not entirely irredeemable.

You say "over-reliance on cheap CGI like it's a bad thing 

Don't get me wrong; it's goofy, it's dumb and it's loud; it's whitewashed to the point of cultural insensitivity, and it surrenders to some occasionally unsettling themes but none of these factors are important when faced with the film's endgame; it's here to entertain, that's it. With a bar set that low, it's easy to find a lot to like. Those with a thirst for blood and sinew will be glad to know that despite a PG-13 rating, the film showcases a lot of gleeful violence and action. They get away with it only because the blood of the Gods is gold not red. I personally enjoyed the application of certain Ancient Egyptian mythology, especially moments involving Ra (Rush), the granddaddy of the Gods, pulling the sun across the sky in his celestial catamaran.

THIS IS GIZA!!!!!

Gods of Egypt cannot compare to the middling mythological epics of Italy circa 1950's. Heck, it can even compare to 300 (2006) which provided the template for so many of these goof-ball celebrations of male bravado. Director Alex Proyas knows the script for Gods of Egypt isn't exactly Shakespeare and maximizes all the points of entertainment while still telling a cogent tale. The results are crude but effective.

Final Grade: C-

Eddie the Eagle

Year: 2016
Genre: Sports Movie
Director: Dexter Fletcher
Stars: Taron Egerton, Hugh Jackman, Jo Hartley, Keith Allen, Tim McInnerny, Edvin Endre, Iris Berben, Rune Temte, Jim Broadbent, Christopher Walken
Production: Marv Films

So many movies have injected liberal amounts of post-modernist snark as of late. If done right the snark translates to layers and layers of humor and meta-humor that rewards repeated viewings. Deadpool (2016) certainly comes to mind as the strongest recent example. If done wrong however, it becomes an unbearable echo chamber of self-congratulatory wink-winks and nudge-nudges (Wet Hot American Summer: First Day of Camp (2015) anyone?). Eddie the Eagle is not a snarky movie. It's unabashedly sincere and tenacious in its embrace of the inspiring no matter how corny.

The real Eddie "The Eagle" Edwards

Eddie the Eagle is based on the true story of Eddie Edwards (Egerton) an amateur skier who represented Great Britain during the 1988 Winter Olympics in Calgary, Canada. Known early on for his tenacity, the movie represents him as a naive young man with a penchant for clumsiness. Failing every attempt to be qualified as a downhill skier, Eddie makes his way to Garmish-Partenkirchen, Germany to learn and master the Olympic sport of ski jumping. While there, he's openly ridiculed by all for his lack of talent, finance and balance. Taking notice of Eddie's near suicidal commitment however, is former Olympic team washout Bronson Peary (Jackman), who takes him under his wing and trains him for success on the slopes.

Your ability to outright love Eddie the Eagle is predicated on your ability to absorb cliche. This film is an inspirational sports movie that knowingly borrows elements from other movies right down to the stuffy official who undermines Eddie's attempts to qualify (McInnerny). Yes there are training montages set to catchy 80's tunes, yes there's the obligatory hard to please parent (Allen) and yes there's the inspirational moment, right before the climax, where our hero gets encouragement from an unexpected source. What makes this movie special is it runs at these cliches head-on; as if they're not story elements directly lifted from Rocky (1976), Ski Patrol (1990) and Hot Dog...The Movie (1984). Much like Eddie himself, the movie doesn't care if it wins records; it's just happy to be on-screen warming your heart and making you laugh. One can't help but admire such enthusiasm.

I'm hungover and don't care who knows it!

Of course if you're too cynical for a feel good sports movie you can at least appreciate the stellar cast rounded out by Taron Egerton. The man is destined for stardom providing the same underdog sensitivity he brought to Kingsman's (2014) Eggsy only with a deft sense of comedic timing. Jackman isn't at his best but boy does he seem to be having a lot of fun playing the permanently drunk Peary. He refers his flask as his "jacket," and has a chemistry with Egerton that borders on brotherly. Jo Hartley and Keith Allen are polar opposites as Eddie's parents and provide much of the humor in their back and forths. You can tell they both mean well yet Hartley is constantly undermining Allen's pragmatic approach to Eddie's struggles. She's the dreamer, he's the realist; both wear their characters well.

All those who still thing Rudy was better?

Eddie carries with him a lunchbox filled with all the medals he's won throughout the years. Most of those medals consist of broken, thick-framed glasses with insanely thick lenses. Those who scoff at the state of sport today and make a stink about how competition is being scuttled by participation trophies are missing the point. Sportsmanship is not about beating the other guy, it's about achieving your personal best. This movie wears that theme firmly on its sleeve and it's truly a joy to see something that doesn't resort to self-reference to get it's point across. While not a masterpiece in the purest sense, Eddie the Eagle firmly places itself as this generation's Rudy (1993).

Final Grade: C+

Thoughts from the Usher Podium: Oscar Predictions 2016

Another year, another award ceremony, yet another chance to enter another undeserved movie into the pantheon of Best Picture winners. Years past I have predicted with my heart and have been rebuffed by the realities of Hollywood. We know all the famous miscarriages of Oscar night glory; Art Carney winning Best Actor for Harry and Tonto (1974) over Al Pacino for The Godfather Part II (1974) and Jack Nicholson for Chinatown (1974); Forrest Gump (1994) winning over The Shawshank Redemption (1994) and Pulp Fiction (1994); Crash (2004) winning anything!

Pictured: Oscar winner with no social relevance to anyone
but Hollywood

I've grown blunt in predicting the horse race. I now take into consideration that the average age of an Academy voter is 63, that the majority are white men and that they overwhelmingly love movies that portray their worldview as a net positive. Why even nominate Do the Right Thing (1989) when Driving Miss Daisy (1989) is a much more friendly approach to casual racism? Ever wonder how Argo (2012) could have won Best Picture over Life of Pi (2012), Lincoln (2012) or Beasts of the Southern Wild (2012) (my personal favorite)? Hmm, a positive portrayal of the American film industry loosely based on true events; how could it not have won? Thus, before you are a list of the likely winners based on my tireless research (i.e. an hour worth of Google searches). There are to me however two winners; the nominee that will win, and the nominee that should win.

First let us concentrate on the short award categories; Best Documentary Short, Live Action Short and Animated Short. Don't discount these on your Oscar ballot come Sunday; they're on the whole, the least predictable categories largely because most Academy voters don't see all of the nominees. Exposure is key here:

Best Animated Short:

This one is the most obvious; the winner will be: Sanjay's Super Team. It was presented at the beginning of The Good Dinosaur which while not nominated, is backed by Pixar and Disney. In case you were wondering, Lava which was presented before Inside Out was not nominated (for some reason).Who deserves to win: World of Tomorrow created by legendary animator Don Hertzfeldt. Despite being one of the most prolific animators since the 90's, and being a Sundance staple, Hertzfeldt has only been nominated once before for Rejected (2000).

Best Documentary Short:

The great thing about this category is Short Subject Documentaries are by nature investigative. Instead of giving you the simple, glossed over, Hollywood treatment they actually delve into unsavory subjects that most movies dare not go. This year we have shorts about Ebola, the medical effects of Agent Orange, honor killings, racism and the holocaust. At the risk of sounding flippant when it comes to Short Subject Documentaries, the Holocaust always win thus the winner will be: Claude Lanzmann: Spectres of Shoah. Who deserve to win: Last Day of Freedom which discusses racism and mental illness while simultaneously playing with the film form.

Best Live-Action Short:

I'm torn on this one. On the one hand Ave Maria, the story about Israeli settlers asking nuns for help when their car breaks down seems like a sure-fire winner. Yet based on Festival winnings Shok, the story of two boys struggling through the war in Kosovo is the heavy favorite. The winner will be: Shok, it just has better name recognition. Who deserves to win: Day One, the tale of a female interpreter working for the U.S. Army who has to deliver a baby for an enemy's wife.

Now we have the lesser technical awards. These are the ones where the presenters take longer to explain the award than the recipients do when making their speeches. Sometimes these awards are peppered in throughout the ceremony and give an indication on which movies have momentum on their side. In the case of Visual Effects it's usually an excuse to give a mindless blockbuster some recognition. These categories include Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, Production Design, Costume Design, Makeup, and Visual Effects.

Best Sound Editing:

Despite being released in May, Mad Max: Fury Road has been on many people's minds. The fact that it was nominated for Best Picture despite it being essentially one big car chase is enough for gear heads to celebrate. Still I truly believe the winner will be: The Revenant who will be using this award category as momentum towards the bigger technical awards and eventual big prize. That said, Mad Max: Fury Road deserves to win.

Best Sound Mixing:

You would think that whomever wins Best Sound Editing would win Best Sound Mixing; yet 4 of the last 10 years have had the winners of these two awards split. This will undoubtedly be the case this year since Mad Max: Fury Road and The Revenant are too close to call. That means this award will be won by which ever movie has (gasp) the superior sound mixing. To that end, Mad Max: Fury Road will be the winner and deserves to win.

Best Production Design:
This category is all over the map! Mad Max and The Revenant are up there but so are The Danish Girl, The Martian and Bridge of Spies, a whole mess of movies that couldn't be more diverse. Smart money is once again on Mad Max: Fury Road which will probably win. Does it deserve to win? Yeah, I think so.

Best Costume Design:

The winner will be Mad Max: Fury Road. I might as well tell you now I have Mad Max down for winning the lions share of the awards. Though in the case of costuming I don't think it's deserved. Most deserving of a win in this category: The Danish Girl which wasn't the most entertaining movie but nonetheless provided period appropriate costuming which along with the production design made the film a serviceable flick.



Best Makeup and Hairstyling:

Despite having only three nominees, this category has always been colorful. It always seems to feature two heavy Best Picture favorites then fills the third slot with a movie that doesn't stand a snowball chance in hell. Ever wonder how movies like Norbit (2007), Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me (1999) and Bad Grandpa (2013) get nominated for an Academy Award? Look no further than Best Makeup. This year the Hail Mary slot goes to the impossibly titled The 100-Year-Old Man Who Climbed Out the Window and Disappeared. Yet the winner and the movie most deserving the win will ultimately be Mad Max: Fury Road.

Best Visual Effects:
Mad Max: Fury Road! Shhh, don't struggle, don't fight it, just witness.

Now we get into the production awards we kinda care about. The ones that don't need explanation but don't feature pretty people taking home a statuette. They're also the categories where Mad Max turns into a pumpkin. The awards are: Original Score, Original Song, Documentary, Animated Film, Foreign Language Film, Film Editing and Cinematography.

Best Original Score:
We have some heavy-hitters in this category. Thomas Newman who scored Bridge of Spies has been nominated 12 times. John "I provided the soundtrack to your childhood" Williams has been nominated a whopping 42 times and won 5! Then there's the legendary Ennio Morricone who has never won despite providing the soundtrack to your father's childhood. Morricone's work in The Hateful Eight is one of the few sure things this Sunday; he will be the winner. He's also is most deserving of the win even though his work on The Hateful Eight isn't as iconic as The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (1966) and Once Upon a Time in America (1984).

Best Original Song:
This category has been fun to watch over the last few years. Look back far enough and there seems to be competing patterns. Recently it's a tug-o-war between catchy tunes featured in animated movies and documentaries with showstopping anthems. For the first time ever there are two of the latter and none of the former. What's even more interesting is the Docs nominated for Best Song; Racing Extinction and The Hunting Ground aren't even nominated for Best Documentary. We live in a crazy world. The winner will be: The Hunting Ground's song "Til it Happens to You" a powerful ballad dedicated to rape victims. It will provide Lady Gaga yet another award but in this case I really do thing she deserves to win; sorry Fifty Shade of Grey.

Best Documentary:

Speaking of Documentaries, we have a very strong crop this year and it's encouraging to see that the entire genre has become so popular in recent years. In this case it's probably better to eliminate those that won't win. Winter on Fire is out; Academy voters don't like political movies period. The Look of Silence is a novel and exciting continuation of The Act of Killing (2012) (which should have won Best Doc in 2013). Sadly history repeats itself. Cartel Land is a hard-hitting social problem film that is quite frankly too depressing for Academy voters. This leaves What Happened, Miss Simone? and Amy; both about influential musicians Nina Simone and Amy Winehouse respectively. The winner will be Amy largely due to it's first run popularity. The movie that deserves to win however is The Look of Silence.

Best Animated Feature:
Another for sure thing this award season is Inside Out. I would be very surprised if it isn't the eventual winner. The film most deserving the win is definitely The Boy & the World which was one of the most fascinating animated films I have seen this decade.

Best Foreign Language Film:
Son of Saul will be the winner. It simply has too much going for it; positive word-of-mouth, it takes bold cinematic risks which, unlike Best Picture is actually encouraged in this category. Plus its story takes place during the Holocaust. Does it deserve to win however? Well Mustang comes with similar positive buzz and it features timely messages about living in a more pluralistic society. I'm going to indulge myself and say Mustang deserves the win.

Best Film Editing:
Here is where Mad Max is going to falter a bit. Yes it's nominated and yes it's the odd-on favorite though not by much. The Big Short will be the winner in this category on the strength of more American-centric themes, bigger names and previous work by editor Hank Corwin. Most deserving of the win, in my humble opinion is actually dark-horse nominee Tom McArdle for Spotlight. Nowhere is there a more tactile building of evidence and execution of themes than in Spotlight and the editing is an underrated invisible hand that we all should celebrate.

Best Cinematography:
There is so much love for The Revenant's cinematography that I find it hard to believe it won't win against Mad Max, Hateful Eight and Carol. The Revenant will not only win the award but will be cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki third win in a row. The deserved win however is Roger Deakins for Sicario who has been nominated 13 times yet has never won. Those who have seen Sicario can attest that the cinematography as the best thing about that movie.

Now we get to the categories we all care about. The ones that bring to mind the glamour and prestige that comes with watching the Oscars. These categories are not only ones we easily recognize and look forward to watching but they are most susceptible to bias. They're not just acting awards, they're lifetime achievement awards. One can't help but think that if Roger Deakins was an actor, he would have gotten his golden statue years ago. The awards are as follows: Best Original Screenplay, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Supporting Actor and Actress, Best Actor and Actress, Best Director and of course, Best Picture.

Best Original Screenplay:
The media is predicting this category to be a two movie race between Inside Out and Spotlight. Both provide some excellent writing and while Inside Out can be commended for its originality the winner will be: Spotlight. Early on it was the odds-on favorite to win Best Picture but so much steam has been taken out of its campaign as of late that it may just win Original Screenplay as a consolation prize. In my experience, the category of Original Screenplay has always featured the best film of the year. No it won't win but I think the most deserving film is Ex Machina; one of the most underrated films of the decade.

Best Adapted Screenplay:
Let's face it, the nomination process for this category was very cluttered. With the amount of biographies and movies based on novels and comic-books, I truly think they should expand this category to 10. No The Revenant wasn't nominated nor was Trumbo, Lady in the Van or Creed but Carol was! Okay let's get to it; the winner will be: The Big Short because of course it will! Most deserving to win however is The Martian which made physics, chemistry and botany actually exciting.

Best Supporting Actor:
It basically comes down to Sylvester Stallone and Mark Rylance for Creed and Bridge of Spies respectively. As I said before, the acting awards are part-lifetime achievement award thus Sly will win and finally take home the prize for playing the same damn character he's played since the start of his career. Most deserving of the prize for, you know, actually acting is hands down Tom Hardy for The Revenant who did most of the crap Leo did sans slipping into a moose carcass.

Best Supporting Actress:
This horse race is the tightest out of all the categories. It literally is a coin-toss between Alicia Vikander for The Danish Girl and Kate Winslet for Steve Jobs. Yet there's enough support for both to split the vote allowing Rooney Mara from Carol to spoil and spoil hard. Despite this risk, I'm going to have to predict Vikander as the ultimate winner. It comes down to her recent Screen Actors Guild Award and Critics' Choice Award. That and the fact that unlike Steve Jobs which is considered a lesser Aaron Sorkin film, The Danish Girl is a landmark film (for better or worse). Most deserving of the win however is...Alicia Vikander for Ex Machina. Yes I know she's not nominated for that movie but dammit she should be!

Best Actress:
Brie Larson is a forgone conclusion. She deserves to win for Room and she will win for Room. I defy the Academy to prove me wrong.

Best Actor:
Doesn't it seem like the further down we get, the more certain it becomes? It really is Leo's to lose this year and despite some minor ankle biting by Eddie Redmayne for The Danish Girl and Michael Fassbender for Steve Jobs I really don't see DiCaprio losing out to either. Leo DiCaprio in Revenant for the win! Deserved win: Channing Tatum for Jupiter Ascending; he made it through the movie without laughing, that to me is an accomplishment.

Best Director:
In the directing category, George Miller of Mad Max fame is proving a real threat to Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu who won last year for Birdman (2014) and hopes to repeat history with The Revenant. Back to back wins aren't entirely out of the realm of possibility. Joseph L. Mankiewicz won Best Director for A Letter to Three Wives (1949) and All About Eve (1950) though that was over fifty years ago. Despite believing that the deserved win should go to 70-year-old veteran George Miller the winner will ultimately be: Inarritu for The Revenant.

Best Picture:
Finally the largest and arguably the most important award of the night; Best Picture. There are eight nominees all of which are very good, high-quality films that are sure to entertain anyone who watches them. They are: The Revenant, Mad Max: Fury Road, Room, Spotlight, Brooklyn, The Martian, Bridge of Spies and The Big Short. Taken out of the running right away are Brooklyn and Bridge of Spies which, while decent films don't have that many exemplary things going for them. The Big Short and The Martian are excellent films sure to be popular long past this year's hoopla. My heart ultimately is with The Big Short though we all know that the Academy has bias towards comedies. There's a double handicap for The Martian which is also a science fiction film. This leaves The Revenant, Mad Max: Fury Road and Spotlight.

Mad Max has a lot of things going against it. It's a sci-fi action epic, it's a sequel, it's not an American production and it's a blockbuster. None of these things would be enough to handicap a movie during any given year but all these factors together all but eliminate Mad Max. Spotlight was an early favorite and its narrative; The Boston Globe's take-down of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church, was enough to give its brand a moral edge. Despite this however, The Revenant has surged into the lead thanks in part to good marketing, a certain actors inevitable, long awaited triumph and said actor's speech at the Golden Globes where Leo masterfully branded the film a movie that treats Native Americans with respect. Spotlight suddenly lost its underdog Cinderella story narrative and became "that newspaper movie" seemingly overnight. The eventual winner will be: The Revenant.

Waking Ned Devine

Year: 1998
Genre: Comedy
Directed: Kirk Jones
Stars: Ian Bannen, David Kelly, Fionnula Flanagan, Susan Lynch, James Nesbitt, Adrian Robinson, Maura O'Malley, Jimmy Keogh
Production: Tomboy Films

In a word, Waking Ned Devine is delightful. It brings to mind similar small-town comedies like Cold Turkey (1971) The Full Monty (1997) and more recently The Amateurs (2005) only with a decidedly more Irish sense of humor. The film opens with the elderly Jackie (Bannen) and wife Annie (Flanagan) watching the lottery on TV. Jackie has been playing for years and isn't the least bit surprised he's not a winner. The next day there are rumors about town that someone in the village had indeed won big and in an attempt to ferret them out, everyone starts playing nice. Among the suspected winners is Pig Finn (Nesbitt) a poor farmer with a crush on local beauty Maggie (Lynch). After a while Jackie finds out the winner was elderly fisherman Ned Devine (Keogh) who died from the shock of it.

From that point on the movie remodels into a bit of a caper in the style of Whisky Galore (1949). Jackie and his friend Michael O'Sullivan (Kelly) decide it's best to claim the money for themselves (it's what Ned would have wanted), and attempt to defraud the lottery to the dismay of the sensible Maggie who just as soon not see her husband in jail. They come up with a plan which all turns in on itself when the Lotto Observer comes to the sleepy town of Tullymore making inquiries.

The film's state of mind is one of serene goofiness. We laugh but not in the same way you would an overly broad piece of American slapstick. We're laughing with the eccentric townsfolk not at them. It's a little story about little people doing things of such importance to them, that you as the audience can't help but invest in their happiness. It helps that the entire film takes place in Ireland (though really on The Isle of Man). The stunning greenly beauty of the island helps put these characters into perspective. Every small village home and tiny store seems to melt into the rolling hills, rocky cliffs and leafy wood. There's almost a sense of nobility in how these people live and the relationships that they have formed with one another.

Everyone in the community of Tullymore does a fine job as an ensemble though if one were to point at a stand out it would be David Kelly who approaches the entire situation with elderly naivety. "Michael's never lied a day in his life," Annie says without intent to compliment. And indeed Kelly doesn't wear dishonesty well. He fidgets under scrutiny and can only be properly convincing as Ned Devine's double after a few drinks. Yet there's a deeper truth to what the character tries to do and when he finally comes to terms with the true meaning of the lottery and how much good the money can do, he goes along with the ruse. Also worth mentioning is Maura O'Malley as the town misanthrope Mrs. Kennedy. She drives her scooter across town with the wicked determinism of Margaret Hamilton on a broom.

Waking Ned Devine is a spirited slice-of-life comedy that amuses with the power and quirk of the ensemble. It features some stunning images of Isle of Man which automatically put the small island on my already lengthy must-see list. Finally, it exhibits some excellently sharp directing and screenwriting on the part of Kirk Jones. With a deft mix of black comedy and quaint small-town Provincialism, Jones and the entire crew behind this film know a small story can yield big heart and hearty laughs.

Final Grade: B-

The Lady in the Van

Year: 2015
Genre: Comedy
Directed: Nicholas Hytner
Stars: Maggie Smith, Alex Jennings, Roger Allam, Deborah Findlay, Jim Broadbent, Richard Griffiths, Pandora Colin, Nicholas Burns, Dominic Cooper, Gwen Taylor
Production: BBC Films

The film begins with our protagonist Miss Shepherd (Smith) driving through the English countryside hoping to avoid a policeman. There is blood splattered against her cracked windshield and a flustered look on Shepherd's face. We then meet our narrator Alan Bennett (Jennings) a playwright who has just moved to the quiet middle-class neighborhood of Camden. He is of two minds; one who writes fastidiously while the other takes care of the daily functions of his life. The doppelgangers argue about the trajectory of his work, both deciding he lacks the excitement of Hemingway and the complexities of Proust. Then Miss Shepherd moves into the neighborhood, setting her dilapidated van along the street to the horror of Camden's well-to-do residents.

Dame Maggie Smith has had a long and illustrious career to be sure. A consistently tremendous force on the stage and screen, Smith has been in show-business since the 1950's and not once has she faltered with an abysmal performance. The Lady in the Van is certainly no exception. She takes on the role she first popularized on the stage play  with gusto relishing in the tiniest little moments that breathe life into Shepherd. So popular was her portrayal on stage that she was nominated for Best Actress at the Olivier Awards and this year she was similarly nominated for a Golden Globe.

Alas The Lady in the Van is not simply about Shepherd and her cantankerous run-ins with neighbors, social workers and Alan. Alan's struggle to come to terms with his sickly mother, his circumspect sexuality and his writing, at one point putting on a monologue on London's West End which goes badly. Alex Jennings tries hard to make his duel role stick but his periodic subplots feel airy, lack conflict and pad time in between Smith's charming homeless-woman stunts and his own droll voiceover narration. He's not a real character or at least one we really care about. He's simply the vessel in which the story carries itself while Smith is the showcase.

While it's easy to see how this film's source material is stage-driven, director Nicholas Hytner does a fine job elevating the story in a more cinematic way. He used his eye to similar aplomb in The Madness of King George (1994) which delved into similar themes albeit in a much grander way. We get a picturesque view of springtime Camden with all the trappings of upper-middle class opulence. In such an environment, Shepherds garish van sticks out like a sore thumb jabbing at the neighbors sensibilities. Despite the main conflict surrounding what the neighborhood should to with their local reprobate, none of them are treated as outright monsters. The film takes place within a 15-year time span thus what eventually becomes a nuisance morphs into a local mainstay.

There's one piece of The Lady in the Van puzzle that must be addressed and that is the outstanding score by five time Oscar nominee George Fenton. His original music is grand and bittersweet which perfectly matches the emotional core of the film. He borrows some insightful leitmotifs from Shostakovich and Tchaikovsky while also presenting some specific pieces by Schubert and Chopin. One particular piece; an impromptu by Schubert does such a good job portraying the sadness and sense of guilt of Miss Shepherd, that it ranks up there with the Chopin ballad scene in The Pianist (2002) as best example of classical music translating character emotion.

Yet in spite of some stellar music, one showstopping performance on the part of Maggie Smith and a kindly message about transience, The Lady in the Van can't help but feel almost too sweet. It's a movie that will put a warm smile on your face and keep it there but it won't stick with you long after you've left the theater. That's not altogether a bad thing though; if you're craving for some wholesome entertainment sure to warm your heart, The Lady in the Van is certainly worth your time.

Final Grade: C