THE MARTIAN Is Sci-Fi With Smarts

THE MARTIAN Review:

- Legendary director Ridley Scott is perhaps best known for helming films that transfix with their arresting visuals, but that have a mythic, larger-than-life scope to their storytelling. With a few exceptions (Thelma & Louise comes to mind), his characters are more iconic than they are humane. Not that there's anything wrong with that - Scott ranks among my all-time favorite film directors, and his best movies (Blade Runner, Alien, Gladiator) are high on my list of best-movies-ever. But THE MARTIAN still feels like a departure - a movie that is at once huge, epic sci-fi but also very grounded, humane, and funny. Many of Scott's iconic films have a detached coldness to them. The Martian, in contrast, overflows with warmth. Give credit to the book from which the film is adapted, written by Andy Weir. But also give credit to the film's screenplay by Drew Goddard. Goddard, the Joss Whedon disciple who gave us smart and funny films like Cabin in the Woods, knocks this one out of the park. He finds both the epicness in the story and the humanity - and he differentiates THE MARTIAN from other recent space-exploration movies, like Gravity and Interstellar, by imbuing it with a sharp sense of humor and wit. What's more, whereas those other space epics ultimately veered into the more philosophical, spiritual, and cosmic, THE MARTIAN stays grounded in reality and science - presenting a story that has its share of far-fetched cinematic movie-moments, but that never strays from its pro-science message. In an age when we are often inundated - in pop-culture and politics - with figures obsessed with a view of humanity that puts supreme faith in the will of a higher power, it's refreshing (and timely) to get a sci-fi film that is so wholly about the can-do willpower and brainpower that each of us, innately, possesses.

Matt Damon plays astronaut Mark Watney, and it's one of the best performances of the actor's career to date. It may not be the type of performance that wins Oscars, but it's pure movie-star acting at its finest. Damon makes Watney into a supremely likable guy, a guy who, when he finds himself marooned on Mars after a mission-gone-wrong, smirks, rolls up his sleeves, and determines to "science the $%&#" out of his dire-seeming situation. Watney is in many ways an everyman - but a very smart and capable everyman. He's a botanist who has ideas about how to create sustainable food that can ensure his survival for a longer-than-anticipated period of time. He's a doer. He's the kind of guy whose ingenuity makes the higher-ups at NASA - and his fellow crew members - willing to risk a hell of a lot to get him home.

In many ways, the conversations back on earth, at NASA, are as interesting and tension-filled as Watney's struggle to survive on Mars. It helps that the supporting cast here is absolutely stacked, bringing just the right combo of gravitas and good-natured humor to the proceedings. Jeff Daniels is great as a NASA director with the weight of the world on his shoulders - answerable to his bosses and to the public and press, but also keen to bring his man home. Chiwetel Ejiofor is another NASA official who pushes on Daniels to do everything possible to save Watney. Sean Bean is also in the mix. Did I say gravitas? There are also really great small-but-pivotal roles for people like Donald Glover, Mackenzie Davis, and Benedict Wong - each helping to round out the NASA tech team. Similarly great is the supporting cast that fills out Mark's space-flight crew - who leaves him stranded on Mars after believing him to have died in a violent storm. Jessica Chastain is one of the absolute best actors working today - and she kills it as Melissa Lewis, the ship's captain and the leader of the effort to bring Mark back. Chastain - now apparently the go-to woman to help you get un-lost in space - really kicks ass here. She takes a role that could have been un-memorable and makes it one of the movie's best. Michael Pena has brought the funny to a number of recent blockbusters (see also: Ant-Man), and he's an unsung hero here as a member of Chastain's crew. Kate Mara is also rock-solid, as are Sebastian Stan and Aksel Hennie.

Ridley Scott is one of the best-ever at doing eye-popping sci-fi visuals, and he doesn't disappoint here. Often, his filmmaking seems a little more restrained and grounded to match the script's lighter tone. But Scott cranks it up to eleven when called upon. He delivers sweeping Martian vistas, claustrophobic shuttle interiors, and a rip-roaring, edge-of-your-seat outer-space finale that truly demands to be seen on the biggest screen possible. And yet, he doesn't let those killer visuals detract from or overwhelm the movie's smaller and more intimate moments. This is a film that gets almost as much oomph from crop-growing and message-decoding as it does from zero-gravity space rescues.

Scott is a filmmaker whose sci-fi films I associate with darkness. Alien showed us absolute terror in a dystopian and derelict future. Blade Runner showed us a rain-soaked Frankenstein-monster nightmare of technology gone wrong. But THE MARTIAN distinguishes itself by being an old-fashioned, gung-ho movie about the power of human ingenuity - one that also happens to be one of the most exciting, nail-biting, and visually-stunning films of the year so far. It's spectacle with smarts, sci-fi that actually embraces science.

My Grade: A-

INTERSTELLAR Is a Mind-Blowing Cosmic Odyssey

INTERSTELLAR Review:


- Rarely has a major blockbuster movie been as torn down, nitpicked, and hyper-scrutinized as much as Interstellar. But that's par for the course for Christopher Nolan, who has become increasingly divisive over the years. I too have had my doubts about the director. The Dark Knight Rises, to me, was a real misstep, and it was the sort of misstep that only served to shine a bright spotlight on some of the director's storytelling weaknesses. The Dark Knight Rises made some question the pedestal that Nolan had been placed upon prior to its release. But one misstep does not break a career, and I challenge the doubters to remember just how damn good Nolan's still-short career has been. I still vividly remember the sheer awe I felt after first seeing Memento in the theaters. I was blown away. And time after time, I've come away from a new Nolan film with a similar sense of being filled with awe and wonder to the point of bursting. Nolan always swings for the fences, and even when the narrative scope of his movies is small, the thematic ambition is huge. But INTERSTELLAR is huge in every possible way, and it's huge in a way that few current filmmakers outside of Nolan would even attempt, let alone execute on this level. This is Epic filmmaking with a capitol "E." But does it work? The internet would have you believe that it all crashes and collapses under its own weight. But I say screw the mobs of haters jumping on the Nolan backlash bandwagon. In my view, INTERSTELLAR holds up. It's involving and compelling on multiple levels. It's flat-out mind-blowing, and it's a potent reminder of just how damn good Nolan is. INTERSTELLAR is some truly next-level movie-making that demands to be seen, and seen on the biggest screen possible.

In some ways, INTERSTELLAR reminds me a lot of last year's Gravity. It's not just the outer-space setting, it's the central theme of humanity striving to reach its ultimate potential, achieving spiritual rebirth through scientific progress and an idealistic pursuit of our species' furthermost boundaries. In the near-future world of the film, a crop-killing dust has caused food shortages and air quality issues. The earth is on a dangerous path towards being uninhabitable. What's more, in the heartland where our main characters reside, a deep cynicism has taken root that's supplanted the idealistic frontierism that once characterized America and the American Dream. Our central character is Cooper (Matthew McConaughey), a natural-born explorer who was a pilot and an astronaut before the dissolution of space program. Now, he, like many, is a farmer - tasked with cultivating whatever crops can be grown in the earth's increasingly harsh climate. His son, Tom, is assigned by his teachers to study farming. For most, this is now their assigned lot in life. Cooper's daughter, Murph, is a science-wiz, but her teachers scold her for arguing with them about what's in her textbooks. The books, it turns out, now say the moon-landing was a hoax designed to push the Soviets into a costly, nation-toppling space race. Kennedy-era idealism is officially dead. The Chuck Yeager-esque hotshot pilot is grounded. Earth is dying, and the world clings to what is left in a cynical prolonging of the inevitable. Sound familiar? Poignantly and unflinchingly, the sci-fi world of INTERSTELLAR is a dark-mirror reflection of our own.

However, Cooper eventually learns that, hidden away in an off-the-grid base, a last remnant of NASA still exists, secretly plotting out a plan that could be humanity's last, best hope for survival. Cooper is recruited by the project's leader - Professor Brand (Michael Caine) - a former mentor of Cooper's - to lead the desperate mission he and his team have devised. Years ago, a group of astronauts were sent to find a new planet that would be inhabitable for humans. The great hope lay with the discovery of a wormhole, that by folding time and space would transport any who traveled through it into a far-off galaxy. Each astronaut went to a different planet, and each sent word back whether there's had potential to be a new-earth. Now, Cooper and his crew are being sent to go through the wormhole, and rendezvous with the astronauts who have given them the thumbs-up. What happens from there depends on how things go back on earth. Plan A: figure out a way to transport humanity en masse from earth to a new planet. Brand has yet to crack the code to accomplish this, so it's not a sure thing. Plan B: use samples on Cooper's ship to repopulate on the new planet, leaving everyone already on earth to wither and die out. Suffice it to say, the idealistic Cooper strongly prefers Plan A.

Cooper is fighting for all of humanity, but most importantly for his family. On earth, he leaves behind his son Tom, his daughter Murph, and his father-in-law Donald (his wife died young). And it's those central, familial relationships that drive much of the film. Because time passes differently for Cooper during his deep-space travels (Relativity in action), his mission sees him miss out on decades of his children's lives. The emotional core of INTERSTELLAR seems like uncharted territory for Nolan. His films have often had a cold, Kubrickian clockwork-like logic at their core, rarely dwelling too much on matters of the heart. But here, amidst the film's hard sci-fi braininess and mission-driven storyline, lies a Spielbergian center of sentimentality. No wonder, given that Spielberg himself was once attached to direct the film. But even so, it creates a sort of turn-of-the-corner moment for Nolan, where his big ideas and logic puzzles are intermixed - and indeed overshadowed - by an exploration of human connection and love that lies at the heart of what INTERSTELLAR is all about. No spoilers here, but I will say that Nolan's mix of Spielbergian heart with Kubrickian remove totally works for me in this context. Stories about traveling through space and time inevitably pose questions about life, the universe, and everything. And I think it's fair to go big thematically when you're going to the farthest reaches of the galaxy. Some of my favorite sci-fi visionaries - Ray Bradbury comes to mind - were far less interested in the hard science of sci-fi than with exploring what things like space travel told us about what it means to be human. Nolan is 100% interested in the science of INTERSTELLAR, and despite some liberties taken I don't think you'll find many sci-fi or space movies that have science *more* on the brain than this one. But I also don't think there's anything wrong with injecting a bit of Bradbury-esque reflection into the narrative. It's in the genre's DNA, and it's in the movie's from moment one. This isn't some Lost-esque, would-be sci-fi narrative that suddenly and disappointingly finds all of its answers in the spiritual. Rather, Nolan is theorizing that human connection and relationships are as much of a force in the universe as time, space, and gravity. Again, especially as we go on this journey that takes us to the outer limits of human understanding, that sort of train of thought seems, to me, to be fair game.

Nolan tells this story on the biggest, widest, most epic canvas possible. When he made The Dark Knight, Nolan raised the bar in terms of combining blockbuster filmmaking with cerebral and psychologically complex themes. He again raised the bar with Inception - even as the thematics became even more complex, Nolan gave them a thunderous intensity that ensured the film never lacked for momentum. He does this again with INTERSTELLAR. The film is long and sprawling, but it absolutely flies by. It's that same thunderous power here, even more amplified than in Nolan's previous films. In IMAX, the film's cosmic visuals have you-are-there, larger-than-life pop. As per usual, Nolan grounds even the most jaw-dropping visuals in a frighteningly plausible reality, making them that much more breathtaking. When Cooper and his crew land on a watery planet whose entire surface is covered in mountainous tidal waves, you are floored by the scope of it all, but also the reality of it. The visuals of the movie, like the plot, are informed by science and physics - making them all the more effective. Nolan may not be the clean, precise visual storyteller of an Alfonso Cuaron, but he makes up for it with the sheer force and epicness of his visuals. Likewise, the script - by Nolan and his brother Jonathan - can have moments of clunkiness, but what the two lack in understated grace they make up for with numerous moments of quotable, gravitas-infused weightiness.

The film is additionally propped up by the talent of its cast. Matthew McConaughey, as we all know, has been on a tear of late. The funny thing is, what's going on around him in this film is so attention-grabbing that I think the quality of his performance may actually end up being somewhat overlooked. But make no mistake, McConaughey is fantastic as Cooper. Here's the thing - the Chuck Yeager-esque explorer/pilot part of the role is basically second-nature for McConaughey. He pretty much is that guy. But what's impressive is how well McConaughey handles everything else that the movie throws at him. For one thing, when things get really big, weird, and surreal in the film's third act, McConaughey perfectly nails the insanity of it all while not going too over the top. But even more so, the Oscar-winner nails the relationship that Cooper has with his kids - in particular with his daughter Murph. In many ways, Interstellar is a movie about fathers and daughters, and the Cooper-Murph relationship is key. 

Luckily, Murph is played by two outstanding actresses. It's not surprising that Jessica Chastain is great as the adult Murph, who's grown to be the same age as her father while the effects of relativity have slowed time for Cooper. Chastain is consistently excellent in everything she's in, but here she makes the older Murph a damaged but driven woman - a brilliant scientist who, though she has a fraught and complicated relationship with her dad, may have nonetheless inherited some of his can-do idealism. What is surprising is how good young Mackenzie Foy is as the ten-year-old Murph. It's Foy's devastated reaction to her father leaving her for his mission that makes Cooper's journey that much more intense and important-feeling. 

The other interesting father-daughter relationship is between Michael Caine's Professor Brand and Anne Hathaway's younger Brand. To compare and contrast the two would lead to heavy spoilers. But I will say that I was really impressed with Hathaway here. This role lets her be grittier and more mature-seeming than in past films, and Hathaway seems more serious and restrained than usual. She brings a surprising gravitas to Brand that I didn't expect. As for Caine, he memorably recites "Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night" by Dylan Thomas - a poem that seems like something that Professor Brand must repeat for himself as much if not more so than for others. But that, ultimately, is the mantra of the film. Rage against the dying of the light. It's the recurring theme of INTERSTELLAR, and who better than Caine to deliver it?

The cast is filled with a host of other great actors. There's a crucial role from a key actor whose identity I won't spoil ... suffice it to say he does a fantastic job of playing against type. There's Wes Bentley and David Gyasi as the other crew members on Cooper's ship. There's a badass cameo from William "Rolling Thunder" Devane. There's John Lithgow as Cooper's father-in-law. And there's a standout voice-acting role from Bill Irwin, giving life to the robotic TARS. Yes, every good space odyssey needs a super-awesome robot to make it complete, and TARS is a damn good one. The design on the 'bot is incredibly unique and fascinating to look at in motion. And Irwin's affable voice-work makes TARS one of the film's most memorable characters.

Some have griped about Hans Zimmer's score, but man, I loved it. I think there may have been some issues where the volume of the score is just too high, to the point of drowning out some key dialogue. But the score itself is fantastic. The main theme reminded me a bit of the cosmically-themed song "Contact" from Daft Punk's Random Access Memories. In any case, the future-synth soundtrack is both a bit of a departure for Zimmer and a perfect fit for the film. It's absolutely brimming with ominous intensity and into-the-void atmosphere. Completely dug it, and I think it will go down as a classic film score.

Oftentimes, it's actually the small movies that give us the best insights into life's big questions. Rarely do we get big, epic sci-fi films that have more on their mind than space battles and comic book soap opera. That's all fine and good, but I say you've also got to appreciate the rare film like INTERSTELLAR that actually, 100%, goes the distance. It takes us into space, through the wormhole, and into the great unknown, and it doesn't take any shortcuts in its journey. The film sees things through to their ultimate conclusion - and yes, that means that we get talking robots, fifth-dimensional ghosts, and ruminations on whether love is a scientifically viable universal force. If that sort of stuff makes you come down with a case of the eye-rolls, then hey, INTERSTELLAR might not be your bag. But if, like me, you live for stories that just keep digging and digging in search of the great secrets of the universe and reality itself, then this is what you've been waiting for. Nolan isn't just hurling paint on the canvass here - there's method to his madness, and those complaining about plot holes will find most if not all of the answers in the film, if you pay attention and think things through. As much as some call out Nolan for over-expository dialogue, the fact is that a lot of key details are found between the lines of the film, in quick moments or simply implied rather than said outright. Nolan's ambition also leads to some serious aesthetic risks. As the film crescendos, Nolan furiously cross-cuts between two times and locations. It's another instance where some might simply tune-out and accuse him of overreaching. But by this point in the film, all cards are on the table and there's no slowing down. The result is, to me, a gripping and operatic sequence that seared itself into my brain. Nolan is more a hit-you-with-a-sledgehammer stylist than a subtle storyteller, but here especially, the subject matter warrants this level of cinematic fierceness.

INTERSTELLAR is ambitious as hell, but I think it holds together impressively. Narratively, it takes its time building to the point where Cooper goes on his space mission. Once Cooper and his crew begin their interplanetary exploration, the film takes on a nicely-pulpy tone that plays out like big-budget 50's sci-fi. It's modern-day Twilight Zone told in grand fashion. Eventually, the film becomes trippy, 2001-esque surrealist sci-fi, but Nolan keeps even the film's strangest sequences rooted in an easy-to-grasp emotional core. But what ties everything together is a thematic throughline that I found incredibly resonant and powerful. Because though this is sci-fi, INTERSTELLAR is a story firmly about the here and now. It's a story about how, in a world where real problems get put aside due to politics and economics, sometimes what we need is to channel our human spirit - to reach back and recapture the sort of can-do, yes-we-can, do-not-go-gently idealism that can lead us forward into a brighter future. Accuse Nolan of going soft, but really, Interstellar is his nod to Silver Age optimism, to Kennedy-era, space-age values. He takes us from darkest night to brightest day. From dust to stardust. INTERSTELLAR is a mission-statement of a movie that, to me, is absolutely huge and breathtaking in the best possible way. Nolan backlash? Hold up, people. One of our best directors has just delivered a tour de force. Save the rage, embrace the stars.

My Grade: A

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.

MAMA Is Grim Fairy-Tale Fun

MAMA Review:

- Mama is easily a cut above your average horror film. While it does have some of the standard-issue jump scares and common-sense deprived characters of your typical run-of-the-mill horror flick, it's got a lot that separates it from the pack, and that elevates it above so many of the other generic horror movies to have come out recently. For one thing, under the guidance of producer and creative genius Guillermo Del Toro, Mama has a rich, compelling mythology and an even richer visual palette. The movie looks amazing - blending gothic horror with creepy-fairy-tale fantasy to weave some truly spellbinding sequences. Director Andres Muschietti really knocks it out of the park. The movie also has heart - I can't remember the last time I saw a horror movie where I actually felt fully invested in the characters, and felt not just fright, but sadness and joy. Finally, MAMA has got one of the best actresses in the biz today - Jessica Chastain. Proving that there isn't anything she can't do, Chastain plays against type as a gothed-out riot girl who is an interesting and complex character. MAMA is good stuff - creepy, cool, and a lot of fun.

The movie starts out on a harrowing note, as we're immediately thrust into an intense scene of domestic hell. A mentally unstable father - played by Nikolaj Coster-Waldau (Jamie Lannister on Game of Thrones) - drives his two young daughters through a snow-covered mountain road. We find out that the father has just murdered his wife, and might now have similar intentions for his daughters. But the car crashes, and the trio end up deep in the snow-covered woods. They stumble through the trees and twigs until they come across an old, abandoned cabin. They take shelter, as the father contemplates doing harm to his innocent children. But suddenly, the father is thwarted and disposed of by a vengeful spirit - "Mama." This spirit watches over the children, and for five years, raises them as her own - as feral, animalistic creatures - deep within the woods. Eventually, the children are found by a search party - their uncle Jeffrey (also played by Coster-Waldau) has kept looking for them all this time. He and his girlfriend Annabel (Chastain) take in the girls, who are now very much damaged by their experiences in the woods. The older daughter, Victoria, can still speak - and adjusts a little easier to being in civilization again. But the younger daughter, Lilly, is far gone - she doesn't talk, she walks on all fours, and she still has an unholy connection to the spirit she calls Mama. And Mama still has a connection to the girls. Jealous and rage-filled, Mama haunts Jeffrey and Annabel's home in hopes of reclaiming the girls she believes are hers and hers alone to love.

The two young girls in the film are fantastic. Megan Charpientier, who plays the older Victoria, is the more conflicted of the two - struggling to become a normal girl again and escape the influence of Mama. Lilly, the younger daughter, played by Isabelle Nelisse - is just delightfully deranged - weird and eerie and wholly convincing as a person who has known virtually nothing except for life in the wild. Together, they really help make the movie as good as it is. Even as you're semi-terrified of the girls, you also can't help but come to feel invested in their well-being.

And that same evolution is what makes Jessica Chastain's Annabel such a compelling character. She's a punk rocker who doesn't want kids. She's not a bad person, just a little rough around the edges - and definitely not enthused about taking in two feral kids who talk to a possibly vengeful spirit. But Annabel does slowly come to care for these kids, and it's a character arc that happens slowly, but in a way that really makes Annabel feel fully-fleshed-out. And man, it's sort of amazing watching Chastain in this so soon after Zero Dark Thirty - it's a completely different character, but Chastain just sort of disappears into the role. If you didn't know it was her, you might think it was a completely different actress. She, also, really elevates this film with her performance.

Visually, the movie has a dark fairy-tale vibe and also shows a lot of J-horror influence. Some may complain that some of the movie's visual motifs - like the smoky black holes that appear in the walls, signalling the presence of Mama - are too derivative of other Japan-influenced horror flicks. But I thought there was a real visual inventiveness to the movie that helped it to feel like more than just a pastiche of genre influences. And in the third act, when things get really crazy and sort of epic, there are some gorgeous scenes of ethereal mayhem. There's even a really cool, ultra-stylized dream-sequence that tells Mama's backstory, shot in a disorienting first-person perspective, that I thought worked well.

And again, I found myself surprised at how the movie turned out to be much more than just scares. There's heart in MAMA - as in, there were some moments that I had chills, and some moments where I felt sad and/or moved for these characters. And there is some strong narrative complexity here as well, in that there are some nicely-drawn parallels between Mama and Annabel, and some poetic symmetry in how their relationships with Victoria and Lilly evolve.

Before I get too caught up in praising the film though, I will point out that its high points are nearly matched by some moments of lameness and cheese. Two key side characters, for example - a psychiatrist working with the girls, and a steely aunt in a custody battle with Jeffrey and Annabel - are often eye-rollingly one-note. As such, they often act according to horror movie cliche, and make the sort of lame-brained decisions that will have you screaming at the movie screen. The movie can also feel a little jumpy. While I appreciate that it doesn't spend too much time having everyone doubt Mama's existence, or dwell too much on the "mystery" of her backstory, some sequences do feel slightly rushed. Namely, characters have to make a lot of big, Mulder-esque leaps towards the end of the film. Something that happens in a lot of movies, sure - but in Mama, there are enough instances of characters acting with nuance and intelligence that the moments when they don't are particularly jarring. Finally, given that most of the movie has a great, creeptastic atmosphere, I also felt like there were way too many jump-scare attempts. It felt unnecessary - especially in the instances where the scares were just fake-outs.

Overall though, MAMA really impressed me - and I'd count it as one of the most interesting and rewarding horror movies I've seen in a while. I really enjoyed the twisted fairy-tale-esque vibe of the film - the Del Toro touch really gave the movie that extra visual pop. It also felt like there was more thematic depth, more epicness, and more genuine emotion on display than in most horror flicks. And if that's not enough, there's also Jessica Chastain in fine form, rocking goth gear and a bad attitude and making even more of a case for her status as one of the best actresses in Hollywood. Whoah mama indeed.

My Grade: B+

ZERO DARK THIRTY Is a Riveting Account of the War On Terror

ZERO DARK THIRTY Review:

- Zero Dark Thirty is one powerhouse of a film - a riveting mix of CIA procedural, real-life recent history, character-based drama, and ultra-intense actioner. Between this and The Hurt Locker, director Kathryn Bigelow is having one hell of a second act. She's making damn good movies - films that are ultra entertaining narratives that also have an immediacy, a relevance, an of-the-now electricity, that is unrivaled. What's so amazing to me about Zero Dark Thirty is that it serves as both a fact-based account of a landmark moment in recent US history, and as a smart, measured, non-politicized examination of that moment - of its implications on the national psyche, and on the psyches of those directly involved in the op. The op, of course, is the years-long hunt to find and kill Osama Bin Laden in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. It's a remarkable story on a number of levels, and Zero Dark Thirty brilliantly captures the many facets of what unfolded. Featuring several incredible performances, a no-nonsense yet still-multilayered storytelling style, and a pulsing intensity that leaves you on the edge-of-your-seat, Zero Dark Thirty is one of the year's best films, hands-down.

Bigelow's film focuses in on Maya (Jessica Chastain), a spitfire CIA agent who was recruited directly out of high school. Her whole career has been focused on one thing - finding Osama Bin Laden. And now, as she's shipped off to Pakistan - where Al Qaeda prisoners are kept in lockdown, tortured for any intel they might possess - she finds herself at the epicenter of that search. Bigelow opens the film on a haunting note - playing audio feeds of phone calls from the WTC on 9/11, playing snippets of news reports - reminding us of the horror of that day. With one fell swoop, she sets the stakes for this film. The evils perpetrated by Bin Laden and his agents are now fresh in our mind as we flashforward a few years, where the hunt for the terrorist mastermind continues.

But that hunt is going poorly. The CIA keeps coming up against dead-ends, and their methods of information extraction - cringe-inducing torture among them - are producing few useful results. In Pakistan, Maya meets Dan (Jason Clarke) - the site's chief torturer and information-gatherer. She also begins working with Jessica (Jennifer Ehle) - a world-weary analyst. They're all under the purview of Joseph (Kyle Chandler), their supervisor, who has grown cynical and short-tempered after so many of his efforts to decimate Al Qaeda have fallen flat. However, the arrival of Maya gives the group a new spark. Dogged and determined, she becomes obsessed with a potential lead that she believes is the key to finding Bin Laden - a courier named Abu Ahmed, who is said to be Bin Laden's personal messenger. Find him, and find Bin Laden. Easier said than done, sure, but Maya refuses to back down or give up. And her persistence and force of personality ends up sending shockwaves all the way to Washington, where the intel she uncovers, eventually, leads to the now-famous nighttime raid on a walled Pakistani compound.

Jessica Chastain is phenomenal as Maya. It's one of my favorite performances of the year, because it's somehow both naturalistic and hyper-dramatic all at once. Maya feels like a real woman, a fully-fleshed-out character, who has plenty of quirks and flaws but who you can't help but admire and root for. Chastain gives her the essence of the down-home girl-next-door who's also sort of a genius, and also just a tad crazy. But man, when it comes time for the big, dramatic scenes ... Chastain is also able to go big and knock 'em out of the park. If this was any other actress, we'd probably be complaining about overexposure of late. But Chastain is so good that you can't fault Hollywood for casting her whenever possible. Another big revelation here though is Jason Clarke as Dan - one of the most subtly interesting and complex characters in the film. Dan is, on one hand, a laid-back, friendly, easygoing dude, who calls everyone "bro" and amuses himself in the Pakistani desert by affectionately playing with monkeys he keeps around the CIA base. And yet, he wearily partakes in savage sessions of torture, inflicting great harm on his prisoners even as he buddies up to them. It's a fascinating dynamic, and Clarke plays it to perfection. It's funny, because in Chastain and Clarke we sort of get an microcosm of America in a post-9/11 world. Conflicted, filled with a mix of rage and empathy, left with lingering fears, and consumed by a desire for closure. Both characters also embody the film's naturalistic, non-judgemental storytelling style. Bigelow never tells us what to think of these people, never hits us over the head with judgement. She simply presents this story and these characters as is, and lets us take away from them what we will. That said, she also gives us a lot to chew on. The big issues - the politics of torture, the hopelessness of winning over religious fanatics, the debate of whether to use the carrot or the stick - it's all here. The movie makes you think, deeply, about these issues. But it doesn't do your thinking for you, and never talks down to or lectures the audience.

There are a ton of other standouts in the cast. Mark Strong brings heavy-duty gravitas as a CIA bigwig who reams his lieutenants for not bringing him enough terrorists to kill. James Gandolfini is the been-there, done-that old hat who sees in Maya the kind of vim and vigor that, perhaps, he once had. Joel Edgerton is badass as a gruff Navy SEAL, and Chris Pratt of Parks and Recreation provides some comic relief as a SEAL who gets his kicks from well-timed gallows humor (he blasts Tony Robbins on the way to kill Bin Laden). The previously mentioned Jennifer Ehle is also a standout, especially as she begins to form a sisterly bond with Maya and becomes a confidante. Kyle Chandler is a good foil for Chastain, and Harold Perrineau - of Lost fame - is also solid as a CIA techie.

I mentioned Joel Edgerton and Chris Pratt as two of the Navy SEALS from the squad that raids that Pakistani compound. I should also mention that, as intense as the movie is for much of its running time, Bigelow and team take it to another level during the last-act SEAL raid sequence. Even though we know the end-results, it's an incredibly-shot, white-knuckle ride that is exciting and terrifying, while also being strikingly un-glamorized and stark in its realness.

Bigelow and writer Mark Boal divide the film into titled chapters, and it's an effective tactic. The chapter structure allows the film to jump from year to year, location to location, in a seamless manner. Despite a long running time, the movie zips by with a relentless pace. And the tension builds and builds - as the spycraft, interrogations, backroom politics, and personal struggles mount ... culminating in that breathless raid in Pakistan. Boal and Bigelow attack the story from all angles - we see the war on terror as fought from the halls of Washington D.C. to the deserts of Afghanistan to the streets of London to the villages of Pakistan. We see the techies, the suits, the muscle, the soldiers, the SEALS, the moles, the spies, and everyone in between. This is sprawling, epic storytelling. But it's also of-the-moment and journalistic. The movie leaves a lot unsaid, but everything is in there - sometimes between the lines, sometimes on the expression of a character's face.

As for the debate on the movie's depiction of torture - to me, it's a non-issue. Some in government are criticizing the movie for implying that torture led in some way to the discovery of Bin Laden's location. In my view, the movie keeps things open for interpretation, and also goes to great pains to show that torture alone does not tend to yield actionable results. In fact, two of the key pieces of intel that propel Maya's hunt  forward come from bribes, not torture. That said, I also think it's silly and naive to act as if torture never works as a means of extracting information. Do I support it in most instances? No. But I'm also not going to claim that it can't ever be effective. In any case, ZERO DARK THIRTY handles the issue deftly - showing the emotional toll the practice takes on those who utilize it, and those who condone it as accomplices. It also shows torture in a brutal manner that makes us see it for what it is. There's no fantasy-revenge element in the torture scenes (as you might find in more over-the-top fare like "24"). It's brutal to the point that we sympathize with some of the victims, and hope for them to divulge information and be cooperative so as not to put themselves through such cruelty.

This is a movie that smartly opens up the debate on torture, on national security, on counterterrorism, on foreign policy - but not in a biased or judgmental manner. Instead, it looks at the cost that the war on terror had and has on the lives of the people in the trenches, and on the national psyche over the course of the decade since 9/11. This is a movie that shows us the world as it was and is. It's exciting, riveting, intense-as-hell ... but it also hits at a level of truth that few movies do, combining the thoroughness and intelligence of a great magazine expose with the drama, intrigue, emotion, and action of a great cinematic thriller.

Kathryn Bigelow is on fire right now, making the best, hardest-hitting real-world dramas in the biz. ZERO DARK THIRTY is a gut-punch of a film - a must-see nail-biter and conversation-starter - bad-ass, thought-provoking, smart, and poignant. A highlight of 2012.

My Grade: A