JOY Is a Great American Epic In Search of A Plot

 JOY Review:

- On paper, JOY seems like it's got the goods to be another successful David O. Russell / Jennifer Lawrence collaboration. But in practice, this one - while it has its moments - lacks the energy and momentum of Russell's recent films. Say what you want about Silver Linings Playbook and American Hustle, but both of those movies zoomed along with a constant barrage of sharp dialogue, visual fireworks, and quick-moving plotlines. JOY, on the other hand, feels like a would-be epic in search of a plot that can actually fill its over-two-hour running time. There just doesn't seem to be the raw material here with which to craft the Great American Story that Russell seems to be grasping for.

JOY tells the true-life story of Joy Mangano - a woman of modest means from a working-class Italian-American family. As a child, Joy was a dreamer and a maker of things - her doting grandmother was sure, and told her repeatedly, that she was destined for great things - and Joy thought so too. But then, life got in the way. Joy's father left her mom (his second wife), Joy got married young to a Venezuelan sometimes-singer, had two kids, and then got divorced soon after, and Joy got stuck living with her soap opera-obsessed mother and grandmother cleaning up after their messes. Also, her father and ex-husband moved back in - both live in the basement, even though they hate each other. Joy sees no way out of the less-than-ideal life she's fallen into, until one day, she strikes upon a spark of inspiration. After injuring her had while mopping up broken glass, she comes up with the idea of a self-wringing mop. It's a simple but clever idea, and Joy sees it as her ticket out and onward to a better life.

The first part of JOY is a lot of fun. Russell tends to be at the top of his game when he's directing scenes of rapid-fire comedic banter - and that's exactly what we get as we're introduced to Joy's dysfunctional family. Robert De Niro in particular is in top form here as Joy's dad. De Niro kills it as the owner of a body shop who, despite living in his ex-wife's basement, has quite the active dating life. Virginia Madsen is also really funny as Joy's homebody mom, content to stay curled up in bed all day watching her soaps. Out of the gate, it's a lot of fun just spending time with Joy's wacky family.

There's also a really well done sequence in which Joy pitches her Miracle Mop to the then-fledgling QVC shop-from-home TV station. Joy's astonishment at the TV studio, coupled with Bradley Cooper (as QVC head Neil Walker's) enthusiasm for the on-the-rise operation, makes for some really entertaining moments.

The problem here is that the interesting part of Joy's story is essentially over once she finds success through QVC. After that, there's lots of manufactured drama about finances and patents - but the emotional arc of Joy's story is already long-complete. The larger problem lies in the fact that Joy's story is a good one, but it's also a fairly simple one. And Russell seems to struggle to find the right angle with which to elevate it into a sprawling cinematic parable. Seemingly as a way to overcompensate for the lack of meat to this story, Russell layers in a lot of overlong music-set montages of Lawrence's Joy strutting her stuff and looking really determined and ready to take on the world. By the fourth or fifth time we've seen Joy dramatically put on a pair of sunglasses as if to say "yeah, I'm a badass now," well, we sort of get the point.

And so, it's up to the always-great Lawrence and the excellent supporting cast to really carry the film with their performances. Lawrence gives it her best shot - and she really is great. She makes potentially throwaway moments - like Joy grabbing a shotgun and doing some impromptu target practice to get out her aggression - memorable and iconic. But Lawrence does actually feel a bit miscast here. Joy as written seems like she's got to be someone worn and tired and aging. But Lawrence has too much youthful spunk and energy to be 100% convincing as someone who's had to raise two kids and two parents on her own. Still, Lawrence makes even the movie's draggiest scenes at least watchable, so there's that.

I will mention though that one of the best supporting cast turns here is Isabella Rossellini as Trudy - De Niro's new special lady friend, a rich widow who Joy hopes will be an early investor in her mop. Rossellini is hilarious here - playing a woman who increasingly reveals herself to be a left-of-center oddball, with all sorts of out-there ideas from her late husband about the cutthroat nature of business. 

JOY starts off pretty strong, but it loses a lot of momentum as it goes. It's clear from the beginning that this is a story about female empowerment and about how, with grit and determination, anyone can make it in America with the right idea. But I kept waiting for another spin on these ideas, a twist, turn, or some ultimate takeaway that would cap the movie off with a profound exclamation point. But that exclamation point never really came, and the film ends with more of a whimper than a bang. JOY feels like exactly the *kind* of movie that David O. Russell wants to make. But it doesn't quite feel like the movie it should have or could have been.

My Grade: B

THE HUNGER GAMES: MOCKINGJAY - PART 2 Is Too Much Filler, Only Some Killer

THE HUNGER GAMES: MOCKINGJAY - PART 2 Review:

So ... that was The Hunger Games. In the sum total of things, there is a lot to like about these movies: Jennifer Lawrence's consistently fantastic lead performance, an intriguing mytharc about rebellion against a totalitarian regime, and an overall message of empowerment that is a net positive for the series' primary audience of kids and teens. But watching yet another Part 2 of what should have been a one-and-done film, a little cynicism can't help but creep in. MOCKINGJAY PT. 2 is stretched-out storytelling, mostly filler - balanced out by a handful of killer sequences that give the movie some desperately-needed injections of excitement. But where previous Hunger Games films have managed to shed a lot of the genre-trappings of the YA world in order to deliver some surprisingly gritty and epic narrative, this final chapter constantly reminds you that it's YA all the way. Why worry about the fate of the world when there's pining and brooding to be done?

The final Hunger Games film picks up directly after the events of the previous chapter - the resistance forces are mounting their ultimate attack on President Snow and the Capitol, even as Katniss - whom the resistance leaders still view mostly as a figurehead - deals with the fallout of Peeta's mind-altering infection by Snow. Peeta is now in a mentally-unbalanced state, slowly regaining some semblance of his old self, but still prone to turning on his friends at any moment and sabotaging their plans. Katniss, for her part, is determined to be more than just a spokesperson - she sneaks her way into the ground troops and devises her own plan to splinter off, leading a group of trusted allies on an attack designed to take out Snow once and for all.

Here's the thing - the movie has at least two major sequences that are total stunners. There's no question that director Francis Lawrence has action-movie chops, and when he gets to cut loose - as he does in a legit-awesome sequence in which Katniss and her friends are attacked by rabid subterranean creatures - he turns in some fantastic stuff. The aforementioned action scene, set in the sewer system leading into the Capitol, ranks as perhaps the best single action scene in the entire franchise. It's that good. There's also a climactic scene - in which Katniss holds the fate of Snow in her hands - that's staged to perfection. It's got exactly the sort of epicness and high-stakes drama that you'd want out of the final chapter of this series. Even though you can sort of see the big "twist" in the scene coming, it hardly matters - it's just a riveting, nail-biting, goosebump-giving scene.

So why isn't the movie as a whole better? Because in between these big moments, there's a ton of padding. And it's not even the right kind of padding. The movie would actually benefit, for example, from spending a lot more time with Julianne Moore's President Alma Coin, who plays a pivotal role in the film. But because we've only spent a short amount of time coming to undersand- really understand - her character, her big moments feel sort of arbitrary. What is spent time on is endless doe-eyed pining. And sadly, the teen-romance stuff in The Hunger Games has always fallen pretty flat. I mean, Liam Hemsworth's Gale is pretty much useless throughout the entire series - and his upped screentime here can't hide the fact that he's a hollow character who never seems at all worthy of Katniss' affections. Josh Hutcherson's Peeta is an even bigger dork - and the fact that his main role in this film is to brood and hate himself doesn't help. Sadly, the supporting characters who really popped in previous films - like Jena Malone's Johanna Mason, Natalie Dormer's Cressida, Jeffrey Wright's Beetee, and Elizabeth Banks' Effie Trinket - are largely sidelined here (even more sadly, this film does feature some final scenes from the late great Philip Seymour Hoffman as Plutarch - and he is, as always, excellent).

And so the burden of carrying the movie and elevating it largely falls on J-Law's capable shoulders. Luckily, Lawrence always seems to be up to the task of bringing depth, intensity, and likability to Katniss - singlehandedly giving the movie a gravitas it might never have come close to approaching otherwise. A scene in which a devastated Lawrence returns to her old home is a perfect example - there's not much to the scene, but Lawrence kills it with an emotional, raw performance. Suffice it to say, Lawrence more than earns her paycheck on these films.

There are some interesting thematic things going on here, and for that I give the movie, and the series, credit. It should be no surprise that a series about kids being forced to battle to the death can go to some dark places, but the series' YA sheen sometimes makes you forget its darker thematic aspects. In this film, there is a legitimately interesting narrative thread about the inherent corruptness of government and the flaw of assuming that the new regime will be better than the old. Again, it makes you wish that the series dared to spend more time and energy on these threads. But the fact that they are there at all makes this a bit more than mere YA fluff, and certainly there are some interesting concepts here to digest post-viewing.

Ultimately, The Hunger Games is what it is, and I give the film series credit for giving us a politically-charged action franchise with a great female protagonist and an interesting universe. But MOCKINGJAY PT. 2 is far from the franchise's strongest entry, even in spite of a couple of franchise-best moments. The pacing here is just too labored and too filled with filler to solidify this as the killer ending that the series needed to truly go out with a bang. Hopefully, the series' legacy will be more thoughtful sci-fi films of this ilk that meld blockbuster sensibilities with character diversity and thematic depth.

My Grade: B

THE HUNGER GAMES: MOCKINGJAY - PART 1 Never Quite Catches Fire

 

THE HUNGER GAMES: MOCKINGJAY - PART 1 Review:

- There's a lot to like about the Hunger Games franchise. In an era when it still feels like we're lacking for female-driven blockbusters on the big screen, The Hunger Games stands as a defiant example of just how wrong and shortsighted big studios can be when it comes to diversifying their tentpole franchises. Katniss Everdeen as played by Jennifer Lawrence kicks all kinds of ass, and Lawrence is surrounded by a supporting cast littered with top-notch talent - from Philip Seymour Hoffman to Elizabeth Banks to Donald Sutherland to Jeffrey Wright to Julianne Moore (joining the series with Mockingjay) - who help to elevate The Hunger Games beyond what it might have been otherwise. That said, MOCKINGJAY, PART 1 also exhibits some of the worst tendencies of modern franchise filmmakiing: artificially extending a story to maximize revenue rather than because it's creatively justified, and in doing so presenting a decompressed storyline that is too frequently filled up with scenes of characters literally just sitting and talking in ways that don't drive the plot forward. MOCKINGJAY has its share of memorable, exciting moments - and Lawrence is as great as ever. But in its need to fill out two hours with only half a story, the film takes on the vibe of a 22-episode CW series - lots of on-the-nose dialogue seemingly inserted just to keep things from moving ahead too quickly. To put it simply, MOCKINGJAY is less killer, more filler.

When we last left off at the end of Catching Fire, Katniss' dome-shattering flaming arrow - a dramatic end to the all-star edition of The Hunger Games - had helped spur revolution across Pan-Em. Katniss found herself whisked away by a previously-secret band of freedom fighters that included old flame Gale (Liam Hemsworth) and former games-master Plutarch Heavensbee. Now, the group - housed in a fortified underground compound (also there: a de-glammed Effie Trinket and Wright's science-whiz Beetee), wants Katniss to be the spokesperson for their revolutionary movement. Katniss is reluctant, but she agrees when she realizes that her Hunger Games companion, Peeta, has become a mouthpiece for President Snow's evil empire. Katniss decides to go out on the frontlines with a camera crew, and broadcast the Snow-inflicted devastation and tyranny to the masses (thanks to Beetee's hacking of the airwaves). All the while, tensions escalate as all-out war looms.

There's some really great, effective stuff in this film. There are some really funny and fun moments in which Katniss is awkwardly prepped by Julianne Moore's revolutionary leader Alma Coin - and a braintrust that includes Hoffman's Plutarch and Woody Harrelson's returning (and struggling-to-be-sober) Haymitch - to be the TV-friendly leader of the cause. Later, as the revolution gains steam, there's an absolutely fantastic scene of Katniss singing a rousing spiritual hymn to her friends, which then - in a stunning montage - becomes the battle hymn of revolutionaries throughout Pan-Em. There's also a super-sweet action sequence in which Katniss shoots down Snow's aircraft with incendiary arrows. I generally like director Francis Lawrence, and he's got a knack for crafting really epic, really effective apocalyptic imagery. And so another highlight of the film are some pretty jaw-dropping scenes that portray the destruction and death caused by Snow's systematic annihilation of problematic Districts in Pan-Em. Yep, in MOCKINGJAY we see Katniss drop to her knees and cry out helplessly among skeleton-filled ruins of destroyed cities - pretty epic - and surprisingly dark - stuff. In and of themselves, there are plenty of moments here that set the stage quite nicely for the coming final battle.

However, there are also lots of moments that remind me of the sorts of stuff we tend to see on TV shows that have to uncomfortably fill up 22 hours of airtime every season: people sitting around, talking, in a way that grinds the momentum of the storytelling to a screeching halt. We all know the kinds of scenes I'm talking about from shows like The Walking Dead: one character walks into a room, finds another character brooding there, and the two proceed to have a "deep" conversation in which they verbalize what we could already infer from their actions - often through pointless anecdotes or meandering confessions. Some may praise the inclusion of these scenes in MOCKINGJAY, and call it character-building. Sure, on the surface, yes. But I call it filler. It's ironic, because there's actually a scene in this movie where Haymitch reminds the rebellion's braintrust of Katniss' most memorable moments in her rise to fame, in an effort to dissuade them from trying too hard to package her in an artificial or forced-feeling manner for their propaganda pieces. Haymitch's words should have also been taken to heart by the filmmakers: what we remember about this series are the character moments that come organically in service of the plot, not those that feel like a forced way to shoehorn more "characterization" These scenes also constrict Frances Lawrence, as he's reduced to shooting lots of static scenes of two characters in a room having protracted heart-to-hearts. By the end of the movie, momentum just seems all but drained - rendering even the big, would-be-heart-pounding attack on the rebellion's compound feel pretty blah. The movie rallies in the final few minutes with a surprising final twist, but the shocker is more in its horror-movie-esque, jump-scare delivery than with the actual plot ramifications.

Luckily, the franchise's ace-in-the-hole is still Jennifer Lawrence, who carries the whole Hunger Games on her shoulders and makes even the film's weaker scenes work as well as they possibly could. It's funny, pop-culture watchers are so frequently exposed to Lawrence's goofy, good-natured real-life persona that it's easy to forget how badass and epic of a hero she is as Katniss. The real heart and soul of the film is Katniss' rise from accidental hero to genuine leader and revolutionary. And this is where the movie really soars - again, in large part thanks to Lawrence's performance. Lawrence makes Katniss' gradual acceptance of her role in the revolution feel natural and earned, and so the movie's true climax isn't any plot twist or battle, but a late-movie scene in which a crowd of tattered, embattled citizens collectively show their allegiance and loyalty to Katniss.

Unfortunately, as good as Lawrence is, and as good as some of the supporting cast is (Moore is fantastic as always, and Seymour-Hoffman - RIP - makes even the smallest of moments pop) ... there are still some clear weak links. Josh Hutcherson has gotten better as this series has progressed, but as Petah, he still feels outmatched and outclassed by Lawrence. And I'm not sure how much of this is on Liam Hemsworth, and how much is the script's poor development of Gale, but the character still feels pretty lifeless, present more so to deliver the requisite love-triangle component of the story (this is still YA, afterall), than anything else. The young women of this world continue to outshine their male counterparts. In Catching Fire that was true of Jenna Malone's standout turn as Johanna (she pops up briefly here), and is again true in MOCKINGJAY with the addition of Game of Thrones' Natalie Dormer, as Katniss-documentarian Cressida. Dormer does well for herself here, stealing a couple of scenes via sheer presence and badassery.

I wouldn't necessarily have minded the first MOCKINGJAY film ending on a cliffhanger if it felt right, and if there seemed like enough material in this one to justify a story-split. But sadly, this does sort of feel like half a movie, and worse, it feels like a movie that is very padded and diluted in the name of ensuring the franchise's extension into four chapters. I'll always enjoy Lawrence in this role, and the stacked supporting cast keeps things interesting. But the decompressed storytelling makes MOCKINGJAY feel more like an episode of a primetime TV soap, and less like the penultimate chapter of the big dystopian action franchise that it is and should be. The movie feels less like it's barreling towards an epic conclusion, and more like it's out for a leisurely stroll. Sure, I'm onboard for the final chapter. But at this point, it's a bit more out of obligation than genuine excitement for what's to come.

My Grade: B-

X-MEN: DAYS OF FUTURE PAST Is The Best and Biggest X-Men Film Yet

X-MEN: DAYS OF FUTURE PAST Review:

- The Bryan Singer-directed X-MEN films were huge in their day. Rarely had we seen beloved comic book superheroes adapted for the big screen with so much seriousness of tone and purpose. Despite some clunky moments, these movies generated an excitement for comic book-based films that had not been seen since the Tim Burton Batman days. And yet ... I don't know if those movies 100% aged well, at least in my own mind. As much as the X-Men films took their characters seriously, there was also a sort of self-hating dullness to the films that now feels dated next to the colorful, comic-book roots-embracing Avengers films. Singer's muted colors, workmanlike black leather character uniforms, and eschewing of beloved comic tropes in favor of realism (reportedly Hugh Jackman had to beg Singer to let Wolverine call someone "bub") was a mixed blessing. It was, likely, what was needed to erase the day-glo nightmare memories of Joel Schumaker's abhorrent Batman films. But the X-films also felt like a bit of a letdown to those raised on the colorful sci-fi soap-opera of the 80's and 90's cartoons and comic books.

But lo and behold, DAYS OF FUTURE PAST is Singer's most sci-fi, most over-the-top, and most epic X-Men movie by a mile. It fully embraces its plot's time-travel wackiness, and revels in comic book-style action scenes, high-concept sci-fi imagery, and a sense of anything-can-happen fun that previously eluded this franchise.

Loosely based on the classic Chris Claremont / John Bryne comic book story from the 80's, the new movie sees Wolverine sent back in time from an apocalyptic present (a grim, black-sky dystopia in which the few surviving mutants wage a hopeless war against the all-conquering robotic Sentinels), to the swingin' 70's ... in hopes of preventing disaster. As in the comics, Professor Xavier believes that if a pivotal assassination attempt planned by Mystique were to be thwarted, then it would prevent a chain of events leading to mass public anti-Mutant sentiment, and thus the creation of the Sentinels. But unlike the comics, where Kitty Pryde sends her older-self's consciousness back in time to inhabit her younger self's body, the movie version has franchise favorite Wolverine make the timestream trek. Since Wolvie doesn't age (theoretically), it makes sense that he'd be the one to go back. Plus, in the movie, it's explained that only Wolverine and his healing powers can withstand the mental toll of the process, which is, it seems, now one of Kitty's abilities (so she can phase through walls, and *also* transfer people's minds back in time - random).

But the great thing about the whole set-up is that it gives Singer and co. an excuse to have a dream-melding of his original X-cast with that of Matthew Vaughan's well-regarded X-Men: First Class prequel. That film was a breath of fresh air, bringing talented actors like Michael Fassbender, James McAvoy, and Jennifer Lawrence into the fold. Once again, these three are huge spark plugs, and help to cover some of the weak spots that existed in the supporting cast of Singer's original lineup. And it's also just a lot of fanboyish fun to see the old and young versions of Professor X and Magneto in the same film. In particular, Patrick Stewart gets some great moments with McAvoy as his younger self. And let's face it, any excuse to bring back the legendary duo of Stewart and Ian McKellan is cause for much rejoicing. They quite simply rule (and as great as Fassbender is as a younger Magneto, he still can't match the sheer gravitas of McKellan in rage-mode).

Lawrence's Mystique is also a huge focus here. Rightfully so, I think, given how talented of an actress Lawrence is. And the actress does a fine job of making the character into more than just a badass in leaves-nothing-to-the-imagination blue body paint (though she is that, too). Here, Mystique is sort of the pendulum at the center of the eternal morality play being waged between Xavier and Magneto. To stand up for Mutantkind through peace and understanding, or through blunt force and aggression? The issue is forced by Peter Dinklage's Bolivar Trask, an anti-Mutant crusader and father of the Sentinel program. Future Xavier and his fellow X-Men know that Mystique's attack on Trask would lead to his Sentinels getting funding and eventually decimating the planet, Skynet-style. And so the fate of the future lies largely in Mystique's vengeful blue hands.

Singer populates the film with some of the most ingeniously shot set-pieces he's ever put to film. The biggest highlight comes thanks to the newly-introduced Quicksilver, a laid-back speedster who performs dazzling light-speed feats all while chilling to hippie rock on his slightly anachronistic headphones. Played by American Horror Story's Evan Peters, Quicksilver is one of the best new additions to the cast. And his big showpiece set piece - in which he makes quick (but seen in slo-mo) work of a room full of armed assailants - is emblematic of what makes this movie better than all other X-movies. It's fun, dazzling, funny, and fully embraces the potential of the character's powers. Singer also gets some good mileage out of Nicholas Holt's Beast, who gets to shine both in his geeky scientist guise and in his ass-kicking Mutant form.

The combination of Singer's seemingly reinvigorated direction with a surprisingly lean, mean, and effective script by Simon Kinberg makes the movie work in a way that it probably shouldn't. There's a lot going on here, but Kinberg's script ties everything together in a very digestible way that mixes plenty of solid character and emotional beats into the big sci-fi tapestry. Yes, Wolverine serves as our central character, but the movie soon morphs into a great Xavier / Magneto story that also feels like closure, of sorts, to this entire chapter of the X-Men cinematic saga. That said, the time-travel conceit allows for the kind of big, comic-bookish stuff that we really haven't seen before in the mainline X-movies. We get teams of X-Men fighting off legions of invading Sentinels in a Matrix-esque future. We get big, world-ending stakes. We get an anything-can-happen set-up in which all bets are off - with time-travel shenanigans going on, favorite characters can die at any time, maybe even on multiple occasions. And of course, the movie introduces a concept very familiar to comic book fans, but perhaps a bit of a revelation for newbies - the idea of the retcon. Basically, the time-travel hijinks give Singer and Kinberg the ability to selectively, retroactively undo a few choice developments from previous X-Men films (cough*3*cough), wiping the slate clean for future installments, but also just sort of leaving the house (or manor, in this case) in order.

DAYS OF FUTURE PAST really surprised me. Going in, I was weary of yet another X-Men movie, and weary of yet another film in which Hugh Jackman's Wolverine takes center stage. I wanted Ellen Page's Kitty Pryde to get some love, and for the franchise to move in a new direction more in line with The Avengers and other Marvel studios films. I wanted the bright colors and melodrama of the comics and cartoons. Well, this one may not have bright colors, but it did capture the bigness and craziness that made The Uncanny X-Men the biggest thing since sliced bread in the 80's and 90's. It's a fun movie, plain and simple, and has about everything you could ask for in an X-Men/First-Class passing-of-the-torch film. There are nice callbacks to the previous movies, as well as some nice stage-setting for stories yet to come. This is pretty much the ultimate Brian Singer X-Men movie, both keeping what worked about the older films but also addressing some of the issues. I'd still like to see the X-films take a different path after this one, but this is a film that elevates the franchise as a whole.

My Grade: A-

AMERICAN HUSTLE Captures The Spirit of '78

AMERICAN HUSTLE Review:

- David O. Russell's latest, AMERICAN HUSTLE, is a stylistic exercise in 70's-era excess - packed to the brim with big-name stars, over-the-top moments, and energy to spare. You might call it Scorsese lite. The film pays homage to the twisty, whip-crack narratives of films like Goodfellas and Casino, and borrows heavily from Scorsese's trademark crime-as-rock-n'-roll aesthetic. The "lite" part comes from American Hustle's relatively breezy plotline. Whereas Scorsese's crime films are about dangerous men doing dangerous things, Russell's movie is about con-men, poseurs, and wannabes trying to be something other than what they really are. So the "lite" label isn't a knock - instead, the jokiness and satirical nature of the film is intentional, a mirror of the characters, their rather absurd schemes, and of the era in which they lived. A flip disclaimer at the top of the film claims that it's only partially based on true events. As American Hustle progresses, you can see why: this is a film less about capturing the details of what really happened, and more about capturing the spirit of 1978 - in all of its gaudy glory.

The film follows small-time partners-in-crime Irving Rosenfeld (Christian Bale) and Sydney Prosser (Amy Adams) - two opportunistic con-artists who meet at a party, bond over a shared love of Duke Ellington, fall in love, and quickly go into business together - dealing forged art and handing out fake loans. The film opens with a painfully comic scene in which we see Irv put in place an absurdly elaborate comb-over, and from the get-go, it's clear that he is a man living out any number of lies upon lies. In fact, Irv's marital situation is revealed, at least at first, as merely a casual inconvenience. We soon find out though that Irv is married to a piece-of-work woman, Rosalyn (Jennifer Lawrence), and has a young son, which further complicates his relationship with Sydney. Sydney, meanwhile, has taken to using an English accent and telling prospective clients that she can get them a large and quick loan through banking connections in London. Soon enough, she all but completely hides her true self from others. Eventually, Irv and Sydney's scams attract the attention of an ambitious FBI agent, Richie DiMaso (Bradley Cooper). Rather than simply apprehend the pair, DiMaso has plans to use them to achieve a larger goal: utilizing Irv and Sydney's con-artist expertise, he plans to set up and entrap a number of high-profile politicians, convincing them to take political funds from disreputable sources, including the mob. One of the key targets: a well-meaning, much-loved politician - Mayor Carmine Polito (Jeremy Renner), who Irv and Sydney must set up to take a big fall. This is all based on the real-life ABSCAM operation that was run by the FBI in the 70's.

Like I said, AMERICAN HUSTLE is populated by a total all-star cast, and just about every star shines brightly. My pick for MVP of the film is Christian Bale. His Irv feels like the most nuanced, well-rounded character in the movie - a guy who was taught from a young age to succeed at all costs. Irv is a walking contradiction: an outwardly smooth operator who bottles up stress to the point where he frequently collapses and needs emergency heart medication. He's madly in love with Sydney, but can't bring himself to run away with her, for fear of abandoning his son (he'd likely leave his unhinged wife without a second thought). Aside from the character work that Bale puts into Irv, the sheer physical transformation is pretty astonishing. Bale walks with a slight hunch and a hint of pain, he moves deliberately but confidently. He inhabits this character to the last detail.

Amy Adams is also pretty spectacular as Sydney (aside, even, from her rotating wardrobe of plunging-neckline dresses). It's incredible to me how versatile of an actress she is - she's played everything from Disney princesses to tough Boston broods to Lois Lane - but here, she again knocks it out of the park. Sydney parallels Irv in many ways. Outwardly, she's glamorous and sharp and magnetic. But beneath the surface is a troubled woman harboring a lot of sadness, rage, and a major identity crisis.

Bradley Cooper emerged as a legit actor in David O. Russell's last film, Silver Linings Playbook - and his hot streak continues here. Cooper is funny and semi-disturbing as DiMaso, who is prone to Pesci-like bouts of violent rage, and whose "good guy" status as an FBI agent is seriously compromised by his propensity for lying and manipulation. He plays DiMaso as a coked-up, hyperactive guy who is semi-blinded by ambition. Despite his denials, he clearly wants to be the guy to find and expose the next Watergate scandal.

As for Jennifer Lawrence, she's great as Rosalyn, although it's the one part that feels a little like stunt casting. Lawrence is capable of playing older than she is, but it still feels like this boozy, had-it-up-to-here housewife character was meant for an older actress. Even so, Lawrence turns in a typically fantastic performance, and she nails the kind of melodramatic, comedic tone needed to really sell the part.

The film is also littered with great supporting performances. Some of them are, I think, supposed to be a bit of a surprise, so I won't spoil them all here. But I will say that when you've got even minor roles in a film filled by great actors like Shea Wigham and Jack Huston of Boardwalk Empire, you know you've got a stacked cast.

What's interesting about the film is how lies bleed into truth and vice versa. Sydney's insistence that she cozy up to DiMaso to get a leg up on him becomes real-life mutual attraction. Irv's dealings with Polito form a genuine friendship between the two that makes Irv question his plans. And Rosalyn ends up getting mixed up in Irv's plans after she becomes a favorite of Polito and his wife. Through it all, Irv and Sydney get pulled apart, played against one another by DiMaso, and see a rift form between them. But they keep circling one another - and the movie posits that, perhaps, their relationship is the one real, true thing in this whole crazy mess.

AMERICAN HUSTLE suffers a bit from a problem that plagues too many films these days: it's too long. While I normally am a long-film apologist, this one definitely feels dragged out beyond what was needed to tell its story most effectively. Part of the problem is that the movie seems to stumble a bit, in general, to figure out what it's all about. There are some obvious overarching themes - some of which I've talked about above. But sometimes, the movie feels unpredictable in a way that's not necessarily good - meaning, there's a sense that Russell and co-writer Eric Singer are trying to figure out, as they go, where and how things end up for these characters. Whereas the Scorsese films that this emulates tend to play out like clockwork, American Hustle seems messier and less sure of itself. The emphasis is on the style (prepare to be wowed by a psychedelic disco scene) and the big, melodramatic moments. But the plotting ends up taking a back seat.

Still, as a style exercise, the film is second-to-none. And as I've insinuated, the movie's semi-hollowness is, in a strange way, keeping with its biggest theme. Just as DiMaso's entrapment plan is really a desperate career-advancement move disguised as a noble pursuit of justice, you might argue that AMERICAN HUSTLE is gaudy kitsch disguised as serious cinema. But hey, that's okay, because that's the point. That may, ultimately, prevent this film from being held up alongside the Scorsese classics it's being compared to. But it does not, certainly, prevent it from being one of the most dazzlingly entertaining films of the year.

My Grade: A-

THE HUNGER GAMES: CATCHING FIRE Is Bigger, Better, But Still Lacking Some Spark

THE HUNGER GAMES: CATCHING FIRE Review:

- There's a lot to like about THE HUNGER GAMES. Unlike some of its teen-lit inspired peers, this is a franchise that has a beating heart beneath its attractive leads and soap opera love triangles. This is a franchise that actually has an interesting sci-fi narrative, and that isn't afraid to mix in some legitimate social commentary between all the teen drama. On top of that, this is a franchise that has perhaps the single best young actress working today as its lead, and it can't be understated just how much star Jennifer Lawrence brings to these films, and how she shapes Katniss into a true female-empowerment icon, a direct middle finger to all those who say a female action hero can't carry a major Hollywood franchise. Lawrence, with her top-notch action chops, carries the weight of Catching Fire on her shoulders, although here the burden is slightly less than in the first film. Now, she's helped by great new cast additions like Philip Seymour Hoffman, Jeffrey Wright, and Jena Malone.

Still, as much as I want to get fully onboard the Hunger Games bandwagon, I just can't fully commit. Why? Because the movies have yet to be great. Lawrence alone gets them halfway there, and Catching Fire director Francis Lawrence (I Am Legend) brings some visual wow-factor to the table that wasn't present previously. A beefed-up supporting cast also helps this sequel feel like a notch above the first film. But a couple of problems prevent Catching Fire from being, in and of itself, an A-level movie.

One major issue: adaptation-itis. Yep, you heard me. This is yet another book-to-screen translation that feels jumpy, incomplete, and hyper-compressed. The hyper-compression factor is lessened by the fact that actors like Malone and Wright are able to do so much with such relatively miniscule screentime - making their characters feel fully realized by sheer presence and force of will. But what suffers is that, even as the movie seems to want to go big, to show us the larger effect that the Games are having on this world ... it still feels like a very narrowly-focused story, to the detriment of the narrative. THE HUNGER GAMES is all about Katniss' experience in the games - about a teen girl thrust into this kill-or-be-killed gladiatorial scenario. But CATCHING FIRE is about the aftermath - the seeds of revolution being planted. It's about, in theory, Katniss no longer being just a reactive contestant, but a proactive revolutionary. Cool? Yeah, very cool. But between the poorly thought-out plans of President Snow (Donald Sutherland) - whose schemes to make Katniss a symbol of the government's might seem doomed from the start - and the lack of visibility we get into the reactions of the average person-on-the-street in Pan Em, it feels like we're missing something here.

I'll first touch on the scheming that takes place between Snow and his new gamesmaster, Plutarch Heavensbee (Seymour Hoffman). They plan to create a sort of all-star version of The Hunger Games that would see still-alive past winners of the games compete in yet another every-man-for-himself (and every-woman-for-herself) deathmatch. This is the catalyst that forces Katniss and Peeta back into the fray, cutting short their extended good-will tour after the previous year's Games. While touring the various Districts, the two had to pose as a couple to match the expectations of Snow, and of the adoring populace - who sees them as symbols of a coming revolution. Even though Katniss and Peeta play their roles well, and don't do or say anything too incendiary, they still manage to show glimmers of rebellion, and also don't necessarily do anything to discourage the growing cult of personality developing around them. But here's where things get a little nonsensical ... basically, the movie makes Snow seem like a total moron. First, he keeps Katniss and Peeta in the public eye despite being revolutionary symbols. Then he and Plutarch plan to distract from the politics around the two by making them into tabloid celebrities, using their mouthpiece, talk show host Ceaser Flickerman (Stanley Tucci), to distract the populace. But then, Snow agrees to cut his own plan short in order to go ahead with the all-star Hunger Games, essentially condemning the world's two most popular celebrities to death, in addition to dozens of other past winners who were nearly as beloved. And the point of this is ... what, exactly? Yes, Snow wants to squash the hope of the people and show his strength ... but throwing Katniss and Peeta into another battle royale feels pretty half-baked. And you have to wonder - why doesn't every character follow the example of punk-rock Games entrant Johanna Mason and use the forum of Ceaser's talk show to give a hearty "f-you!" to Snow and his government?

And that leads me the second point, which is that it feels like we're watching all of this in a vacuum. The first part of the film does a nice job of showing us the rank-and-file residents of Pan Em, and their hopeful reactions towards the touring Katniss and Peeta. But once the Games start, we go dark. To be honest, I wasn't even sure if citizens were watching / were able to watch or follow the Games via Ceaser's show. The movie never really tells us. So all the build-up that's in the first half of the film - about the peoples' march towards revolution, is completely left by the wayside in the second hour.

As for the Games themselves, they are much more visually exciting this go-round, thanks to Francis Lawrence's more dynamic direction. But the fundamental problem is the same as in Part 1 - the way the Games play out lack the kind of tension and moral ambiguity that a battle-to-the-death should have. The whole point of these Games is to force the combatants to shed humanity and morality and kill in order to survive. But Katniss, and Peeta, and every other "good" character in the film never really does anything objectionable. In Part 1, okay, love conquers all. But the way the Games play out here, it might as well just be Team Good vs. Team Evil. I feel like the real truth at the heart of these Games - that ultimately, in theory at least, someone is going to have to murder many innocent people in order to win - is always sort of avoided. It's like the movie is hiding its own premise in the name of being a blockbuster-movie-for-the-masses.

All that being said, CATCHING FIRE is still a very entertaining yarn that hits the big, dramatic beats with much more aplomb than its predecessor. Katniss gets to be the badass action hero here thanks to some applause-worthy scenes, where Frances Lawrence really depicts her as a fully-formed action hero. A training sequence that shows off her archery skills against an onslaught of virtual opponents is one of the movie's best scenes. Later, Jennifer Lawrence gets a big hero moment, as she brings the Games to a climactic finish with a desperate arrow-to-the-sky moment that left my theater clapping hysterically. Basically, Lawrence makes this film feel much more effortlessly big and epic than the first. The Districts feel more populated, the sets feel bigger and better, and the stakes, also, feel much more elevated. Even though I complained about the movie often feeling like its story plays out in a vacuum, there's still a pervading sense of bigness to it all (or maybe it's partially just the knowledge that events here will segue directly into a presumably even *more* epic Part 3).

Again, Jennifer Lawrence is the anchor. The movie isn't Oscar caliber, but her acting is. She sells every moment to perfection, brilliantly depicting the horror and the agony of being forced back into these Games - and she transitions seamlessly from drama to action to romance to levity. Speaking of romance, this is where the movie does fall into some of the same traps as Part 1. Peeta is a little more tolerable here than before, and Josh Hutcherson does a decent job of making him seem a little more worthy of Katniss' affections. But he's still sort of a boring/bland character. Worse is Liam Hemsworth's Gale - devoid of much in the way of personality, he's a forgettable character seemingly only in the picture to give the story its requisite love-triangle.

But like I said, CATCHING FIRE is pretty stacked with talent, new and old. Jena Malone, as mentioned, is a huge highlight. Her character lends the movie a much-needed dosage of attitude, and the character's gritty, semi-nihilistic nature is a welcome change of pace (and seemingly, much more fitting to the story's violent premise) than the other more cartoonish goofballs who populate Pan Em. Jeffrey Wright is another guy who's always fantastic, and I liked the idea of his character, Beetee (for the love of god, is there any franchise out there with *worse* character names?!), lame name and all, as a man of science who thrives in the games via elaborately-constructed traps. Finally, Phillip Seymour Hoffman is a guy whose mere presence lends gravitas to a film, and he makes Plutarch into probably a way better character than he's got any right to be. The movie doesn't give us much to go on in terms of what makes Plutarch tick, but it's okay, because Hoffman is good enough to fill in the gaps with his acting. Sam Claflin also makes a strong impression as a Games entrant who has more to him than meets the eye. Claflin is an MVP of many of the film's big set-piece action scenes, and is another welcome addition.

On the action scenes, Francis Lawrence directs some pretty intense sequences - a few in the Districts before the Games begin, and several that are part of the Games themselves. Highlights include killer mist and rabid killer monkeys (that's right) - each a suitably scary threat, and each useful as a way to distinguish these Games from the previous film's. 

CATCHING FIRE, on its own, is entertaining and action-packed. And the talent behind and in front of the camera is (mostly) good enough to elevate the material. But these movies are still just a bit frustrating, because they feel like they approach greatness, but don't quite knock it out of the park. The Hunger Games has a great, iconic hero in Katniss, and a strong central premise. But the details don't feel properly filled-in or thought out, and there's still too much that feels sandwiched into the story so as to properly conform to teen-lit convention (what, really, does Gale add to the story, for example?). CATCHING FIRE touches on some really cool big-ideas, the stuff of great speculative and science-fiction, the kind of stuff that comments and satirizes our own society. And there are glimpses of that social satire here that are actually pretty great (at the giant pre-Games feast in the Capitol, the elite down a drink that causes one to expunge the food in their system, thus allowing them to indulge in even more food - even as people just outside are starving). Perhaps what I'm getting at is that all of the movie's really cool, challenging, or even subversive impulses seem to get drowned out by the need to be a billion-dollar PG blockbuster. There's a dark heart at the core of THE HUNGER GAMES, but these movies seem unwilling or afraid to really go to that place, to go all the way. Maybe some of that is just lost in translation from the books, maybe some is just inevitable in the world of big-budget movies. But there's also a certain irony here. After all, isn't it the film's sinister President Snow who tries to distract the populace from the real issues via soap-opera romance and celebrity tabloid gossip? By this same token, CATCHING FIRE at times seems too distracted to fully explore the real-deal issues at its core.

My Grade: B

OSCAR 2013 - Pre-Show Thoughts & Predictions & Rants

"Why yes, that Anne Hathaway was quite good. But Daniel Day Lewis, now there's a *real* actor. Also, Kathryn Bigelow was snubbed. Oh, and why didn't Spielberg put any vampires into his movie about me?" - Abraham Lincoln

2013 OSCAR PRE-SHOW THOUGHTS AND PREDICTIONS:

- Well, it's once again almost Oscar time, and as usual all anyone can talk about is the politics behind the awards, rather than the actual merit of the films, actors, and directors that are nominated. Personally, I found this year's nominees an odd mix of deserving talent peppered with some truly jaw-dropping omissions. The reason I say jaw-dropping is that you would think that Kathryn Bigelow getting a Best Director nomination, for example, would be a no-brainer - not just as a movie fan, but also if you're going by the Academy's usual tendencies. Sure, last year, many of my favorite films like Drive and Young Adult were snubbed altogether from the Oscar race. But that, at least, was somewhat expected (and it was similarly but sadly expected that some of 2012's most incredible movies - like CLOUD ATLAS - would get excluded). But this year, the Oscars don't even necessarily seem to follow any sort of internal logic. Zero Dark Thirty up for Best Picture, but no Bigelow for Best Director (despite the film's incredible direction)? Okay ...

Again, it comes down more to politics and cult of personality - in terms of nominations, winners, and in the public discourse. Example #1: Ben Affleck. Look, Argo was a fantastic film, and Ben Affleck's transition from actor-in-bad-movies to director-of-awesome-movies has been really cool to watch. But is it reasonable to say that there were at least five other films in 2012 that were better-directed than Argo? Yes, very reasonable in my estimation. Is it also reasonable to say that there were several films in 2012 that were, overall, even better and more impactful than Argo? Yes, also reasonable. So, people, stop talking about Ben Affleck. The man will get his due in due time.

Of course, there are many great films and great performances that I would have loved to have seen recognized at this year's Oscars. To that end ...

MY TOP 15 SNUBBED OSCAR PICKS:

1.) Kathryn Bigelow for Best Director (Zero Dark Thirty)
2.) Moonrise Kingdom for Best Picture
3.) Wes Anderson for Best Director (Moonrise Kingdom)
4.) Quentin Tarantino for Best Director (Django Unchained)
5.) Dwight Henry for Best Supporting Actor (Beasts of the Southern Wild)
6.) Frank Langella for Best Actor (Robot & Frank)
7.) Jim Broadbent for Best Supporting Actor (Cloud Atlas)
8.) Tom Tywer, Andy Wachowski, Lana Wachowski for Best Director (Cloud Atlas)
9.) Doona Bae for Best Supporting Actress (Cloud Atlas)
10.) Safety Not Guaranteed for Best Picture or Best Original Screenplay
11.) Rian Johnson for Best Director (Looper)
12.) Liam Neeson for Best Actor (The Grey)
13.) The Grey for Best Picture
14.) Jason Clarke for Best Supporting Actor (Zero Dark Thirty)
15.) Samuel L. Jackson and Leonardo DiCaprio for Best Supporting Actor (Django Unchained)

No doubt, many of the Academy's picks this year are "safe." Even a movie like Zero Dark Thirty, which in past years would be a shoe-in, may end up getting penalized for the political controversy surrounding it. And of course, despite efforts to make the Oscars feel a little younger and fresher, with indie picks like the very-much-deserving Beasts of the Southern Wild, there is still a pretty wide gulf between what is and isn't considered an "Oscar movie." Suffice it to say, the big exclusion this year in that regard was clearly Moonrise Kingdom - one of Wes Anderson's best-ever. But several other notable indies with quirky sensibilities - Safety Not Guaranteed and Robot & Frank, for example, were also left off the list completely. So too goes it for 2012's big action flicks that were deserving of consideration. Movies like The Avengers, The Grey, and The Raid: Redemption were all pulpy and over-the-top in their own way, sure - but all were also absolutely impeccably-made and deserving of awards consideration (The Grey, in particular, was really overlooked by critics in general - it's a future cult classic, no question). Similar sentiments could be shared about the superlative Cloud Atlas. It's a big, epic, sweeping, emotionally-charged movie - with Oscar-friendly actors like Tom Hanks and Halle Barry and Jim Broadbent. But I suppose that the future-shock sensibilities of the Wachowskis are still a bit too much for most people (especially when removed from the confines of hard sci-fi a la The Matrix), most especially Oscar voters. I know that opinion was divided on Cloud Atlas, but man, to me it was the year's most epic cinematic tour de force.


With all that said ... that still doesn't make it cool to hate on great films just because they *were* showered with golden Oscar love (hmm, that sounded wrong -- oh well). Chief example - LINCOLN. Okay, so perhaps Spielberg flubbed the ending a little bit, but still - this was a phenomenal film, and certainly one of the year's most towering cinematic achievements. I'll be very happy for actor-supreme Daniel Day Lewis should he win Best Actor, and for living legend Spielberg if he were to win for Best Director. Honestly, after the disappointing War Horse, Lincoln was a great return to form for him. Silver Linings Playbook is another one that certain people have been hating on. I'll defend the movie to anyone - it's just a fantastic film, and it's got everything - amazing lead performances, knockout direction from David O. Russell ... And trust me, it's such a well-done, fell-good movie - part of me really *wants* to hate on it, just because. But again, forget the cult of personality stuff, forget misgivings about anything labeled as a romantic comedy, and just watch the movie with an open mind. I did, and I loved it. Has part of me loved it not-as-much after it seemed to inspire hundreds of annoying Facebook posts stating stuff to the effect of "ZOMG NEW FAV MOVIE EVS!". Yes. Ugh. Please, go away. And was Jackie Weaver's part really substantial enough to deserve an Oscar nom? Probably not. But my point is: don't hate on Lincoln just because it seems ready-made for Oscar love, don't hate on Silver Linings just because you find Bradley Cooper annoying from making the godawful Hangover movies (it's a hurdle to get over, I know), and hey, don't even hate on Amour because you haven't seen it yet and/or the idea of a movie about two old people slowly dying makes you want to run and hide and cry.

So here we go, here are my picks:

DANNY'S OSCAR PICKS 2013:

BEST PICTURE

Should Win: Zero Dark Thirty
Will Win: Argo

- This one annoys me, because I feel like an Argo win is going to have more to do with politics than anything else. No question in my mind: Zero Dark Thirty was the better film of the two. Whereas Argo simplified its story by packaging it as a Hollywood-style thriller, Zero Dark Thirty had zero pandering - it was challenging, smart, and thematically ambitious. But Argo is a story about how Hollywood saved the world. Therefore, there's probably no beating it.

BEST ACTOR

Should Win: Daniel Day Lewis
Will Win: Daniel Day Lewis

- There are few things that movie fans of all stripes can agree on, but one of them is this: Daniel Day Lewis is a beast. The man can do no wrong, and when he's got a role this good, this iconic, this well-written (kudos, Tony Kushner) ... there's no stopping him.

BEST ACTRESS

Should Win: Jessica Chastain
Will Win: Jessica Lawrence

- I'm actually a huge fan of both Chastain in Zero Dark Thirty and of Lawrence in Sliver Linings. Personally, I give the slight edge to Chastain, because her role in that film was subtler, more nuanced, and ultimately more powerful and iconic. But Lawrence was also fantastic - both very funny and very fearless - and she'll probably be rewarded for it. This was one of those "I just made America fall in love with me" roles - and Lawrence's real-life lovability probably also doesn't hurt her chances.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR

Should Win: Tommy Lee Jones
Will Win: Tommy Lee Jones

- TLJ was just a firecracker in Lincoln, and it's one of those incredible roles that quite simply brings the house down. It was a reminder of why Tommy Lee is such a damn fine actor - I mean, he steals the show in a movie that's basically bursting at the seams with A-level actors. My only regret is that this award will come at the expense of the always-awesome Christoph Waltz. But the weird thing about his role in Django is that it's really the lead role. Same goes for Philip Seymour-Hoffman in The Master (and that movie's mixed reactions will hurt it - justifiably so in my opinion - despite its two incredible lead performances)

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS

Should Win: Anne Hathaway
Will Win: Anne Hathaway

- Hmm ... I don't really like the nominees in this category, which is quite weak this year overall. That said, Anne Hathaway unquestionably tore the house down in her part in Les Mis. But my feelings about the film as a whole were very mixed, and it makes you wonder about how Oscar votes should be considered. It's like picking the NBA MVP ... can you really give it to the player with the best points-per-game average if his team has a losing record? Not really. So, personally, I don't like giving Hathaway a prize if the film as a whole was only okay (though, somehow, it's nominated for Best Picture). But Hathaway will win, and unfortunately, there are no other nominees who make a strong enough of a case to knock her out.

BEST ANIMATED FEATURE

Should Win: Frankenweenie
Will Win: Wreck-It Ralph

- Man ... Frankenweenie was one of my favorite films of 2012, and in my opinion one of the most unfairly overlooked. People have apparently so soured on Tim Burton that they decided not to pay attention to a film that was a true return-to-form for him. No question in my mind, Frankenweenie should win. But what movie did Oscar voters' kids and grandkids love most this year? No question on that one either - Wreck-It Ralph FTW.

BEST DIRECTOR

Should Win: toss-up
Will Win: David O. Russell

- This is easily the hardest major category to call and in which to pick a favorite. Spielberg may be the favorite in some respects, but Lincoln is also not really a director showpiece (it's an actor showpiece). Spielberg could still win, but I think ultimately David O. Russell will take it for the way he skillfully framed Silver Linings Playbook, to get the most out of his actors, and to really take the audience on an emotional roller-coaster ride. I also really like Ang Lee's work on Life of Pi. But I wonder if some of the more controversial creative choices he made on the film (the sometimes-awkward framing device, for example) will hurt him. And ... I also give incredible props to Benh Zeitlin for Beasts of the Southern Wild. In some ways he might be my personal pick here for what he accomplished on a low budget and with a cast of mostly untrained actors. The whole category feels off without Kathryn Bigelow though - she was my clear #1 pick as Best Director of 2012 ... how is she not here? But ultimately, Russell, I think, takes it (and if he does, I expect a huge backlash from film geeks, to whom I say in advance "stay calm").

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY

Should Win: Zero Dark Thirty
Will Win: Zero Dark Thirty

- I have a feeling that ZDT will win this category as a sort of "we really did love ya', but hey, our hands were tied" sort of make-up prize. It also helps that writer Mark Boal has a great reputation, and is known as the rare screenwriter who does true journalistic-style research while crafting his scripts. I will say, this is a loaded category. Tarantino and Wes Anderson are two heavyweights and personal favorites, and would be more-than-deserving winners.

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY

Should Win: Lincoln
Will Win: Lincoln

- Lincoln had a phenomenal screenplay, packed with memorable moments and quotable lines. Tony Kushner nearly topped his previous collaboration with Spielberg, Munich, and delivered a definitive account of Lincoln's presidency and the passage of the 13th amendment.

BEST FOREIGN FILM

Should Win: no opinion
Will Win: Amour

- Amour - also nominated for Best Picture, making it a seeming shoe-in for this award. Have also heard great things about films like Kon-Tiki, but seems like Amour's got this one locked.

BEST PRODUCTION DESIGN

Should Win: Life of Pi
Will Win: Les Mis

- To me, Life of Pi was the most visually-beautiful film of the year. But Oscar loves a period piece, and Les Mis is likely this year's winner in many of these categories.

BEST COSTUME DESIGN

Should Win: Lincoln
Will Win: Les Mis

- See above.

BEST ORIGINAL SONG

Should Win: "Skyfall"
Will Win: "Skyfall"

- Come on now, "Skyfall" is the only legit song in this category - and it's a pretty excellent song too from no less than beloved songstress Adele. Plus, it's an acknowledgement of the quite-good latest Bond flick, which many feel was snubbed from other categories.

BEST ORIGINAL SCORE

Should Win: Lincoln
Will Win: Lincoln

- John Williams ... the man is a legend and an institution, to the point where you almost want to discount him just because, well, been-there, done-that. But let's be honest, the score for Lincoln literally gave me chills ... DURING THE TRAILER. On a sidenote though, how in the heck was Cloud Atlas not nominated here?! Whatever else you think of the film, its score was incredible. Damn you, Oscars.

BEST DOCUMENTARY

Should Win: no opinion
Will Win: Searching for Sugar Man

- Man, there are a couple of films on this list that I've been dying to see - most of all The Gatekeepers and Searching for Sugar Man, which I've heard universally great things about. It seems like this story about a long-forgotten musician who finds he has a following across the globe is the one to beat.

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY

Should win: Life of Pi
Will Win: Life of Pi

- Life of Pi, again, looked stunning. I've got to go with it here. Skyfall is perhaps a close second, and a Skyfall win would mean a win for the great Roger Deakins, who's somehow never won an Oscar. But still, Life of Pi is my pick. I mean, come on - that flying-fish scene? Incredible.

BEST FILM EDITING

Should Win: Argo
Will Win: Argo

- Here's one where I give it up for Argo - the film was impeccably edited. The way the movie creates tension and builds up to its harrowing finale is incredible, and deserves to be rewarded (and also, for its amazing opening sequence with the raid on the U.S. embassy).

BEST MAKEUP

Should Win: The Hobbit
Will Win: Les Mis

- The Hobbit has Gandalf and Bilbo and Orcs. That, to me, makes it worthy (even if the movie does use too much CGI, in places it should have stuck to practical f/x). But Les Mis will take it.

BEST SOUND EDITING

Should Win: Argo
Will Win: Argo

- Argo wins this, and deservedly so. On a technical level, the movie is top-notch - and its mixture of real-life news footage with new footage (particularly in terms of audio) is also aces.

BEST SOUND MIXING

Should Win: Les Mis
Will Win: Les Mis

- Here's where I do give Les Mis props - the way they captured live singing and somehow made it work in the context of a film is actually a pretty amazing trick.

BEST VISUAL F/X

Should Win: Life of Pi
Will Win: Life of Pi

- Part of me wants to give at least a shout-out to Prometheus. Script issues aside, it was one of the most visually-stunning films I've seen, well, ever. That said, Life of Pi creates a CGI tiger (as well as an entire menagerie of wild animals) that are utterly convincing. That tiger becomes not just one of the year's most impressive visual effects, but also one of the year's most compelling characters. Now that's award-worthy.

BEST SHORT FILM - ANIMATED

Should Win: Paperman
Will Win: Paperman



- There is a SIMPSONS short nominated here. The Simpsons could win Oscar gold, and hey, that would be sort of awesome. But Paperman ... I mean, it's incredible. I think it got a round of applause in the theater when I saw it. It's one of those pieces that makes you just smile and think "wow, animation kicks ass."

BEST SHORT FILM - LIVE ACTION

Should Win: ???
Will Win: Asad

BEST DOCUMENTARY - SHORT

Should Win: ???
Will Win: Redemption

- And that's it for now. Feel free to leave comments or picks of your own. Or just go watch Cloud Atlas and cry about it not getting any nominations. Or watch The Grey, and be awesome. But hey, no matter who wins or loses, just, you know, don't be mean. Because as Lincoln said ..."shall we stop this bleeding?" Yes, Mr. President ... we shall.

SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK Is Gold

SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK Review:

- I went into Silver Linings Playbook knowing very little about the film, and I came away fairly shocked by how great of a movie this turned out to be. Throw away any preconceived notions about the film based on its marketing - this is a dark comedy that definitely does not fit neatly into any one genre. There are elements of screwball and romantic comedy, shades of psychological character studies, and bits of slice-of-life quirkiness. But the sum total is an unexpected surprise - one of the year's flat-out funniest films, and also one of its most joyous and applause-worthy. There's a Little Miss Sunshine-style vibe to this one, and the  film's pleasures are felt all the more deeply thanks to the outstanding, awards-worthy cast. David O. Russell has made a great film in SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK. I mean, look, most people will tell you that I have a strong distaste for overly sentimental rom-coms that go for cheap melodrama. But I'll admit, I wanted to stand and cheer as this movie raced towards its well-earned climax.

Like many, I don't know why, exactly, but I've developed sort of a distaste for Bradley Cooper over the last several years. Maybe it was ill-will from the annoying Hangover franchise, maybe it was the endless string of lame starring roles of late, but I wasn't running to see a prestige flick with Cooper in the lead. After seeing Silver Linings Playbook ... scratch all that. Cooper is phenomenal in this one, playing Pat, a mentally-ill guy freshly released from the psych-ward - trying to restart his life, going back to live with his overbearing parents in small-town suburbia. As Pat, Cooper is a tightly-wound ball of chaos - speaking in an awkward, unfiltered manner that makes those around him cringe. Cooper brilliantly shows Pat in various degrees of psychosis - at times, you can see him reigning himself in and doing his best to fit in. Other times, he comes unspooled, lashing out, lacking social graces, becoming fixated and obsessed with certain things or ideas. David O. Russell's adapted screenplay of the novel by Matthew Quick gives Pat all sorts of recurring fixations - a song that drives him insane with rage whenever he hears it, for example. But Pat isn't just some crazy guy - Cooper and Russell mold him into a fully fleshed-out character that feels real and plausible, even if his particular brand of crazy isn't necessarily "real-world" crazy. But I give Cooper a ton of credit - this is easily his best screen performance ever, and it's one that casts him in a new light as a legitimately great actor capable of Oscar-worthy turns. I am now a Bradley Cooper fan.

And yet, equally awesome is Jennifer Lawrence. This girl is mind-blowing. She's been consistently fantastic in everything she's done, and yet she's played completely different characters in each of her films so far. She's certainly never played anyone like Tiffany before. Her character in this film matches Cooper's crazy pound for pound. They're two peas in a crazytown pod. But Lawrence gives Tiffany a brilliant madness all her own. Like Pat, she is a wounded soul with a lot of darkness inside her. But Lawrence plays her a vulnerable yet badass, manipulative yet gullible, totally lovable yet scarily unhinged. It would be easy for this character to come off as just the usual manic pixie dreamgirl type. But Lawrence takes the character to another level ... making her fully-formed, fully-developed, with a subtlety and a nuance that is rare for this sort of character. Point being, she's far, far from just being the stock love-interest. It's her movie as much as it is Cooper's. And in fact, this is one of my favorite performances of the year so far. How often does a character start off as weird and semi-off-putting and then make you want to stand up and cheer for her by movie's end? Lawrence has the acting ability equal to any other actress out there - yet's she's also got the movie star ability to make audiences fall in love. What I'm trying to say is: can Jennifer Lawrence just be cast in everything?

Oh, and then there's Rober De Niro. Whoah. Someone woke the slumbering giant and lit a fire under De Niro - this is the best acting from him I've seen in years. As Cooper's father, De Niro plays a guy who seems to be  the level-headed one in the family, but who slowly reveals his own obsessions and mental instabilities. Like father, like son. His character sort of drives home the movie's central message - we're all a bit crazy, but if we stick together, we can shake off the cobwebs that keep us down and move forward with out lives. But man, De Niro is just great - he's got some moments of true hilarity in the film, and some that are guaranteed  to not have a dry eye in the house.

Jacki Weaver is also great as Cooper's beleaguered mom. So too is Anupam Kher as his beleaguered psychiatrist. John Ortiz is also a scene-stealer as Cooper's best friend Ronnie - married to a ball-and-chain of a wife (Julia Stiles), Ronnie is a great and often hilarious counterpoint to Cooper - a mild-mannered everyman on the outside, but with plenty of pent-up rage within. And, oh, I have to mention Paul Herman as Randy - De Niro's old buddy who constantly bets against his friend in a series of ridiculously escalating wagers. I found it incredibly funny - yet oddly touching - how these two old guys are in a fashion so cruel to each other, and yet they sort of thrive off of their competition and remain friends despite it all. Finally, Chris Tucker is in this movie. And he is actually really good, and fairly restrained (for Chris Tucker). As an escaped mental patient who is fiercely loyal to Cooper, he is a great asset to the film.

The film perhaps works best if you don't know a ton about the details of its plot going in. The story is told in such a way that a lot of plot insight is revealed gradually, with many twists as the film goes. It's a fascinating take on the Unreliable Narrator conceit, as the version of events we originally hear from Pat - about his reasons for going into the mental hospital, about his relationship with his wife, about his life in general - well, there's clearly more there than he initially divulges. And the movie becomes so engrossing partially because it's about the lies we tell ourselves, and about the need to break through and accept things as they really are ... not just how we perceive them to be in the fantasy-version of our lives that we've created. And therein lies one of the key distinctions between Pat and Tiffany. Pat lives a fiction - he's constructed a narrative around his life where he is the victim, the hero, the misunderstood genius. But Tiffany - she's comically upfront about all of her failings and mistakes.

Ultimately - yes, there is romance in this movie - but I'd argue that it's not a movie *about* romance so much as it is a movie about breaking through our inner cloud of chaos, and finding some sort of sanity in a mostly insane world. Just about every character in the film surprises by not being what they seem. And SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK surprises by being much, much better than perhaps it looks on paper. Director David O. Russell brings his A-game. The direction is at times personal and in-your-face, at times sweeping and cinematic. But it has a sort of ADD, chaotic quality that mirrors Pat's chaotic mind. I loved the script of the film as well. The dialogue is fantastic, and the script somehow feels both naturalistic and cinematic in the best way possible. My only main gripe - and I suspect this will be the gripe of many ... is that the ending of the film just feels ever-so-slightly too neat and clean. Given how complex these character are, I felt slightly let down that Russell sort of wraps things up in a bow as the credits begin to roll. Even just a single added moment - a reminder that, for these characters, things would always be at least a little messy and weird - would have helped. Don't get me wrong ... the feel-good moments in SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK are some of the *most* feel-good, most well-earned, most applause-worthy moments I've seen in a movie of this sort. But most of the film balances out those moments with some real darkness and complexity and characters who you like and root for, but who also feel genuinely screwed-up and off-kilter. Mostly though, the film has a sort of gleeful chaos that reminded me of the uproarious family scenes in Russell's previous film, The Fighter.

With an incredible cast and a just-right mix of humor, heart, darkness, and quirk, SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK was one of the big movie surprises of the year for me in 2012. I'll put it right up there towards the top of my list for movies of the year.

My Grade: A-