OSCAR 2016 - Pre-Show Thoughts & Predictions & Rants

OSCARS 2016 Thoughts and Predictions:

 Another Oscars, another year of controversy and complaining. What's always amazing to me is how every year, it suddenly seems to dawn on people that the Oscars are less-than-definitive. I mean, even putting aside issues like lack of diversity in terms of nominations, the Oscars have always failed to represent a broad spectrum of film genres and voices. The problem is the voters. It seems suspect that the film awards of record are voted on not by critics or journalists who make it a point to see as many new films as possible, but by Academy members who - no surprise to anyone who knows the entertainment biz - don't watch all that many movies, and don't exactly tend to be plugged in to anything outside of the mainstream. And so, the Oscars become a political game of which studio pushes which films the hardest and most effectively. Therefore, the systemic issues in how films are nominated and voted on also lead to the lack of diversity in the nominee pool. One of the best movies I saw in 2015 was Beasts of No Nation. If this film had received as vigorous an Oscar campaign as, say, The Revenant - then perhaps it would have been nominated for Best Picture, and Idris Elba for Best Supporting Actor. But the movie did not get that same push, and its status as a Netflix original production likely made it a puzzling film for stodgy Oscar voters who view streaming services with a wary eye. So, as usually tends to happen, the conversations around the Oscars become less about what movie was actually best, and more about which cult-of-personality actor has finally "earned" their Oscar, as if they were running for political office rather than being evaluated on artistic merit. This is why true film fans will always take the Oscars with a giant grain of salt: because we know that the awards are being decided by Hollywood establishment more so than true cultural critics or leading-edge cinematic voices.

With all that said, there are some minor miracles in this year's pool of nominations. Mad Max: Fury Road, first and foremost. My pick for the Best Movie of 2015 is exactly the kind of movie that the Oscars would typically ignore. But somehow, the hype for Fury Road hit so hard that it ignoring the film became impossible - and the movie came out early enough in the year that there was time for its cult to spread in the months following its summer release. I honestly don't know if Mad Max has a shot of winning Best Picture. But if it does win, it will be hard to complain about this year's Oscars - it will truly be a hell of a moment for film fans. There are a few other truly great, superlative movies in the Best Picture race. Spotlight is a triumph - and again, it's the kind of slow-burn potboiler that could have easily been ignored in year's past. Room, too, is an absolute masterpiece - an ultra-intense human drama that features the year's best acting performance from star Brie Larson. Somehow, Larson seems to be a lock - and deservedly so. It's rare that the right person is the frontrunner, but hey, this year the stars aligned. Or maybe Larson was just too damn good to ignore.

Speaking of people and movies that got ignored ... here are my Top 10 OSCAR SNUBS of 2015:

1.) Best Picture, Best Supporting Actor - Idris Elba, Best Lead Actor - Abraham Attah - Beasts of No Nation

- I'll start back here. I mean ... WTF. Elba's Commandant is an all-time memorable movie character - a nightmarish militia leader whose unhinged charisma makes him both feared and adored by the members of his child army. How was this career-best turn ignored? And then there's Attah. This child actor absolutely kills it in Beasts - transforming before our eyes from an innocent, happy-go-lucky kid to an ice-cold child warrior. A remarkable performance that should have been nominated. Now, maybe I could understand Beasts' omission from the Best Picture race if the nominee pool was completely stacked. But it isn't. Beasts - poignant, visually-stunning, unforgettable - is the superior film to Bridge of Spies (lower-tier Spielberg), The Big Short (funny but flawed), and The Revenant (draggy and pretentious).

2.) Ex Machina ... for anything.

- Here is the classic case of a movie coming in under the radar, but quickly gaining a cult following because it's freaking awesome. I was an early supporter of Alex Garland's science fiction tour de force, and it pains me that it got no real Oscar love. At the least, Alicia Vikander should have gotten a nod for her incredible turn as a lifelike robot. It's a performance that's already earned a spot in the sci-fi cannon, and for good reason. Ex Machina was the kind of smart, heady sci-fi that we need more of, and it should have gotten some Oscar recognition (it got a nom for Screenplay, but come on ... it deserved more!). 

3.) Best Director - Quentin Tarantino - The Hateful Eight

- The Hateful Eight was generally screwed over by the Oscars this year. Maybe there is some Tarantino backlash in the air, but whatever. The guy is one of the great living directors, and The Hateful Eight is yet another landmark QT film. No one else could make a movie like this. The tension-through-dialogue, the layered themes, the sheer sense of fun and insanity. The Hateful Eight should have been a contender. And while Jennifer Jason Leigh did get a much-deserved nom, I'll also give a shout-out to Samuel L. Jackson and Walton by-god Goggins, who were also deserving.

4.) Best Picture - Creed

- Okay, let's think about this. The original Rocky *won* Best Picture. Creed is arguably the best Rocky film since the original, and the Academy acknowledged it merely by giving the token nod to Stallone for Best Supporting Actor? Dude. I'm all in favor of nominating Sly, but the reason he's so good is because of the overall team effort. Ryan Coogler should have gotten a Best Director nom, Michael B. Jordan a Best Actor nom, and most importantly - CREED - a truly great movie ... should have gotten a Best Picture nom.

5.) Best Leading Actress - Charlize Theron - Mad Max: Fury Road

- Sure, a Fury Road Best Picture nom is cool - but how then does the Academy not honor the movie's already-iconic turn from Theron, as Imperator Furiosa?! An all-time great action-hero performance, Theron is the heart and soul of the film. This reminds me of when Uma Thurman was not nominated for Kill Bill. Academy, I dub thee "mediocre!".

6.) Best Supporting Actor - Jacob Tremblay - Room

- Another of 2015's amazing kid-actor performances, Tremblay is preternaturally great in Room. He and Brie Larson play off of each other amazingly, and there's no way the movie would have worked as well as it did with a lesser actor in the role.

7.) Best Leading Actor - Sir Ian McKellan - Mr. Holmes

- I mean, did anyone in the Academy even watch this movie? McKellan gives a freaking acting master-class in it, playing Sherlock Holmes in two different eras and absolutely destroying throughout. Huge snub.

8.) Best Picture - Inside Out

- Inside Out is one of the top two or three Pixar movies ... which means that yes, it's an all-timer. If Inside Out isn't one of 2015's Top 10 movies, then good lord, the system is broken. Obviously the movie is a frontrunner in the animation category - but it's also proof that animation continues to be ghettoized even when an animated film is one of the year's best. 

9.) Best Leading Actress - Emily Blunt, Best Supporting Actor - Benicio Del Toro - Sicario

- Sicario was jam-packed with great performances, but two in particular were sheer dynamite. Emily Blunt was off the charts good - she is now solidified as the preeminent female badass of our time. And Benicio Del Toro delivered his best acting role in ages, cranking up the intensity to eleven. Sicario was totally snubbed by the Oscars - and that's a true crime.

10.) Best Adapted Screenplay - Aaron Sorkin - Steve Jobs

- I don't always love the writing of Aaron Sorkin. But when he's on, he's on. And he's on fire with Steve Jobs - a long-day's-journey-into-night glimpse into the void that is a harrowing, hypnotizing look at the soul-crushing price of success.

2016 OSCAR PICKS AND PREDICTIONS:

BEST PICTURE:

Should Win: Mad Max: Fury Road

- Like I said, to me there are three nominated movies that deserve to win: Mad Max, Spotlight, and Room. All three got flat-out "A's" from me. But when push comes to shove, Mad Max is my pick for Best Movie of 2015. It's a new action classic that raised the bar for blockbuster filmmaking - delivering both thematic heft and unparalleled set-piece action scenes. And it will be re-watched, discussed, and marveled at for years to come.

Will Win: The Revenant

-Ugh. The Revenant should not win. But the hype train for Innaritu's pain-porn adventure seems too strong to stop. This is the classic case of a movie that so badly wants to feel big and important, but is all sizzle and no steak (much like Innaritu's winner last year, Birdman). But Oscar voters, caught up in the ambition of it all, will probably and predictably give it up for Leo and co.

BEST ACTOR:

Should Win: Michael Fassbender - Steve Jobs

- This category is pretty devoid of truly legendary performances this year. But Fassbender is my pick. I thought Steve Jobs was underrated, and Fassbender was amazing in it. He didn't look like Steve Jobs, but he captured the central conflict of Jobs' life via an amazing, kinetic performance. He made Aaron Sorkin's dialogue sizzle and pop. He owned the movie totally and completely.

Will Win: Leonardo DiCaprio - The Revenant

- So much hype. The thing is, Leo should have won for The Wolf of Wall St. That was his true masterwork. But it was probably *too* good for the Oscars, who didn't get that movie and it's greatness. Leo is good - very good - in The Revenant. But I kept thinking that he wasn't even 100% the best man for the part. That to me is not the stuff of a Best Actor award. But god forbid the Hollywood royalty goes too long sans Oscar.

BEST ACTRESS:

Should and Will Win: Brie Larson - Room

- This one is the biggest no-brainer of the night. Larson DESTROYS in Room. I've been on the Brie-is-awesome hype train since her incredible (and not-even-Oscar-nominated) turn in Short Term 12. As amazing as she was there, she's even better in Room. I liked Cate Blanchett in Carol. I really liked Saoirse Ronan in Brooklyn. But Larson in Room is a tour de force.This is one of those so-damn-good-she-has-to win performances. Larson is a lock.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR:

Should Win: TIE: Sylvester Stallone in Creed, Mark Ruffalo in Spotlight

- I can't not root for Stallone. He's ROCKY. One of the greatest fictional characters ever. And Stallone is freaking great as Rocky in Creed. Stallone, really, is always great as Rocky. But in Creed he's got a sharp script to work with and a great star to play off of in Michael B. Jordan. And that final scene. On the steps. Hoo-boy. At the same time, Ruffalo is fantastic in Spotlight. He goes all-in, changing his whole posture, speaking style, and mannerisms. And he's got some huge, chill-inducing scenes in the film. It's the standout performance in a movie filled with great performances.

Will Win: Mark Rylance - Bridge of Spies

- Rylance is great in Bridge of Spies. Not showy great. But really, really good great. And I figure, Rylance is probably the main reason why this B+ movie was treated as an A-lister this Oscar season (you might say "well, it was Spielberg" - but many of the best Spielberg movies have not fared well come Oscar time, so who knows). In any case, I have a feeling Rylance might pull off an underdog win.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS:

Should Win: Jennifer Jason Leigh - The Hateful Eight

- A strange, bloody, brutal role - Leigh's turn as Daisy Domergue in QT's latest is one for the ages. Leigh is fearless and holds nothing back, and she holds her own in a movie filled with all-time badasses. She may, in fact, be the baddest of them all.

Will Win: Rooney Mara - Carol

- I can't begrudge a Mara win, as she's phenomenal in Carol - with an understated, nuanced performance. Though the movie is called Carol, Mara's Therese is the real star. Why? Because the film is filtered through Therese's point of view, and it's Mara's performance that anchors and grounds the movie. My guess is that voters will want to reward Carol, and will do so by way of a Mara vote.

BEST DIRECTOR:

Should Win: George Miller - Mad Max: Fury Road

- My line of thinking here mirrors what I said earlier about the Best Picture race. Miller should win for Fury Road - he's a master who, despite already being a living legend, completely raised the bar for himself and for action movies in general with his latest. I mean, come on - the direction in Fury Road is *breathtaking.* At the same time, I was pretty floored by the directing in both Room and Spotlight, so could not be too upset if either of those films won. Room, in particular - the intensity and nail-biting nature of the film deserves recognition.

Will Win: Alegandro Inarritu - The Revenant

- I don't know. Maybe the Academy will do the right thing and go with Miller. But the cynic in me says they will do the predictable thing and go with Inarritu, sucked in by his tales of a life-and-death-struggle of a film shoot and his pretensions as a true artiste of cinematic greatness.The dude has talent, no question. There are moments of amazing visual splendor in The Revenant. But the story is lacking, and the film is in many ways emotionally and thematically hollow.

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY:

Should and Will Win: Spotlight

-Spotlight had an amazing screenplay. It builds and builds and intensifies and intensifies. It is sprawling yet never hard to follow. It's small in scale, but feels big - the stakes are huge. It is, in its own way, quite epic. Spotlight was my pick for the best Screenplay of the year, and I think it will win. Shout-out though to both Ex Machina and Inside Out - each were incredibly well-written as well.

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY:

Should Win and Will Win: Brooklyn

- It might surprise you that I pick Brooklyn here, but man, it's got one hell of a screenplay by the great Nick Hornby. I don't tend to love rom-coms, but Brooklyn transcends the genre by just being an insanely charming love story with a lot of heart, but also a lot of authentic-feeling emotion, layered characters, and an abundance of wit.

BEST ANIMATED FEATURE:

Should and Will Win: Inside Out

-My one caveat here is that Anomalisa is such an outlier in this category. It feels a bit silly to have it competing against a bunch of family and kids' movies. I feel like there should be two distinct animation categories - adult animation and kids/family animation. Or just do away with animation and have a kids/family category (and a comedy category, while we're at it!). Suffice it to say, Anomalisa is a pretty incredible film. I'd say it's a Best Picture-worthy one. But ... Inside Out, in my view, is a Pixar masterpiece. This is its year. The way it visualizes and conveys complex emotions into easily-distilled themes is truly remarkable. It's a clever, joyful, sad, emotion-packed, visually-stunning work of imagination and wonder and great empathy. A lot of times I feel like Pixar just wins these things by default. But this year, it is deserving.

BEST VISUAL EFFECTS:

Should and Will Win: Mad Max: Fury Road

-No other movie of 2015 so utterly and completely transported me to another world like Fury Road. This is a fully-realized post-apocalyptic world that fires the imagination. The detail, the aesthetic - amazing. And it's all so, so metal. Fury Road takes it. Although ... Alicia Vikander going all-in as an android in Ex Machina makes for tough competition.

BEST FILM EDITING:

- Should and Will Win: Mad Max: Fury Road

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY:

- Should Win: Mad Max: Fury Road
- Will Win: The Revenant

BEST PRODUCTION DESIGN:

- Should and Will Win: Mad Max: Fury Road

BEST ANIMATED FILM SHORT:

- Should and Will Win: World of Tomorrow

BEST DOCUMENTARY:

- Should and Will Win: The Look of Silence

BEST DOCUMENTARY SHORT:

- Should Win: ?
- Will Win: Last Day of Freedom

BEST LIVE ACTION SHORT:

- Should Win: ?
- Will Win: Day One

BEST FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM:

- Should and Will Win: Son of Saul

BEST COSTUME DESIGN:

- Should and Will Win: Mad Max: Fury Road

BEST MAKEUP AND HAIRSTYLING:

- Should and Will Win: Mad Max: Fury Road

BEST SOUND MIXING:

- Should and Will Win: Mad Max: Fury Road

BEST SOUND EDITING:

- Should and Will Win: The Martian

BEST ORIGINAL SCORE:

- Should Win: The Hateful Eight
- Will Win: Star Wars: The Force Awakens

BEST ORIGINAL SONG:

Should Win: ?
Will Win: "Writing's On the Wall" - Spectre

Well, it will be an interesting Oscars. There are A LOT of great films nominated this year, despite what the backlash to the nominations may have you believe. I strongly urge you to check out movies like Spotlight, Room, and Steve Jobs if you haven't already. At the same time, there are, again, plenty of amazing movies that won't be talked about at this year's Oscars. That includes movies that inexplicably missed the cut - like Beasts of No Nation - as well as indie and genre movies that never really stood a chance of awards recognition. In 2015, some of the movies that inspired me most and and got me most excited about cinema included gems like It Follows, Ex Machina, Crimson Peak, Dope, Bone Tomahawk, Predestination, Kingsmen, and Cop Car. So at the end of the day, realize that the Oscars are not the end-all, be-all. What makes being a film fan so much fun is finding the unique voices, the bold visions, and the unexpected gems.

THE REVENANT Is a Visually Stunning But Thematically Hollow Adventure

 THE REVENANT Review:

- The trailer for THE REVENANT was straight-up awesome. In the span of a few minutes, it was clear that, if nothing else, this would be a film filled with jaw-dropping visuals and visceral action. As it turns out, the trailer didn't lie. THE REVENANT is a visual stunner - with scene after scene of immense beauty, and several brutal, vertigo-inducing, brilliantly-filmed action sequences. But I have to say ... I'm starting to wonder a bit about director Alejandro G. Iñárritu. The guy is clearly an immensely talented visual stylist. And I give him credit for working on out-of-the-box, narratively-ambitious movies. But what I keep seeing from him are films that feel ever-so-slightly hollow, as if the director isn't quite sure what point, exactly, he's trying to make with his stories. I felt this about last year's Birdman - a movie that received widespread critical acclaim, but to me was sort of thematically vacant. THE REVENANT is similar. It's a revenge movie and a survival movie, but it's got little of interest to say about either revenge or survival. Instead, there's a lot of star Leonardo DiCaprio crawling through the wilderness hand-over-foot, caked with some quasi-spiritual moments. The movie features such great acting and such incredible visuals - so why did it leave me feeling sort of empty as the credits rolled?

Based on a purported true story, the film - set in the 1820's - follows a group of frontiersmen on a hunting expedition, collecting pelts that they will later sell off. The group includes DiCaprio's Hugh Glass, an expert when it comes to the local terrain. We don't get a ton of Hugh's backstory, but we do know that he was married to a Native American woman (very taboo at the time), who was ultimately killed in a military raid on her village. But not before she gave birth to a son, Hawk, now a teenager. Hawk accompanies his father on the hunting expedition, where he's got to deal with the prejudices of the other hunters. Chief among those who look down on him is Fitzgerald (Tom Hardy), a short-fused Texan who bares the disfiguring scars of a Native American attack - in which he was nearly scalped. He wears an ever-present bandanna to cover his head, and he holds a long-simmering hatred for Native Americans. Fitzgerald's hatred only burns brighter when the expedition is ransacked by a roaming Pawnee tribe, on the warpath after their tribe-leader's daughter is kidnapped. The attack leaves the group in disarray, but things only get worse from there. Following the attack, a further series of unfortunate events occurs - leaving Glass separated from the group and near death. The group thinks he has died, and abandons him in the wild. I won't spoil what happens from there. Suffice it to say that a severely wounded but still-breathing Glass makes it his mission to track down certain parties that he holds responsible for the ills that have befallen him and seek bloody vengeance for the wrongs that have been committed.

DiCaprio is put into a difficult position as Glass. For much of the film, the character is unable to speak, but is in severe pain. And so DiCaprio spends much of the film grunting, wheezing, and breathing heavily as he slowly claws his way across the wilderness. I think DiCaprio is pretty fantastic here, but the script sometimes fails him a bit. It's not the no-talking thing, it's that the film oftentimes seems to lose some of its narrative drive. This is at its core a revenge film, but Glass' burning desire for that dish best served cold seems to come and go. The film becomes so in love with giving us these serene, sweeping, ponderous shots of nature that it sometimes seems to forget what kind of movie it actually is. With its at times glacial pacing, the sense of urgency is occasionally lost. And that waters down DiCaprio's performance a bit. But he's great overall, and he certainly makes us feel every cut and abrasion and pain-point that Glass must suffer through during his long journey.

Meanwhile, Tom Hardy nearly steals the film as Fitzgerald. Hardy is a complete badass here - a grizzled hunter who does what he has to to get by in life. Fitzgerald harbors a perpetual mad-on, resentful of their group's leader, Andrew Henry (Domhnall Gleeson - always great, apparently in every other big movie of 2015) for his privileged background, annoyed by Glass' half-Native American son, and just generally looking for a fight. Fitzgerald gets all of the movie's best lines, and Hardy seems to really relish playing the loose-cannon antagonist. He's got such a great physicality and sense of menace to him. Plus, the dude is quite simply one the best actors working today. Hardy pretty much owns this one.

Gleeson is also very good, as mentioned (he's once again playing the virtuous leader here, following his flirtation with the Dark Side in The Force Awakens). There's also a really great supporting turn from Will Poulter - who I've been a fan of since Son of Rambow - as the junior member of the group, who becomes a bit of a protege to Fitzgerald.

THE REVENANT has a great cast, and it also benefits hugely from Iñárritu's unmatched ability to shoot both chaotic action scenes and quieter scenes of the untamed wilderness with an immersive, eye-melting, you-are-there style. The single-take style of some of the big action set-pieces reminded me of the work of Fukunaga on True Detective and the recent Beasts of No Nation. And the more serene scenes of nature call to mind the work of Terence Malick. The movie oftentimes feels, quite simply, epic as hell from a visual standpoint. If ever they were to make a Skyrim movie, THE REVENANT's snowy expanses, rocky mountain stretches, and out-of-nowhere spurts of shocking violence make a strong argument that Iñárritu would be the right guy to direct it.

But as memorable as scenes like the film's holy-$%#&-this-is-insane bear attack are in and of themselves, the thematic linkage between them often seems not-quite-fully-formed. And that's a sizable problem in a two-and-a-half-hour movie. The film never expends the energy to make Glass into a great character, and that hurts it. I think of the great revenge films, and what makes them great is, in large part, that their protagonists are iconic. Glass ... well, he's just a guy. At least as far as we know. What's odd is that Hardy's Fitzgerald seems much more well-defined. The film gets a jolt of life whenever it shifts its focus to Hardy. As good as DiCaprio is here, his character is sort of blah. And by extension, the film's message feels muddled and ill-defined. The movie ends with a really intense, amazingly-shot action scene. But then, after a brief coda, the credits roll, and you're left wondering what it all means. Again, there's that hollowness to the story that keeps it from being great. A movie about an epic journey across the wilderness by an injured/dying man seeking revenge? That is a story that should leave us with some sort of profound takeaways -- right? In this case, we're left kind of scratching our heads.

THE REVENANT is well worth checking out for its top-notch performances and absolutely stunning visuals. But I also hesitate to say that it's the Oscar-worthy masterpiece that some may proclaim it to be.

My Grade: B

OSCAR 2014 - Pre-Show Thoughts & Predictions & Rants

 Let's do this.

That's right, I'm back. It's been a while, but hey, it's almost Oscar time and I had to make the effort to put down my thoughts and predictions.

Here's the thing: as I've said, 2013 was an insanely good year for movies. So while, sure, there are films that I was upset to see snubbed at this year's Oscars, it's also pretty hard to take issue with the ones that did make the cut. I mean: 12 Years a Slave? Gravity? Nebraska? The Wolf of Wall Street? Her? Captain Philips? These were all instant classics that deserve whatever recognition they get. In fact, I'd be more than happy if any of those four films took home Best Picture. Even Dallas Buyers Club and American Hustle - I'd put those two a rung below the others I just mentioned, and yet, both have individual performances that were among the year's best.

Before I get into my picks, here are some of the biggest snubs in my view:


2014 OSCARS - THE BIGGEST SNUBS:

1.) Tom Hanks in Captain Phillips: look, I am the last person who likes seeing the same people nominated over and over. But Hanks may have literally done the best work of his storied career in this movie. Those last five minutes? Holy crap on a stick. I had chills.

2.) Inside Llewyn Davis: This should have been nominated for Best Picture and Best Original Screenplay. The Coen Bros must not be taken for granted, people. This is a fantastic film that will be more and more highly regarded as the years go on.

3.) Brie Larson / Short Term 12: Short Term 12 was an incredible indie flick that deserved more buzz than it got. But one undeniable highlight was the soul-searing performance of Brie Larson in the lead role. Some of the most real, raw, affecting acting I've seen.

4.) Michael B. Jordan / Fruitvale Station: Here's another breakout performance that really should have been recognized. Jordan is insanely good in Fruitvale Station, and the movie itself is an absolutely huge directorial debut for Ryan Coogler, who is going to be very big very soon.

5.) Daniel Bruhl / Rush - Rush was one of Ron Howard's best films in years, but the highlight was Daniel Bruhl, who absolutely kills as race car driver Nikki Lauda. Bruhl got a Golden Globe nom, and he should have gotten an Oscar nomination as well.

6.) Frances Ha - Noah Baumbach's best movie yet - a new-school spin on Woody Allen urban coming-of-age comedy that also served as the final piece in the puzzle that is Greta Gerwig as star-on-the-rise.

7.) The World's End - Okay, so there wasn't a snowball's chance in hell that Edgar Wright's latest would receive an Oscar nom. But why? It's funny, smart, and moving. Wright directs the hell out of it. It might be his best movie yet, and he's made some damn good films. It makes me sad that we live in a world where Wright's films are not considered best-in-class by the cinematic establishment.

8.) Stoker - Too weird for the Oscars? Probably. But Chan Wook Park's American cinematic debut is right up there with Oldboy as a spellbinding psychological thriller that sticks with you and enters the inner sanctum of your mind long after the closing credits role. And some of the acting in the film - from Mia Wasikowska and Nicole Kidman in particular - is aces.

9.) Pacific Rim - So ... wait. How is this not even nominated for best Visual Effects? Pac Rim was far and away the coolest film, visually, in 2013 not named Gravity. Show Guillermo Del Toro some love.

10.) The Way Way Back - Snubbed on multiple levels. Sam Rockwell was fantastic in this, and deserving of a dark horse Best Supporting Actor nom. Toni Collette was similarly great. The screenplay was excellent. Where was the love for this film?

And yet ... like I said, so many great films and talents *were* nominated that it's hard to be all that upset. At least this year. Next year I'll probably be back with extra Oscar-hatin'.


2014 OSCAR PICKS AND PREDICTIONS:

BEST PICTURE:

Should Win: Tie: Gravity, 12 Years a Slave, Her, Nebraska, or The Wolf of Wall Street.

- Like I said, all four of these films were instant classics, in my mind. Gravity was my personal favorite film of the year. 12 Years a Slave had one or two minute flaws, but had moments so powerful - and an important story so well-told - that I sort of see it as most deserving of an award. Her was maybe the most of-our-time, uber-relevant movie of 2013. In another year, it might have been a favorite. Nebraska was, to me, a stunner - Alexander Payne's best yet - funny, visually-striking, and packing one hell of an emotional punch. And Wolf of Wall Street - it was just classic Scorsese. It was balls-to-the-wall awesome, and easily up there with his last Oscar-winning effort The Departed. So yeah, I wouldn't mind if any of these four movies took home the gold.

Will Win: 12 Years a Slave

- I think it will be close. But 12 Years feels like the "important" film that deserves to be recognized. If it wasn't so good, I might take issue. But the film is a friggin' masterpiece, so I'll be supportive if it wins.

BEST ACTOR:

Should Win: Tie: Matthew McConaughey, Leonardo DiCaprio, Chiwetel Ejiofor

- This is another loaded category, even without Tom Hanks. All three of the above performances though are pretty next-level, career-best work. McConaughey is just on a tear. In Dallas Buyer's Club he goes full-method, and it's the best work he's ever done. Similarly, DiCaprio is off-the-chain good in Wolf of Wall Street - it's his best-ever work. Eljiofor is doing a big, Shakespearian performance in 12 Years a Slave. But man, the way he conveys emotion with just his eyes, the way he shows you inward rage matched with outward restraint - it's amazing stuff. All three of these guys should co-win.

Will Win: Matthew McConaughey

- 2013 was the Year of McConaughey. Alright? Alright alright alriiiight. The dude has so much goodwill built up between Dallas Buyer's Club, Mud (underrated), Wolf of Wall Street (best cameo role since Alec Baldwin in Glengary Glenross), and now True Detective (incredible). The momentum is too strong. Just go with it, alright?

BEST ACTRESS:

Should Win: Cate Blanchett

- Blanchett was a tour de force in Blue Jasmine. Woody controversy aside, you can't take that away from her. This was a career-highlight turn. I also like Sandra Bullock a lot in Gravity, though the performance is so much about the physical that it seems less substantive somehow than Blanchett's. Amy Adams was also pretty incredible in American Hustle. If anyone deserves to win for that film, I think it's her.

Will Win: Cate Blanchett

- The Woody Allen factor could hurt her, but it could also rally people to her side. Regardless, I think hers was the best and most impressive performance by a pretty decent margin, so ultimately that should win out.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR:

Should Win: Jared Leto

- The only other guy I'd consider in the running is Michael Fassbender, who was phenomenal in 12 Years a Slave. But Leto is the clear favorite. He is heartbreaking in Dallas Buyer's Club.

Will Win: Guys, this is perhaps one of the few sure-things of this year's Oscars. Leto is a lock.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS:

Should Win: June Squibb

- Personally, I absolutely loved Squibb in Nebraska. Hers is the big, bring-the-house-down role, and I loved her in the film. It's not every day that an elderly woman makes you stand up and cheer in a movie. Squibb did, and to me, she deserves a win.

Will Win: Lupita Nyong'o

- It feels like the momentum is in Nyong'o's favor. And she's great in 12 Years a Slave. I guess my only reservation is that her character is perhaps a bit less memorable than the suffering she endures. But still, the Oscars love a good breakout story, and Nyong'o certainly is one.

BEST DIRECTOR:

Should Win: Alfonso Cuaron

- This is another insanely loaded category. I'm not sure I would have given David O. Russell a nod here (I'd give it to the Coen Bros., Spike Jonze, or Paul Greengrass). But the other four guys - Cuaron, Scorsese, McQueen, and Payne - all did absolutely we're-not-worthy work on their latest films. This one hurts. Because I think years from now, Wall St. will be thought of as a total Scorsese classic. And McQueen is just getting started, but what he did with 12 Years is amazing. We've seen the straight-up melodrama version of this story before, but McQueen gave us the art-film, Lynchian, surreal nightmare version. This guy is the real deal. That said ... Cuaron did stuff in Gravity that was just mind-boggling. The imagination and vision needed to conceive what he conceived ... it's beyond the capabilities of us mere mortals. Cuaron is my pick.

Will Win: Alfonso Cuaron

- For all the reasons I mentioned above, I think Cuaron is the favorite. I could see a similar trajectory to the Golden Globes, in which Cuaron takes home the Director prize while Gravity ultimately loses out to 12 Years a Slave for Best Picture.

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY:

Should Win: Tie: Her and Nebraska

- I loved both of these screenplays. Her just created this amazingly fleshed-out future world, while at the same time imbuing what could have been a gimmicky story with real heart and feeling. At the same time, Nebraska was just a whip-crack funny yet gut-punch moving story that was quiet, yet spoke volumes, all at once.

Will Win: Her

- I think this may be one of the token wins for Her. I'm not sure though, this one's a touch call. I could see American Hustle taking it. But I think voters will recognize Her not just for its merits but for the clear autobiographical element that Jonze put into it.

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY:

Should Win: Wolf of Wall Street

- This is a flipping phenomenal screenplay. The kind that will be quoted by movie geeks for decades. Terrence Winter has done wonders over the years on Boardwalk Empire, but this is a crowning achievement. I mean, holy crap, McConaughey's speech to DiCaprio alone is pure gold.

Will Win: 12 Years a Slave

- This one is super tough to call. John Ridley is a well-regarded writer and there's some very good writing in 12 Years a Slave. I think Wolf of Wall Street could pull it out, but perhaps the (ridiculous) semi-controversy over the movie's morals could hurt it. If I had to wager, I'd guess 12 Years. But would not be upset if Wall Street pulled an upset.

BEST ANIMATED FEATURE:

Should Win: The Croods / The Wind Rises

- Caveat: I have not yet seen The Wind Rises. But it's probably amazing and deserving of a win, as let's face it - Miyazaki is a living legend and just about everything he does is genius. That said, Dreamworks' latest has probably zero chance of winning, but dammit all, I really dug The Croods. I was a fan of Frozen as well, but The Croods to me was the more involving, more fully-realized film.

Will Win: Frozen

- Everyone seemingly loves Frozen among the rank-and-file population. And every Academy voter with kids has probably seen it a million times by now It's a juggernaut - likely an unstoppable one. While there's a chance that the great Miyazaki's purportedly final film - The Wind Rises - will take home what is probably its rightful award, I won't underestimate the hypnotic power of "Let It Go" and the movie that surrounds it.

BEST VISUAL EFFECTS:

Should Win: Gravity

- Seemless CGI, eye-popping IMAX 3D, incredible integration of live-action actors with computer-generated sets. Yeah, this one is a futureshock to the system, and yeah, it should win.

Will Win: Gravity:

- It should win, and it will. Sorry Lone Ranger.

BEST FILM EDITING:

Should Win: Captain Phillips
Will Win: Captain Phillips

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY:

Should Win: Gravity (though Nebraska is up there as well)
Will Win: Gravity

BEST PRODUCTION DESIGN:

Should Win: American Hustle
Will Win: American Hustle

BEST DOCUMENTARY:

Should Win: ???

- Okay, I am woefully behind in my documentary viewing. But I've heard so many good things about the film The Act of Killing. It's on my list. It seems like the sort of must-watch, eye-opening doc that is indeed award-worthy.

Will Win: The Act of Killing

BEST ORIGINAL SCORE:

Should Win: Gravity

- I loved the score of Gravity. Made the film that much more immersive and intense.

Will Win: Gravity

BEST ORIGINAL SONG:

Should Win: "Let It Go"
Will Win: "Let It Go"

- Did you not read what I wrote above about Frozen. It's a big Disneyfied juggernaut at this point and Let It Go is a big reason why. To be fair, it's a great pop-song, one of the most catchy and most memorable that a Disney animated feature has produced in years.

BEST SOUND MIXING:

Should Win: Gravity
Will Win: Gravity

BEST SOUND EDITING:

Should Win: Gravity
Will Win: Gravity

BEST MAKEUP AND HAIRSTYLING:

Should Win: ???

- What the ...? The nominees in this category are horrendous. At least throw The Hobbit a bone here ... The Lone Ranger? Bad Grandpa? Ugh.

Will Win: I guess Dallas Buyer's Club because of Jared Leto?

BEST FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM:

Should Win: ???

- Okay, I'm also severely lagging in my recent viewing of Oscar-nominated foreign films. I don't know, I guess none of this year's crop really grabbed my interest. I've heard amazing things about Omar, but I'm curious to see it so as to better understand its politics.

Will Win: The Broken Circle Breakdown

BEST DOCUMENTARY SHORT:

Should Win: ?
Will Win: Prison Terminal: The Last Days of Private Jack Hall

BEST ANIMATED SHORT:

Should Win: ?
Will Win: Room on the Broom

BEST LIVE ACTION SHORT:

Should Win: ?
Will Win: The Voorman Problem


And there you go. The bottom line: 2013 was one hell of a year for films. So forget about red carpets and Hollywood politics, and instead celebrate movies that kick-ass, expand the imagination, open eyes, and make you think.

THE WOLF OF WALL STREET Is a New Scorsese Classic

THE WOLF OF WALL STREET Review:

- There are directors whose legend is, perhaps, overhyped ... and then there's Martin Scorsese. 2013 has been a fantastic year for movies - one of the best - but before all is said and done and the book is closed, here comes the master with a film that shows all of the year's almost-great films how it's done. THE WOLF OF WALL STREET completes a thematic trilogy that started with Goodfellas, continued with Casino, and now ends with a third look at the mainstreaming of crime in America. This movie is stylistically similar to those two previous Scorsese classics, and it's just effortlessly amazing. Others have mentioned this, but what quickly shocked me about the film is that, while it builds on themes and aesthetics that Scorsese has dealt with in the past, it feels like the work of a young, hungry, boundary-pushing director - not a 70-year-old veteran. The Wolf of Wall Street is 100% pure cinematic rock n' roll.

Early on, the film delivers a scene so good that it's destined to become an instant-classic. In it, Leonardo DiCaprio's Jordan Belfort - at this point a young, just-starting-out Wall St. broker - has lunch with one of the big-shots at his new workplace. The big-shot is played by Matthew McConaughey (who I'm now ready to officially declare as the MVP of the movies in 2013), and the conversation between the two is electric. This might very well be the best one-scene performance in a movie since Alec Baldwin explained the principles of "Always Be Closing" in Glengarry Glen Ross. McConaughey breaks down the world of Wall St. in colorful fashion, but basically, his advice boils down to this: being a stock broker is not about helping others make money, it's about creating the illusion of helping others make money. The real trick is to reel suckers in and keep them in with the on-paper promise of future rewards, while you, the broker, rakes in actual cash at their expense. It's here that we start to see the world that Belfort is about to enter - a world based on lies, a world based on greed, and a world that's fueled by excess - sex, drugs, and an insatiable desire for more money at all costs.

Belfort soon becomes a skilled broker, but he gets a bad break when his firm goes under. He finds himself back at the bottom, and takes a job at a small-time brokerage that specializes in penny stocks. But Belfort's salesmanship quickly makes him a big fish in a small pond, and soon enough he strikes out on his own - recruiting old friends to help him form his own firm. Known for its slick sales tactics and debauched excesses, the firm quickly recruits an army of employees who worship at Belfort's altar with cult-like fervor. Soon, Belfort and his cohorts are making more money than they know what to do with, even as they increasingly become immersed in a whirlwind of corruption - attracting the attention of the FBI, who become eager to topple the empire that Belfort has built.

As the film progresses, McConaughey's early advice looms large. Belfort and his cronies don't care about who they're scamming, ripping off, or manipulating to get what they want, and what they want above all else is the all-important sale. That same drive for more, for heightened sensation, is there in Belfort's addictions to drugs and sex. THE WOLF OF WALL STREET is a drug-trip movie, no question. There's more coke snorted, pills swallowed, and crack smoked here than in just about any movie ever. Scorsese shows us this in excess so that we can feel the excess, so that it wears us down in a way where the drugs lose all glamor and we just think "enough is enough, these guys are nuts!". And that's exactly the correct response, the response that Scorsese aims for. This is not a film that overtly moralizes. There's no heavy-handed condemnation of Belfort or his destructive actions. Instead, the condemnation is there between the lines. The repetition of scenes of drug-use tell the tale. In this film, the drugs initially seem exciting, and the early scenes of drug use are energetic and almost triumphant. Later, they become darkly comedic - an extended scene of of Belfort and his right-hand-man Donnie (Jonah Hill) slowed to a cartoonish crawl by an overdose of quaaludes is an absurdly hilarious bit of physical comedy. Eventually, the drugs start to seem pathetic. "He's going to that well again?", we think. And so it goes throughout the film. Sex goes from sexy to comedic (Belfort literally screwing his wife atop a pile of money) to pathetic. Belfort's way with words, his gift for inspiring others and creating a cult of personality around himself, follows a similar downward spiral - from triumph to comedy to tragedy. So for those who will misguidedly denounce this film for glamorizing Belfort, I say watch more carefully. THE WOLF OF WALL STREET, is, ultimately, a rather brilliant takedown of not just Belfort, but of the kind of immoral hucksterism that set the stage for modern Wall Street culture and the modern financial collapse that that culture led to.  

The film goes to very dark and very depraved places, but it's also, largely, a comedy - with numerous over-the-top sequences that are flat-out hilarious in their absurdity. Scorsese's defense-mechanism response to the sheer repulsiveness of Belfort and his Wall St. culture is to send it up in grand fashion. In one of the film's most clever repeated conceits, Belfort, via narration, will often begin to explain some facet of Wall St., only to cut himself off shrug off the lesson as not-that-important. However, he does explain in full the history of the quaalude and the exact nature of the high it provides. And it's in these details that the satirical brilliance of the movie shines through. For Belfort, Wall St. is a fantasyland bacchanalia - a playground for arrested-development adults to live without consequence. Wives are cheated on, kids neglected, and clients scammed all to achieve a neverending high. But the illusion of that high vs. the ugly reality is the source of much of the movie's humor. We see the ridiculous havoc that Belfort wreaks on his mind and body via his drug abuse, contrasted with his belief that the drugs are what give him his power, like spinach for Popeye. We see how these stockbrokers psych themselves up, believing in Belfort's rhetoric that labels them as killers and assassins. And yet, Scorsese depicts them as spineless sheep, as brainwashed losers. This is apparent in Jonah Hill's Donnie - who first appears as a geeky, creepy sort of guy who's widely mocked (and rightfully so) for marrying his cousin. Donnie quickly latches on to Belfort and becomes his Number 2, and as he gains wealth and power, Donnie starts acting like a douche - humiliating young employees and picking fights with others in Belfort's inner circle. Donnie clings to the idea that Wall St. success has made him into something more than he once was. But really, he's still just a sad sack who's married to his first cousin.

Both Hill and DiCaprio do fantastic work here. Speaking first about DiCaprio, this may be his best-yet collaboration with Scorsese. This is DiCaprio unhinged - he goes big, he goes crazy, and he even delivers scenes of physical comedy that show him to be incredibly gifted in that regard. This is the actor's most fully-inhabited role to date. He nails it. Hill, meanwhile, I really didn't know he had this in him. He hangs with DiCaprio and holds his own. I was shocked by how good he was in this film.

Hill is a surprise, but another surprise was Margot Robbie as Belfort's second wife, Naomi. When first introduced, I assumed that Robbie was just there to play a small role, to help further the rift between Belfort and his first wife, whom he married young and quickly grew apart from. Soon enough though, I realized that Naomi was a major character in this story, and that - wow - Robbie had some serious acting chops to match her seriously stunning looks. She too goes toe-to-toe with DiCaprio, and she too holds her own and doesn't give an inch. There are some other fine supporting turns in the film: Rob Reiner as Belfort's bemused dad, and Jon Bernthal as an old buddy of Belfort's who becomes their money-man. I also enjoyed seeing The Artist's Jean Dujardin show up as a rule-bending Swiss banker.

The film is impeccably shot and edited by Scorsese and his team. The stylistic trademarks from Goodfellas and Casino are back - the freeze frames, the slo-mo, the voiceovers, the visual dynamism. Scorsese mixes chaos and precision like no one else. He bobs and weaves through large crowd scenes and visually dense action, but he does so with a care and purposefulness that most directors lack. I've also got to give credit to the sharp script by Terence Winter. The movie is jam-packed with memorable and quotable lines - there's some great dialogue here that's got a lot of snap and a lot of sizzle.

THE WOLF OF WALL STREET is masterful on many levels. It functions as a biting, razor-sharp attack on the worst aspects of a capitalist society that's lost its way - a society that's built on and feeds off of corruption and false promises. We too are complicit in Belfort's evil, because we as a people willingly buy into what he and his ilk are selling, and enable the system that is ultimately, in many ways, a house of cards. In many respects, Belfort is America. Before his rise to Wall St. power, the old-money guys were, mostly, left alone by law-enforcement. But his story was that of a self-made man. That allowed him to surpass his born-with-a-silver-spoon competition, but it also left him vulnerable. To succeed at the level he hoped to, he had to get dirtier, meaner, and more ruthless than the establishment ever did. To achieve his version of the American Dream, he had to essentially lose his soul. But is it better to dance with the sinners than starve with the saints? THE WOLF OF WALL STREET pointedly asks that question, arching a mocking eyebrow at the pitfalls of unbridled excess.

My Grade: A

THE GREAT GATSBY Is a Trainwreck, Old Sport

THE GREAT GATSBY REVIEW:

- The Great Gatsby is one of my favorite books. I know a lot of people say that, but it's true. Even though it's been years since I last read it, the novel left the kind of impression on me where it's been in my brain ever since. Gatsby is that kind of book - the kind whose story and characters resonate ... but what really hits you is the imagery. The isolated Gatsby peering out across the water at the just-out-of-reach Daisy, the hints of crime and corruption and lies behind his mythic persona, the eyes of Dr. T.J. Eckelberg staring over the city, casting judgement over those who pass beneath. For that reason, I went into the new Gatsby film pretty excited. For me, it seemed about time that a visuals-oriented director like Baz Luhrmann tackle the material. I remember, in high school, being shown the old Robert Redford / Mia Farrow version of  Gatsby, and just thinking it was all wrong. The colors, the pacing, the dialogue - everything felt so bland and straightforward. Gatsby needed flair, depth, texture. I was encouraged by what I saw from the trailers of Luhrmann's Gatsby. It seemed like he got that this was a story that needed a visually-dynamic, almost surrealist-bent in order to capture the essence of the book.

Well, as it turns out, I was very wrong. Luhrmann was not, it seems, the man for the job. Luhrmann's take on Gatsby is indeed - like his previous films - hyper visual and ultra-stylized. But here's the problem: it's all, 100% surface-level. The film is visually decadent, but there's absolutely no texture to it. And as the film goes on, it becomes a shockingly literal translation of the book - going so far as to have long stretches of dialogue and narration lifted verbatim, as the text from the novel is superimposed on the screen. The Great Gatsby - the book - is about metaphor, subtext, and images that are evocative not just of a time and place, but of an idea - the death of The American Dream. Nothing about the new movie version is evocative. In fact, it's a flat-out mess.

Now, don't tell me that such a book is untranslatable to film. Don't tell me that movies can't have subtext or depth or visual metaphor. Try telling that to the Coens or to P.T. Anderson (to name a few of the finest living filmmakers, whose best movies are the cinematic equivalents of the Great American Novel). But with this new film, Luhrmann proves that he shouldn't be put in the same category as those great directors. Yes, he can stage a party scene like nobody's business. And he makes the big party scenes in Gatsby into visual marvels that look, admittedly, pretty stunning (and really pop in 3D to boot). But that's literally the best part of Gatsby - the best scenes, by far, are two of its party scenes - one being Gatsby's extravagant affair at his decadent mansion, the other being a smaller and more sinister impromptu bit of debauchery in which Nick Carraway and Tom Buchanan engage in some sinful behavior in a Manhattan apartment. These party scenes work because they are so visually dynamic, and they give the first hour or so of the film a real energy and amusement-park-ride style appeal. But reducing The Great Gatsby to being a Roaring Twenties (in 3D!) Cirque Du Soleil show just seems wrong. And even when it works, the temporary high of those scenes soon fizzles out. The movie can only sustain that circus-like energy for its first act. Soon afterwords, it becomes a talky, plodding soap opera with really nice colors. The last thing I thought I'd be with this film was bored, but for the entire second and third acts, that's exactly what I was.

The inexplicable literalism of the film is doubly frustrating because Luhrmann insists on doing his thing where he fills the movie with modern, anachronistic pop music instead of era-appropriate tunes. This honestly sort of drove me crazy here, because the movie *could* have found a way to cleverly modernize the story, or to use the music in a way that felt meaningful or thematically resonant. But it doesn't. It's not like in Inglorious Basterds, where David Bowie's "Cat People" hypnotically recasts Holocaust survivors as punk-rock revolutionaries. Tarantino is a guy who's used anachronistic music and other stylistic choices to enhance his historical films and give them richer meaning and context. Contrast that to The Great Gatsby. Is there any particular reason why Jay Z and Beyonce are the musical selections in the film (other than Jay Z being a producer)? Is there any real thematic resonance to the songs used? As far as I could see, no, there isn't. The effect is that, when a random group of guys drive through 1920's NYC blasting "99 Problems," it's an unintentionally funny / cringe-worthy moment that takes you out of the movie.

Point being: the stylistic choices in The Great Gatsby feel pretty much arbitrary and there just because, well, that's what Baz Luhrmann does.

As far as the actors go, I felt the performances were a decidedly mixed bag. I'm more or less a pretty big fan, in general, of all of the main players here. But I didn't enjoy the performances in this film all that much, for the most part. Strangely, the only one who seems to nail it is previously-unknown (to me at least) Elizabeth Debicki as the sly and elusive female golf pro Jordan Baker. Debicki brings a casual, lived-in quality to Jordan and the movie is much better when she's on-screen. I don't think it's any coincidence that once Jordan fades into the movie's background, the film suffers.

To that end, I didn't love either Leonardo DiCaprio as Gatsby or Tobey Maguire as Nick. It's weird, DiCaprio has been on an awesome-acting streak of late, most recently impressing in Django Unchained. But as Gatsby, I just didn't love his approach. It's so overdone and "actorly," but not in a particularly powerful or convincing manner. It feels like him doing a voice, but not necessarily fully inhabiting a character. My impression from the book was always that Gatsby is mysterious, dangerous, a man of the shadows. Once Leo makes his big entrance as Gatsby, he's just a complete scenery chewer. It felt way off to me, and was at times grating, at times boring. Same goes for Maguire as Nick. Nick is the ultimate everyman, but Maguire is just too eccentric-seeming and goofy to be a true everyman these days. His Nick is almost comically passive, with no real opinions and no real point of view. It makes the use of Nick's narration from the book that much more jarring - we're being told that Nick feels a certain way, but we're rarely shown anything on screen that backs it up. The fact that Luhrmann uses Nick's eventual stay in a mental health institution as a framing device adds to the disparity. Nick remains a total blank slate throughout the film, and he seems to barely possess an independent thought about anything that occurs in the movie - let alone enough material to put it all into book form, as Luhrmann has him do.

The rest of the cast faces similar challenges navigating through Luhrmann's alternately gaudy then drab dream-world. Carrie Mulligan seems to be giving it her all as iconic Daisy, yet the romance between her and Gatsby seems totally limp. Again, it all comes back to the fact that their relationship is colored in metaphor and imagery in the book, but in the movie, every thought that Gatsby has about Daisy is spelled out in exhaustive detail. Meanwhile, Joel Edgerton's Tom becomes a gruff, debaucherous cartoon character. Edgerton is usually great, but he too seems confused about what tone he should be going for.

Over and over again, The Great Gatsby seems to swing wildly from one extreme to the other in terms of tone, visuals, and stylistic choices. Like I said, it's a mess. It sounds strange to write this, because in the past I've defended films for working on a purely visual level. But Gatsby undermines the power of its own visuals by rarely letting them speak for themselves. Everything feels underlined, bolded, and put on the screen in Size 32 font. By the time the movie was over, I came away with absolutely no thoughts on what it all meant, no ponderings about The American Dream, or the corrupting influence of wealth and power, or the lies America has told itself to create a perfect myth for itself. Sure, there are some surface-level allusions to the book's great themes, but it's all surface, all paper-thin. Even visually, there isn't much that really sticks with you - despite the heavy stylization, there's remarkably little sense of atmosphere to the film.

Maybe some will just get so caught up in the elaborate costumes and music-video-esque, highly choreographed party sequences that, hey, that's enough. But The Great Gatsby deserves better, and more so than that, this is just not a very good movie - with surprisingly little to say, given that it's based on a work that has stood the test of time precisely because it says so much. Like I said, I had hoped that the combination of Baz Luhrmann and The Great Gatsby would be a surprisingly potent combo. Instead, I am left feeling highly skeptical about a director who seems to just mangle source material sans rhyme or reason or vision.

My grade: C

DJANGO UNCHAINED Delivers a Fistful of Awesome

DJANGO UNCHAINED Review:

- Thank you, Quentin Tarantino. Seriously. Thank you for creating original films based on original ideas - movies that both pay tribute to cinematic history and also boldly forge something new and never-before-seen. There's a reason why film geeks scramble to get a hold of new Tarantino scripts when they're completed - they're awesome, inspired pieces of original writing. And there's a reason why a new Tarantino film is always a true event for film fans - it's because we know we're getting something special, unique, genre-bending and boundary-pushing. DJANGO UNCHAINED is the latest from QT, and oh man, it is certifiably badass. In many ways, the movie is the perfect companion piece to his last film, Inglorious Basterds. That film was Jewish revenge-fantasy, juxtaposing World War II era catastrophe with fearless glam-rock rebirth. Django forges a similar path, juxtaposing the atrocities of American slavery in the pre-Civil War South with the rebirth and empowerment and new-found sense of swagger and self that came with hip-hop music over a century later. DJANGO is over-the-top, often very funny, and full of spaghetti western-meets-grindhouse style violence. It's got a pulpy style and QT's usual knack for dialogue-driven snap. The film didn't quite floor me in the same way that some of my favorite QT films have in the past, but I still sort of loved it all the same. DJANGO is one last injection of cinematic awesome in what has been, I think, a fine year for film.

At its core, DJANGO is Tarantino's take on the Spaghetti Western genre, popularized by the great Sergio Leone films like A Fistful of Dollars and The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly. Tarantino has littered his films with Leone references and call-backs, but here, the entire film pays heavy tribute to Leone, even including a a few new pieces composed by the legendary Ennio Marricone (who did all of the iconic themes for Leone's films). The film also pays tribute to Sergio Corbucci, who's B-grade "Django" Westerns are the inspiration for and spiritual successors of this one. But of course, DJANGO also blends the conventions of the Spaghetti Western (including a lot of the iconic sorts of shots that Leone made famous) with the themes and tropes of Blaxploitation. This is a genre that Tarantino has certainly dabbled in a bit before, especially given that Blaxploitation films could often also be labeled what you might call "grindhouse." But DJANGO UNCHAINED places us in the Antebellum South, where we meet Django (the D is silent), played by Jamie Foxx, being led by chains through the woods alongside a group of fellow slaves. But Django's life of dehumanizing servitude takes a sudden turn when the slaves and their masters have a run in with German dentist-turned-bounty hunter Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz). King has taken up a bounty on the law-breaking Brittle Brothers, who have taken refuge - under assumed names - on a plantation, and is looking for a slave who can identify them. As it turns out, Django is Schultz's man. Schultz, however, detests slavery - he enters into a mutual agreement with Django in which the now-freed slave can share in the profits of he and Schultz's bounty-hunting. Django agrees to partner up with Schultz on one condition - that eventually, the Doctor will help him to find and free his wife, Broomhilda (Kerry Washington), who was long ago forcefully separated from her husband, and made a slave at the plantation owned by the vile and violent Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio).

The film is anchored by four incredible performances. One - Jamie Foxx as Django. Foxx faced an enormous challenge in this film - starting out as a slave who had been beaten and humiliated into submission and servitude, and slowly but surely becoming a full man - and not just a man, but a badass gunslinger not to be $&%#'ed with. Foxx does a masterful job here. Oftentimes, Django must act one way in the service of he and King's schemes, while his eyes ever so slightly betray the fact that it's all an act. For example, when King and Django go to meet Candie, Django poses as a black slave trader - the lowest of the low. Django must grapple with how far to "get into character," and the way Foxx plays it is just right. Two - Christoph Waltz is phenomenal as Dr. King Schultz. King is a fascinating character - a man who's as sharp a talker as he is a shooter. He's also a true outsider in the American South - a German who is at once repulsed by the slavery, violence, and moral bankruptcy of America but one who also has thrived and profited from that environment. Waltz makes King's character arc fascinating in its own right - perhaps even more so than Django's. But mostly, Waltz is just awesome as hell. His theatricality and flair matched with Tarantino's stylized dialogue is, again, a match made in movie heaven. Three - Leonardo DiCaprio as Calvin Candie. Candie doesn't enter into the picture until midway through the film, but he is, immediately, a scene-stealer. Suffice it to say, I've never seen DiCaprio play a role like this before - an over-the-top villain who mixes Southern Hospitality with sadistic bloodlust and an endless supply of racist hate. DiCaprio, surprisingly, makes Candie a ball of pent-up rage and madness, and that barely-suppressed craziness helps make the Candie-centric scenes spill over with tension. Four - Samuel L. Jackson as Stephen, Candie's top slave and head-of-household. Wow - this is one of Jackson's best-ever performances, and one where he's not coasting on playing Sam Jackson, but a really fascinating character that is far-removed from the actor's typical persona (one which has, in many ways, been shaped by his roles in Tarantino's films). Stephen is in many ways the biggest badguy in the film - representing a slave who has a false sense of power due to his high position in the plantation, and who has been brainwashed into having ultimate loyalty to Candie and his family. Even as Django fights to be "unchained," Stephen fights for the status quo. He is the slave just strong-willed and independent-minded enough to be a useful lieutenant for Candie, but never so strong-willed as to ever question the will of his master. Of course, Stephen is a dark character, but Sam Jackson also makes him fun as hell - his verbal exchanges with Django are brilliantly funny.

The great casting doesn't end there. So many brilliant actors turn up in smaller roles that it's hard to keep track. A few that I'll mention are Don Johnson as plantation owner Big Daddy, Walton Goggins as Candie's muscle Billy Crash, M.C. Gainey - who I love from Lost and Justified - as Big John Brittle, and even Jonah Hill, who has a cameo in a hilarious scene involving a proto version of the KKK. Tarantino himself actually cameos as well, in an explosively oddball scene towards the end of the movie. I'll also give special mention to Kerry Washington, who does a fantastic job as Broomhilda Von Shaft (purportedly, an ancestor of John Shaft (!!!), according to QT). It would have been interesting had Washington played a larger role, but this is, ultimately, Django's story, and she is his princess that needs saving from horrible circumstances. But Washington infuses Broomhilda with unspoken emotion and trepidation, and it makes her eventual reunion with her husband that much sweeter.

DJANGO has a lot of the slow-build, dialogue-heavy scenes that we've come to expect from Tarantino. But as in Inglorious Basterds, they prove so well-done that it's hard to find much fault in them. Some sequences feel ever-so-slightly overlong though, and you wonder about the effect that not having the late Sally Menke on editing duties may have had. Menke, who edited all of QT's previous films, sadly passed away before DJANGO was filmed, and I do think there's a slight lack of tightness in some of the scenes as compared to films like Kill Bill and Basterds. Overall, it felt to me like parts of the film looked a little drab - lacking some of the visual richness of the Leone movies that QT was referencing. I usually leave a Tarantino film with several iconic images emblazoned in my memory - I'd say that happened less so than usual with this one. However, the movie jolts to electrifying life in a couple of key instances. One is when Tarantino utilizes flashbacks to Django and Broomhilda's past, presented in a rough, 70's grindhouse-esque style that emphasized the exploitative nature of the scenes. These, to me, were some of the most powerful scenes in the film. The other scenes that truly pop are the action scenes, which are just vintage Tarantino. The director has always had a knack for chaotic action scenes filled with one "holy $#@%!" moment after another in rapid-fire succession. And, damn, when business picks up in DJANGO UNCHAINED, it really picks up. Some of the big shoot-out scenes are just balls-to-the-wall insane.

I think the thematic point that a lot of people will want to discuss about the film is its sense of morality. For better or for worse, it's hard at this point to watch the movie completely in a vacuum, and not think, at least a little, about some of the recent shootings that have occurred across the country. What's interesting is that, despite all of the movie's over-the-top violence and pulpy nature, it actually does meditate a bit on the morality of violence. In fact, Dr. King's entire arc is sort of an exploration of this in its own, slightly-twisted way. As a bounty hunter, King kills only for money, never really making moral judgements about what he does except to justify it: killing these men is okay, because they are criminals, and he's within his legal boundaries. But at some point, King stops doing only what is profitable, and starts thinking more about what is right. Granted, even doing what is right involves gunning down bad guys - but that's another theme of the film. Django also paints a picture of an Antebellum South so brainwashed by slave culture that only a storm of bullets and hellfire could wake it up. In reality, that wake-up call was the bloodshed of the Civil War. But in Tarantino's pulp-fiction movieverse, Django was the precursor - the first shot of the Civil War came when he picked up a gun and began to turn the tables on the men who'd long abused and persecuted him and his people. This is, in many ways, a parallel to the revenge-scheme in Inglorious Basterds - over-the-top and uber-violent, but righteous in the way that it shows these characters not just fighting for themselves, but literally pushing against history. All of the violence, well, it begets violence. And Tarantino is a master at juxtaposing the empowerment of the modern minority with the delusional entitlement of the historical oppressor. Basically, the movie is a satisfying, cathartic, retroactive "#%$& you!" to the slave-owners, oppressors, and racists of the pre-Civil War South.

So like I said, thank you Quentin Tarantino. Although DJANGO UNCHAINED didn't quite register for me as the pure cinematic dynamite of your very best work, it had some of the year's most memorable performances and moments, and it was a true original. Funny, bloody, and badass to the core, this is vintage QT, and we as film fans are all better for having his movies, a defiant alternative to so much of the blandness that is out there. My main question now is ... what's next?

My Grade: A-