2022 In Review: Top 10 Films

Just Missed The List:

The Menu– A highly entertaining thriller that surpasses its gimmick storyline with playful musings and seasoned contributors. Ralph Fiennes brings his signature stone-faced psychopathy, Anya Taylor-Joy the charisma, and character actors young and old like John Leguizamo and Nicholas Hoult supply complimentary brands of modern douche.

Triangle Of Sadness– Really enjoyed the latest turn from one of my favorite filmmakers of the last decade, Ruben Ostlund (Force Majeure, The Square). This one aims at ridiculing modern affluence but plays mostly with the hierarchy inherent in our social contracts. Starting at the most basic level in the first act (a couple fighting about paying a dinner bill), moving to a luxury yacht captained by Woody Harrelson in the second act, and turning the hierarchy on its head in the shipwrecked third act. It also includes one of my favorite scenes of the year: the yacht’s turbulent “captain’s dinner”, as the guests are reduced to a collective puddle of shit and vomit. The sequence plays like a symphony with Ostlund at the podium. As each character gags and whimpers, he brings in plate after plate of jiggling gelatinous fish, a chorus of groans and vomiting crescendo, and a sobbing baby for good measure. It was remarkably gross, but a masterclass of filmmaking.

Emily The Criminal– A neat and tidy showcase for Aubrey Plaza who gets better with every passing year. There is nothing flashy about this crime thriller, and that’s mainly the appeal. It’s believability and practical tension carry it. Plaza plays a down-on-her-luck Jersey girl in debt who opts for a life of low-level crime rather than the empty promise of another unpaid LA internship. More than worth the 95-minute investment.

The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent– An exercise in meta self-awareness unlike any other. Nicholas Cage as Nicholas Cage is just plain fun. This movie has Cage doing an exaggerated (or is it?) version of himself and plays with commentary on his own career, the beauty of the over-the-top action film, and one of the more ernest movie friendships (Pedro Pascal plays the other half) I’ve seen in a while. All within an actual over-the-top action film. Its got laughs and heart. I look forward to the inevitable double-feature with Paddington 2.

The Stranger– This one caught me a bit by surprise. Joel Edgerton plays an undercover Australian police officer setting an elaborate trap on a suspected killer, aiming to get him to reveal where he buried the remains of the young boy he killed years earlier. The plot is deceptive, flashing backwards and forwards in time and it does not hold the audience’s hand, which I appreciated.  Awesome cinematography deep in rural Australia. Super dark and gritty.

---

The Top 10

10.  After Yang– This film flew under the radar as it was delayed multiple times due to covid. Technically premiering in July 2021 at Cannes, but not getting its wide release until March 2022. It was a beautiful, but heart wrenching story of a futuristic family dealing with grief. Their adopted robotic son begins to malfunction, and the film follows Colin Farrell and his young daughter as they deal with their loss. What a year from Colin Farrell, but we’ll get to that later.

9.  Nope– An immediate entry into the “Films About Filmmaking” hall of fame. I think this one will age gracefully as it didn’t get much love despite being an objectively flawless alien/monster flick. Jordan Peele’s third directorial venture (Get Out, Us) had everything you can ask for in a big-tent spectacle movie and Daniel Kaluuya and Kiki Palmer’s sibling tandem was super fun. There was an added element for cinephiles, with some Hollywood history anecdotes and references as well as the underlying motivation of the story being “GET THE SHOT”. Peele continues to elevate his game, as the suspense he manufactured throughout Nope was highly unsettling (see: Gordy the Chimpanzee). Additionally, the cinematography was unforgettable with Hoyte van Hoytema (The Fighter, Her, Interstellar, Dunkirk, Tenet) working the camera. Hoytema literally invented an entirely new way of shooting night scenes during the production of Nope. This analysis video explains it beautifully (starting at the 3:45 mark), but he basically shot the scenes in broad daylight, rigged two cameras on top of each other, one shooting in infrared, and the other in color and layered the two images on top of each other. The result was both gorgeous and revolutionary, a rich blue nightscape that allowed the audience to see deep into the distance with astonishing clarity, something that would have appeared much too dark to work on screen with traditional night filming.

8.  Everything Everywhere All At Once– One of the more ridiculous films to come out in years, but it was packed to the brim with heart. “The Daniels” (a directing duo of two dudes name Daniel) have carved out a Hollywood niche for themselves in the margins of absurdity. If you’ve seen their fart-fueled previous film Swiss Army Man, you’ll know the levels of their silliness can even exceed “hot dog fingers”. This one was a multiverse adventure of epic proportions with some really enjoyable performances. Michelle Yeoh gets the leading lady role of her lifetime and delivers continuous badassery as the story floats through different versions of her character and the different lives they chose. Supporting turns from Jamie Lee Curtis and Ke Huy Quan were notable as well.

7.  Bardo, a False Chronicle of a Handful of Truths– The latest from Alejandro G. Iñárritu (Birdman, The Revenant) was an odyssey of self-reflection and self-criticism. It seems that the overall zeitgeist of film criticism has partially turned on Iñárritu as of late. Most of the film critic bourgeoise have grown tired of his showy stylistic elements and self-referential subject matters. I however, have not! Perhaps that makes me some sort of rube, easily wooed by elaborate filmmaking. If it does, so be it. The fact of the matter is Iñárritu is a singular filmmaking artist that is entirely unafraid to challenge his own abilities and ideas. And he’s willing to do so to such a degree that in this film he questions everything about his own identity. The film is ultra-surreal and yet the dialogue and themes it employs are pure realism. It’s possible that my own identity that straddles multiple cultures and countries, as well as my own struggles with the art I create are the reasons this film resonated so deeply with me, but there is definitely wide-ranging wisdom for anyone to fish from it. It touches on multi-culturalism, family issues, the perils of aging and reflecting back on one’s accomplishments, authenticity, and much more. It was more than worth the arduous journey through one man’s life it takes the audience on.

6.  X/Pearl– This ranking on my list for a horror/slasher series speaks volumes, as its extremely rare that I walk away from a slasher film with any other take besides “haha that was fun” or “haha that was one of the worst things I’ve ever watched”. But these two films genuinely blew my mind as far as the cinematic quality they bring to the table. I don’t feel bad cheating by including both films in one spot because they are intended as sister films. Both take place on the same Texas farm and play with similar themes. And both star Mia Goth. As gorgeous as both films were, the primary reason to step outside your normal genre comfort zone and watch them is Goth’s unbelievable performances. And I do mean unbelievable. Truly star-making stuff, reminiscent of Sissy Spacek’s breakout in Carrie (1976). Goth is doing a young Magic Johnson impression, carrying the entire production on her back to a championship despite being the youngest player on the team. She inhabits multiple roles in the first film X: the unafraid lolita jezebel chasing porn stardom, and the mysterious peeping elderly “Pearl” who is viciously decaying inside and out in her old age. She then follows that up as a brilliant sociopath in Pearl, the prequel that takes place a lifetime earlier in which she reprises the role as the teenage version of Pearl back in 1918. Taking the two films as one entity, its one of the most impressive performances I’ve ever seen. Director Ti West must have brought his “A-game” during production after realizing what everyone was witnessing in Goth’s performance. A career horror/slasher director who had only a few mild successes prior to this series (third film upcoming), he formulated a beautiful vehicle for Goth to drive. The films pay homage to its slasher roots with references to Texas Chainsaw Massacre and others, but not in a forced way. It’s paced perfectly, and never feel gratuitous. Every narrative and visual decision fits the vibe. I was frozen solid as the credits rolled on Pearl (and what an unforgettable end-credits it was).

5.  Decision To Leave– Just the latest entry by the South Korean delegation to my top 10 lists, a trend that seems here to stay. The South Korean film scene has always been fruitful, and perhaps it is simply that access to it has increased in the age of streaming, but I am consistently finding Korean films among my favorites for the last couple decades. It’s my contention that the crown jewel of Korean filmmaking is Decision To Leave’s captain, Park Chan-Wook. Park’s films would simply never be nominated for Oscars (like, for example, Bong Joon Ho’s Parasite), as they’re much too dark and much too provocative. But with this film, he has made yet another masterpiece of mystery, suspense, and eroticism. Park burst on the international scene with 2003’s Oldboy, one of the most visceral and haunting (but fantastic) films I’ve ever seen (never, ever watch the Spike Lee remake, the original is an all-time classic that could never be duplicated). In 2016 he released what is my personal favorite of his films, The Handmaiden, a masterclass in mystery storytelling. Park’s chosen vibe is what you could call the “erotic thriller”. Most of his films use erotic romance and sex as a narrative playground, but rather than use his eroticism as some sort of cheap tease, he weaves it into his stories and characters. He is unafraid to go places that can both arouse and sicken audiences, and he does so within the structure of brilliant mysteries and dramas. The Handmaiden being the pinnacle of his erotic perversions. Every single time I watch one of his films, I slip deeply into his extremely capable storytelling hands, and Decision To Leave was no different. His endings satisfy, and his characters feel ultra-real, no matter how kinky, romantic, or sadistic they may be. This film however, dialed back the derangement and eroticism to more accessible levels and ends up being a beautiful exploration of undeniable human connection and the ripple effects in can have. A star detective (played by Park Hae-il) investigating a man’s death in a climbing accident meets the widow the victim left behind. The story volleys the audience back and forth between solving the case, and the palpable romantic connection between Detective Jang and the suspicious widow Seo-Rae. Its hot n’ steamy and full of mystery.

4.  The Banshees Of Inisherin– Put simply, this film made me laugh and cry, and that is good enough for me! It was the reunion of the trio that brought us one of my all-time favorite dark comedies In Bruges back in 2008. Writer/Director Martin McDonagh is a master of dark sentiments and Irish humor, and this film felt like the culmination of his talents. Stars Colin Farrell and Brendan Gleeson play off each other effortlessly. The story begins in 1923 on a remote Irish island as the Irish civil war humorously plays out as echoes in the distance, nearly irrelevant to the few inhabitants of Inisherin. Gleeson’s character decides after decades of friendship with Farrell’s character, he no longer wants to be friends, much to the confusion of Farrell and the rest of the townsfolk. The story meditates on the end of friendships and crisis of identity in hilarious and heartbreaking ways. Farrell’s performance is deserving of the accolades its been receiving. It feels like he might get a statue for this one.

3.  Top Gun: Maverick– Just a masterpiece of the action genre. Despite its formulaic structure, it still found emotional strings to tug (an impassioned reunion with Val Kilmer’s “Iceman” as both real-life Kilmer and his character battle terminal illnesses), it had easily the best aerial cinematography ever filmed with almost no CGI, and it was just plain fun to watch. A true thrill ride that rips. Despite his other life as a cult leader, its pretty remarkable what Tom Cruise is doing as a figure in Hollywood these days. He’s basically dedicated a hundred percent of his time to perfect the action movie. Collecting helicopter licenses, fighter jet licenses, halo jumping certifications, and countless other daredevil skills in order to do his own stunts in these movies. I’m fairly certain he will die in space during the production of Mission Impossible 12: Apollo Base ten years from now. With all the weight this sequel brought with it, all the expectations, all the release date delays (over 2 years of repeated pushes during covid), for this one to actually exceed expectations was quite a feat.

2.  Tar– There’s nothing like a powerhouse Cate Blanchett performance, and this brilliant turn as the fictitious Lydia Tar is perhaps the best performance of her illustrious career. She will almost certainly win her 3^rd Oscar for it. The film follows the downfall of Tar from the pinnacle of her field (a classical orchestra composer/conductor). After a scandalous cellphone video of her Julliard lecture is chopped up and released, displaying her borderline abusive treatment of a student, her life begins to slowly unravel as the audience learns more and more about the various lines she has crossed during her meteoric rise to chief conductor of the prestigious Berlin Philharmonic. Director Todd Field tackles landmine topics like political correctness, cancel culture, and workplace harassment with an impressively delicate touch. However, for me the most interesting theme being explored is our society’s obsession with the so-called “genius artist”. To what degree is someone like Tar’s “genius” authentic and earned vs. bestowed upon her by adoring sycophants because of the value we all collectively put on status. Tar is undoubtedly talented in her field, with an ear for sound that literally keeps her up at night, but it is slowly revealed how much of her success has been manufactured. In addition to the intellectual musings that Field proposes so beautifully, the film’s visuals and sound were also first rate. They evoked memories of Darren Aronofsky’s Black Swan (2010) in the way we see Tar navigating suspenseful waters, slowly losing her grip on both her life and the reality around her.

1.  Crimes Of The Future (David Cronenberg)- Ultimately I think the thing I look for most in a film is its success in achieving its own goals. The goals themselves don’t much matter to me. It’s the same reason why Top Gun: Maverick is so high on my list. Though this film has much loftier, much more nuanced ideas, it aims as high as a Tom Cruise fighter jet sequence in its own way. David Cronenberg’s return to the genre that made him (or you could say the genre he made) was without a doubt an evolutionary branch from his earlier more visceral body horror masterpieces. I much appreciated the new pitch, being I’m a healthy skeptic of the genre. I find most horror films to be missing the things I enjoy and mostly filled with boring tropes splattered around in the name of homage. And sub-genres like Slasher flicks or Body Horror have never captured my interest, so while I can appreciate the bloodstained artistic executions Cronenberg is known for, this new foray hit my sweet spot (and notably didn’t satisfy critics who came for his signature savage body horror). This is NOT a horror film, but it’s definitely not for the squeamish, and it’s much more palatable to those turned off by gore for the sake of gore. It has much to say, and it does so compellingly.

In this setup, humans in the near future evolve and begin involuntarily growing useless organs like tumors. The reasons for this are hotly debated, and people’s responses to this new reality… vary. Viggo Mortenson plays a renowned performance artist who “grows” these internal organs and conceptualizes his exhibitions in which his partner (played by Lea Seydoux) surgically removes the organs from his body in front of a live audience. Coming along for the ride and delivering my favorite performance in the film is the ever-evolving Kristen Stewart, who inhabits an ultra-creepy fangirl whose day job resides in the newly formed “Organ Registry Office”.

Tonally, Crimes Of The Future feels similar to a timeless classic: American Psycho, in that it will gross you out one minute, and chop up the sharpest line of satire in the next. Crimes of the Future filets meaningless bureaucracy, blind tribalism, pretentious art fanatics, and much more. It provokes you with bold absurdism, then delivers a pitch-perfect punchline to wash it down. After a provocative show, Stewart’s character can barely contain her arousal as she declares “surgery is the new sex”.

“Do we need a new sex?”, Mortenson replies.

 “Yes. Its time.”, she whispers excitedly.

In this world, Cronenberg created a very specific dystopian vision. His designs are as fascinating as they’ve ever been, concocting futuristic machines with a skeletal, industrial feel to match the world. Unsurprisingly, CGI is not utilized, as Cronenberg’s signature practical effects are far more affecting. The functionality of the machines is both hilarious and frightening. Visually the world is comprised of endless greys, beiges, shadows, cold light, cement buildings covered in graffiti, and damp streets. In Cronenberg’s future, we’ve fallen into disarray with all our conflicting truths and increasingly hostile zealots. Nearly every character is desperately searching for meaning in this broken world, yet simultaneously seems so certain in their beliefs. It’s a painfully realistic social commentary within an absurdist parallel universe. Even with all these themes in play, Cronenberg still has room for some amusing meta-humor on his own relationship with his art, a body worth dissecting for sure.

Honorable Mentions:

The Fabelmans, Marcel The Shell With Shoes On, Three Thousand Years of Longing, Kimi, Violent Night, Good Luck To You Leo Grande, Confess Fletch, Aftersun, Vesper, Bones and All, The Batman

Blackest Mirror (only kinda spoilery)

It was of course the dexterous writers of Atlanta that described their show as “Blackest Mirror”, and it was too perfect a comparison to not share here. The harshest truths are the ones most interesting to this particular creative team, so it’s easy to see how the nickname hatched. There seems to be only two camps out there in the ether when it comes to the recently concluded season 3 of FX’s Atlanta. You either consider it a Jumbled Troll-job, or a Modern American Masterpiece, myself falling in the latter camp. But a close examination of these 10-episodes leaves no room for ambiguity in your assessment, only preference. What do you look for in a show? An intricate and coherent plot? Tumultuous character arcs? A hero’s journey with a euphoric payoff? Look elsewhere. But if you fancy the eccentric, and something that speaks with a wholly unique creative voice and has an impeccable ability to bellow with it, there exists no better show maybe ever. Atlanta is going to say its piece, whether you vibe with the message or not, and frankly it doesn’t much care if you do or don’t.

For that reason, it’s a silly proposition to demand Atlanta pay a toll in fan service. It isn’t meant to be a comfort show that you fall asleep to, or a prestige thriller for plot theorizing and clue-hunting and character arcs. This is not that show. This show is trying to do something different and original, and it is succeeding in enough ways that the correct approach is submission, not participation.

But I get it. I too want to smoke a J with Al and Darius on a park bench. All I’m saying is stop trying to stuff an abstract sculpture through a square hole.

Atlanta has never been a show about a “rising rap star from Atlanta, his friends, and their crazy hijinks in East Point”. It simply has more to say. About America, about black people, about white people, about horrors, about joys, about fame, etc. It sparks thoughtful discussion, it has an uncanny ability to make you cackle one minute and shake your head the next, and most importantly, it stays making good points.

Season 3 was a surrealist carnival ride through Europe, fit only for those brave enough to face the fun house mirrors. Narratively, it isn’t pretty or charming, but the show has never been. “Rough-around-the-edges” would be a generous description. But what season 3 lacked in storyline it made up for in its trademark bizzarro spirit and fearlessness.

I’ll admit that accusations of season 3 being an intentional provocation of its audience aren’t totally unfounded. It included outlandish appearances from the likes of Liam Neeson and Chet Hanks, and is always pretty eager to skewer the preconceived notions of the audience. Nevertheless, when the show flavors its stew with these cameo moments of what can only be described as “White Cringe”, it’s done with the unrelenting mockery we’ve grown to love. But it also includes some (maybe undeserved) empathy you don’t get from mainstream virtue-signaling. Neeson’s cameo in episode 8 at the smoke-filled bar of the “Cancel Club” (part lounge / part social leper colony) was a hell of dice roll for an Oscar nominee. He played a version of himself on the blackest of shows and poked fun at his own racism while simultaneously faux-doubling down on it. Bold move, Schindler.

But compared to what Alexander Skarsgard agreed to do on screen in the finale, Neeson’s appearance was child’s play. I won’t spoil it all, but lets just say it involves meth, an Ortolan-style dining ceremony with Illuminati vibes, fried hands, and Skarsgard furiously masturbating into a mirror after being spat on. All-time cameo.

Quick aside: I wonder if the Glover Bros put out an open casting call for A-List celebrities willing to appear on screen doing psycho shit? Or if it was the much funnier explanation: the part was specifically written for Alexander Skarsgard.

The debate about Season 3 (if you can call a bunch of people tweeting into the void a debate) hinges on Atlanta’s turn from satirical dark comedy into a surrealist anthology piece (albeit still with plenty of twisted hilarity). I think calling it a “turn” wouldn’t be fair because the origins of what Atlanta became in season 3 were sprinkled throughout the first two seasons. Though not outright anthology episodes devoid of all 4 main characters, previous episodes like ‘B.A.N’, ‘Teddy Perkins’ and ‘Woods’ showed that Atlanta was capable of the strangest tangents through the deepest depths of surrealism and situational horror/comedy.

Now in season 3, those contemplations have evolved into “One-off” episodes that feature none of the main cast and have nothing to do with the “plot” of the show. But again, Glover and his team have consistently shown just how little they care about storyline or structure. Almost every major milestone in Paperboi’s career has happened off screen. Episodes routinely pick up three miles down the timeline with zero explanation of how we arrived there. Most recently jumping what appears to be multiple years between the season 2 finale and season 3 premiere. Just another example of Atlanta’s indifference to audience expectations. My advice? Stop expecting.

One benefit of this season’s evolution is that prior seasons are not necessarily prerequisites. All you need to know is: Paperboi is successful and famous now, Earn got his shit together as Al’s manager, Darius is still Darius, and they’re on tour in Europe. Once you’ve read that last sentence, you have enough information to fully enjoy season 3 of Atlanta.

It was quintessentially Atlanta to make a triumphant return after a 4-year hiatus and immediately plop us into a literal horror movie anthology episode based on the real-life Hart Family murders without a single familiar character. But my point is: that was more than just a calculated decision. It was a mission statement to its audience right from the jump to exorcise their own expectations and enjoy the journey. #FreeHugs.

Another one-off episode imagined a reality where all descendants of American slaves are legally allowed to sue the descendants of the slave masters that enslaved their ancestors. It even features a white version of Earn laying down some vicious wisdom. Light work for Atlanta.

The next anthology chapter, brilliantly directed in black and white by Donald Glover, imagined a billionaire black businessman returning to his high school alma mater to gift free college tuition to its students… but only the black students. The businessman holds a cartoonish courtroom tribunal where a panel of black elders interrogates the black students to determine if they’re “black enough” to receive the scholarship. First question: spell “Dante”. Second question: “What color are the napkins at Wendy’s?” Just a regular Friday on Atlanta.

Aside from the unrivaled writing team of Donald Glover/Stephen Glover/Stefani Robinson, the unsung champion of Atlanta’s success is Hiro Murai, who has more directing credits on the show than anyone, including Glover. If you have a favorite episode of Atlanta, it was likely directed by Murai. His visual storytelling is elite and what makes so many of Atlanta’s best episodes feel more like Oscar-level short films. The Childish Gambino video for “This Is America” that went viral in 2018? Also directed by Hiro Murai. The creative partnership between Glover and Murai has formed a distinct wavelength, and it’s kept them both in-tune and firing on all cylinders. I genuinely hope it never ends.

The most moving episode of the season for me commented on the effects of a wealthy white family employing a Trinidadian woman named Sylvia to be the primary caretaker to their young son. The episode grapples, in hilarious and heartbreaking fashion, with the effects Sylvia’s role had on the young boy. The privileged white boy felt more connected to Sylvia’s Caribbean culture than his own parents, and the episode juxtaposes that with Sylvia’s own children who resented the love the boy received from their mother out of jealousy. To cut the tension, the episode throws slippery fuckboi Chet Hanks into the mix speaking in his signature Patois accent, which felt like a lovingly delivered middle finger from the Atlanta team.

The standard format episodes were no slouches either, tackling complexities including but not limited to:

• Comically oblivious European racism
• Obnoxious wealth and the sycophants that surround it
• Glover’s internal thoughts about championing other black creatives despite knowing they’re frauds
• Fame and its toll on personal relationships
• Vulnerability among loved ones and complete strangers
• Phony social justice warriors and fake corporate philanthropy
• A “space cake” psychedelic trip for the history books through the streets of Amsterdam
• The long-awaited “What the fuck is going on with Van?” finale episode in which Zazie Beetz puts up a 50-point triple-double, playing out her twisted French fantasy

Season 3 covered all those bases and more with precision, and at the end of each episode all you want to do is watch what you just watched again. A mess? Maybe. But there’s no other mess I’d rather lay down and roll around in. Fans of Atlanta will miss it dearly when its gone, so we may as well bow down to it now, strap in and blast off.

For a deeper dive with perspectives containing more melanin than I have to offer, I highly recommend the companion podcasts done by Van Lathan and Charles Holmes on the Ringer’s “Prestige TV Podcast” feed, and these two very candid interviews with writers Stephen Glover and Stefani Robinson.

Coosh’s 2020 Academy Awards Preview

Its been a while since we had a year so rich with quality cinema, so its only fair that I give as many people their due praise as I can. This year’s blog will serve as a prediction, tribute, criticism, and a recommendations page for all the folks out there with like… kids or whatnot. Whatever crucial responsibility that requires your attention and thus limits your ability to see 100+ movies in a year like some sort of pathetic fiend. My name is Amos and I have a problem. Follow this simple 12-step program and you too can miss important life events because Peanut Butter Falcon is playing at the theater with recliner seats.

Off we go.

If you don’t care for my analysis, the predictions are at the bottom of each section. My list of recommendations which don’t appear in the analysis portions can be found at the bottom. (side note: links are meant to supplement your read, and usually contain short video clips)

Things I’d Like To See At This Year’s Academy Awards, But Will Only See In My Dreams:

• Greenbook get last year’s Best Picture statue taken away
• Angelina & Jennifer roast Brad together and then present him with the Best Supporting Actor award
• Bong Joon-Ho’s Parasite sweeps the major awards and Bong accepts the awards using giant printed subtitles to deliver his speeches. All while holding up his middle finger to those unable to overcome the 1-inch tall barrier of subtitles
• Uncut Gems win something, anything.
• A female writer/director win something, anything
• Scorsese, Pacino, De Niro, and Pesci huddled up in the audience organizing their daily nutritional supplements into those little plastic pill boxes and arguing about whether 500mg omega-3 is enough (in mafia accents)
• Roger Deakins win his 2nd Cinematography award and then somehow surprised on-stage with the 10 other statues he was robbed of in years past
• Taika Waititi present an award in-character, in full Hitler garb
• Leo DiCaprio and a date who was born before Titanic came out
• Willem Dafoe and Robert Pattinson get absolutely HAMMERED together on stage and sing sailor songs to close the telecast

In an ever-growing trend, the voting academy seems to revert to some sort of media-fueled hive-mind when Oscars season rolls around and everyone collectively decides the prohibitive favorites months in advance. It’s the biggest problem with the voting system and the main reason people care less and less about the Academy Awards. Voters seek the “correct” choice as to not appear dumb, and end up just picking whatever the most people are saying is the correct choice rather than their actual favorites of the year. Or voters attribute their own idea of what constitutes “an academy film”, disregarding bolder stylistic film-making or genre films which Hollywood elitists may not consider “prestigious” enough. That’s how you end up with The Shape Of Water beating Get Out and Phantom Thread. While Best Picture and Director have one or two, sometimes three legitimate contenders, the acting categories in 2020 are a foregone conclusion. Currently, the Vegas casino odds for all 4 acting categories are outrageously lopsided. The favorites being Joaquin Phoenix, Renee Zellweger, Brad Pitt, and Laura Dern. If you were to bet $100 on any of the other nominees to win, you’d win anywhere from $1,000-$3,500. That’s how confident Vegas is in the favorites this year.

I don’t know about you, but I like my awards shows anti-climactic! *sigh*

Best Original/Adapted Screenplay

The writing category is my only opportunity to discuss one of the most entertaining films of the year, Rian Johnson’s Knives Out, a true blue old-school Hollywood whodunit with a flare Agatha Christie would be proud of. This particular murder mystery, on top of being highly original and superbly-cast, had just the right amount of over-the-top absurdities mixed with a full serving of self-awareness; a very fun recipe. It was wrapped up nicely with a clean, satisfying ending, so its easy to see why the film made $300 million(!) worldwide against a $40 million budget. Bonus: Chris Evans’ sweater game and Ana De Armas’ everything game *insert heart eyes emoji*. Unfortunately, the Academy’s vibe is more ‘wars n’ hardships’ than ‘charming n’ playful’.

The Original Screenplay award will go to either Bong Joon-Ho (Parasite), or Quentin Tarantino (Once Upon A Time In Hollywood), and I fear this may be the only category in which Parasite will be honored. Every single one of Tarantino’s scripts could win this award and would be justified in doing so, but OUATIH relies less on it’s writing and dialogue than any of Tarantino’s previous works. Take Inglorious Basterds and Pulp Fiction (both were nominated in this category, Pulp Fiction winning), two masterpieces that are little more than a series of intimate conversations inter-cut with brief machine gun fire. But the dialogue is so rich, so captivating, and delivered so perfectly by the cast, that the audience can’t help but stomach the violence and submit to his trance. Pumpkin and Honeybunny in the diner, Vincent and Jules in that same diner, SS Col. Hans Landa interrogating Monsieur LaPadite puffing his pipe, the French Basement Bar Scene, that is the Tarantino we gobble up. This Tarantino is the softer, less verbally-flashy Tarantino lying dormant. This time his weapon of choice is pure visual nostalgia, not shiny dialogue nor direct genre homage. With the exception of his revisionist-history ending, the film is a pure fairy tale, a love letter to very specific period in American cinema, and is devoid of violence. QT already has two, give my guy Bong a statue.

Who I Think Will Win: Bong Joon-Ho for Parasite

Who I Think Should Win: Bong Joon-Ho for Parasite

Nomination Snub: The Safdie Brothers (Uncut Gems), Lulu Wang (The Farewell), Emily Halpern & Sarah Haskins (Booksmart), Shia LaBeouf (Honeyboy)

Honestly I couldn’t care less who wins for Adapted Screenplay, but I do know that adapting a timeless novel for like the 4^th time and making it feel fresh and new is extremely difficult, so Greta Gerwig’s screenplay for Little Women would be a fine choice. With that said, my pick is JoJo Rabbit. Satire is rarely so beautiful and touching. Who doesn’t like taking the piss out of Nazis? Kiwi-director-extraordinaire Taika Waititi has become a personal favorite, in fact you could say his ultra-cute humor, general silliness, and ridiculous fashion sense are what the kids would call “goals”. He’s the reason you loved Thor: Ragnarok so much, and I’d highly recommend his 2016 breakout indie feature Hunt For The Wilderpeople if you missed it. In addition to directing those films, he also strapped on the swastika himself and plays Hitler in this one. He deserves some recognition for his recent work.

Who I Think Will Win: Taika Waititi for JoJo Rabbit

Who I Think Should Win: Taika Waititi for JoJo Rabbit

Nomination Snub: whatever

Best Actor/Actress In A Supporting Role

Finally, its Brad Pitt’s year. Nominated three times before for acting and never won, Pitt turned in one of the most memorable performances of his career at the ripe young age of 56 and reminded anyone who may have forgotten that no one turns on the effortless charm like ol’ Bradley. We are fairly certain his character murdered his own wife, yet with a sweet show of support for his friend Rick and a wave of his trippy hand he wins the audience’s hearts. For some I’m sure, the rooftop shirtless daydream also didn’t hurt. As for the rest of the nominees… meh. Joe Pesci was somewhat memorable as the mild-mannered and mellow gangster Russell Buffalino, a subversion of the gangsters he’s played in past Scorsese films. But it’s a runaway.

Who I Think Will Win: Brad Pitt as Cliff Booth (Once Upon A Time In Hollywood)

Who I Think Should Win: Brad Pitt as Cliff Booth (Once Upon A Time In Hollywood)

Nomination Snub: Willem Dafoe (The Lighthouse), Shia LaBeouf (Honeyboy)

Finally, its Laura Dern’s year. This being one of the classic Academy retroactive awards for prior work (i.e. DiCaprio for The Revenant). Dern has been a Hollywood staple just like her old man for decades, doing her best work with David Lynch in the 80’s and 90’s, but has come on strong in the second act of her career. Nominated twice before and never won, she’ll grab the gold this year for her hilariously accurate portrayal of LA divorce lawyer Nora Fanshaw in Marriage Story. While I didn’t care much for the film as a whole, Dern was the lone bright spot. With that said, the character was pretty redundant. Her entire purpose was to express the sentiment that lawyers suck, and its like yeah we know. While Dern valiantly did the most with a derivative role, it wasn’t half as compelling as her work as Renatta Klein on Big Little Lies. Surprisingly, my favorite performance from this category was Scarlett Johansson’s. Which is ironic because my least favorite performance in the Lead Actress category was also Scarlett Johansson. JoJo Rabbit’s heart and soul was provided by ScarJo throughout, despite little screen time. She was witty, subtle, charming, and set the tone for the film from the beginning.

Who I Think Will Win: Laura Dern as Nora Fanshaw (Marriage Story)

Who I Think Should Win: Scarlett Johansson as Rosie Betzler (JoJo Rabbit)

Nomination Snub: Ana De Armas (Knives Out), Jennifer Lopez (Hustlers), Zhao Shuzhen (The Farewell)

Best Actor/Actress In A Leading Role

Finally its Joaquin Phoenix’s year. He should have won this award for his work in Paul Thomas Anderson’s The Master (2012), but unfortunately Daniel Day Lewis decided to play an American hero (Lincoln) that year so he never had a chance with the robotic Academy voters. This year he gave us his haunting version of Arthur Fleck/The Joker. While there’s much to debate about the film as a whole (mainly that its just a modern remake of Taxi Driver), the performance itself was astonishing. Travis Bickle on steroids. Phoenix was firing on multiple levels throughout. The mental, physical, and emotional anguish in the performance was truly something to behold. The maniacal, yet seemingly involuntary laughter he concocted for the character. Arthur’s physical frame and posture, all curled up with the frailty of a starving animal. The turn near the climax from utterly dead inside to animated and full of new-found (psychotic) purpose. All Joaquin’s creation, and all beautiful to watch.

But it wasn’t my favorite performance of the year.

That honor undoubtedly goes to the one and only Leonardo DiCaprio. While a Tarantino script certainly helps, Quentin entrusted the creation of Rick Dalton entirely to Leo, and he flourished. QT asked him to infuse the character with an inherent insecurity, palpable sadness, fear, manic vulnerability, humor, and even a splash of naïveté about his quickly declining career. All under a thin veneer of alcoholism, and oh while you’re at it Leo, please throw in a flawless Missouri accent. Got it? Yeah, he’s got it.

DiCaprio delivered in every facet. His initial freak-out after meeting with Pacino’s studio head character who explains his time in the Hollywood limelight is over and now his best option is “doing fucking eye-talian movies”. Losing his shit in his trailer after flubbing a line (most of this scene was improvised by Leo, according to QT). And finally his unbridled joy after delivering the good stuff on set. The all-time great actors dissolve their own stardom. For three hours, Leo was not Leo- and that is really really hard to do. He was Rick Fucking Dalton… and don’t you forget it.

Who I Think Will Win: Joaquin Phoenix as Arthur Fleck / The Joker (Joker)

Who I Think Should Win: Leonardo DiCaprio as Rick Dalton (Once Upon A Time In Hollywood)

Nomination Snub: Eddie Murphy (Dolemite Is My Name), Adam Sandler (Uncut Gems), Robert Pattinson (The Lighthouse), Brad Pitt (Ad Astra),

For the second time, its Renee Zellweger’s year. Problem is, no one saw this movie. Well, I should rephrase, only people over the age of 50 saw this movie. I aint 50, and I’m familiar enough with the incredibly sad tale of Judy Garland’s life, so I skipped it. But I’m sure she’s wonderful, and even attempting to sing like Judy Garland let alone pulling it off is certainly an achievement. The category is unfortunately weak this year. Scarlett Johansson’s doe-eyed turn as an actress divorcing the director she married in Marriage Story felt forced and empty of authenticity (as did Adam Driver’s performance as the husband). I truly did not understand what all the fuss was about. All their scenes together were just acting class exercises and fell flat. The actress who should win (Saoirse Ronan) of course won’t, because she’s too young or whatever. They’ll end up giving her an Oscar in 2030 for her 8^th best performance.

Who I Think Will Win: Renee Zellweger as Judy Garland (Judy)

Who I Think Should Win: Saoirse Ronan as Jo March (Little Women)

Nomination Snub: Lupita N’Yongo (Us), Florence Pugh (Midsommar), Awkwafina (The Farewell)

Best Director

There’s nothing the Academy likes more than dudes making fancy film-making choices. So it seems a Sam Mendes win for 1917 is inevitable here. It was certainly impressive that he was able to pull off a suspenseful war film and make it look like one continuous shot. An exercise in precise timing and staging, Mendes really went for it and succeeded admirably. With that said, meaningful plot and character development in the film is pretty absent. The real draw is Roger Deakins’ cinematography, formulating shots with gorgeous landscapes and lighting. It all plays out like some sort of highly-detailed flipbook of fine paintings. Which is dope! But not really the job of the director. In contrast, Bong Joon-Ho used every tool at a director’s disposal to tell a rich and multi-layered story. He created a complex world inside a fairly basic premise, and executed it with masterful decisions in his design. While Tarantino achieved a similar feat, Once Upon A Time In Hollywood is highly specific and not really relatable to anyone who’s not obsessed with Hollywood. Parasite rather, is a story almost every person on the planet can relate to deeply, whether they speak Korean, English, or any other language. Parasite speaks the universal language of “eat the rich”.

The second conversation around this award regards it’s complete lack of female representation, again. Its not as if women aren’t directing films in 2019, they are. There are plenty female-directed films of substance to choose from. The Academy just doesn’t seem to value them.

Who I Think Will Win: Sam Mendes (1917)

Who I Think Should Win: Bong Joon-Ho (Parasite)

Nomination Snub: Lulu Wang (The Farewell), The Safdie Brothers (Uncut Gems), Alma Harel (Honeyboy), Pedro Almodovar (Pain & Glory), Greta Gerwig (Little Women), Rian Johnson (Knives Out), Robert Eggers (The Lighthouse)

Best Picture

I’ve said what I had to say about Once Upon A Time In Hollywood. And I’ve said what I had to say about 1917. The only serious contender left to discuss is my beloved Korean masterpiece: Parasite. Visionary director Bong Joon-Ho followed up his last two critically acclaimed hits Okja and Snowpiercer with his finest work yet. While the formers utilized English as a primary storytelling language, he returned to his native Korean for this one. If you are one of those people who doesn’t do subtitles: I beg, I implore you to make an exception for this film. Parasite chronicles the story of the lower class Kim family and their slow manipulation in gaining employment at the cost of the upper class Park family. What starts as a playful romp quickly turns into mayhem. What makes the film so great though, is Bong Joon-Ho’s crafting. He wrote all the dialogue, conceptualized all the sets and sequences (including the astonishing flood sequence of a faux-Seoul shantytown with thousands of gallons of actual water), and made countless narrative choices that served the greater purpose of the film: putting his poignant critiques of late capitalism on display as calculatedly as he has with all his films. It’s kind of his thing. Every human interaction in the film has deeper meaning, every situation is layered with the underlying themes of class and economic mobility. And its all done inside the shell of a gripping and humorous familial tale.

If you’ve ever wondered what “Production Design” actually means to a film and it’s message, consider the way Joon-Ho uses the respective family residences in Parasite. Without commenting on it directly, he uses the living spaces of each family to not only visually display their social status, but make you feel their position in the world. The ultra rich Park family, never all together in the same room, lives in their palatial estate; light pouring in through their floor-to-ceiling window.

The poorer Kim family playfully congregates together daily in their basement apartment with one single window (to remind them of all their employed neighbors). They’re very poor, but they’re not dying. They’re tired of chronic unemployment, but they’re not hopeless. They’re struggling, but they’re together. There is still some light in their lives.

And then after the tonal shift in the story, Bong takes us one level deeper, where the human cockroaches live. Not a drop of sunlight to be had, or a speck of human interaction.

Not to mention the visual imagery is stunning throughout. Certain frames are seared into your brain. It’s this type of mastery of the craft that makes Bong so special as a filmmaker, and Parasite so rich with meaning. I can’t wait to see what he makes next.

Unfortunately, no foreign language film has ever won Best Picture.

Who I Think Will Win: 1917

Who I Think Should Win: Parasite

Nomination Snub: Knives Out, The Farewell, Honeyboy, Uncut Gems

Other Favorites From 2019:

• Honeyboy– an autobiographical tale of Shia Labeouf’s childhood in stardom and his dark, yet loving relationship with his father. Shia wrote the screenplay in rehab and plays his own father in the film, which is fucked up, but man he is so good. I’ve never seen a biopic so honest and vulnerable. It’s highly stylized and well-crafted by Alma Har’el in her debut. She won the Director’s Guild award for Debut Feature for the film
• Uncut Gems– high energy New York City tale of degenerates. This film is pure anxiety and tension, but if you can handle that, its quite a ride. Plus Sandler like you’ve never seen him. The Safdie Brothers are coming up fast, so you may as well check out 2017’s Good Time as well (I liked that one even more than Uncut Gems)
• Velvet Buzzsaw– a Netflix satire of the fine art world, plus the most Gyllenhaal-y Gyllenhaal that’s ever been, and that’s a treat.
• Ad Astra– simply not what people expected and it suffered for it. People saw “Brad Pitt in space” and expected some sort of sci-fi action epic, but this film is solely about a broken man and his daddy issues and just happens to take place in space. But it’s a good version of that. And the cinematography was gorgeous.
• John Wick 3– I stan the John Wick series forever. There are none better in the world of mindless action flicks, and John Wick 3 is dripping in style. I mean, Halle Berry tag-teams a building full of henchmen with her german shepherds. If you don’t want to see that, I don’t know what to tell you.
• Peanut Butter Falcon– another good entry from Shia. This one is a pretty straightforward heartwarming tale of friendship and adventure between a drifter and a man with Downs syndrome. It’s a little cheesy but in a nice way, not an annoying way.

 

Thanks as always for reading 😊

Amos’ Top 18 Films of 2017

Because 18 is my lucky number and it seemed like a good breaking point, that’s why. In lieu of my usual Academy Awards breakdown (I haven’t been too keen on the Academy’s choices for a while), I’m just going to give you my favorites of the year. I also recommend clicking the links for visual supplements 🙂

18. Logan Lucky– redneck Oceans 11, and just as watchable. Less glitter, more coal dust.

17. The Big Sick– super cute (and mostly true) story of a Pakistani comedian, his relationship with an American girl who goes into a coma, and the struggle of the ensuing family drama on both sides. Nanjiani released one of my favorite stand-up specials of this decade on Comedy Central a few years ago (Clip from ‘Beta Male’), so I was very excited when I learned super producer and rom-com extraordinaire Judd Apatow was developing his project.

16. Baby Driver– perfectly cast, brilliantly executed jukebox action movie. The (phenomenal) soundtrack dictates the pacing of virtually every gun-cock, gear shift, and Ansel Elgort dance move of the film’s heart-pounding heists. Edgar Wright (The Cornetto Trilogy, Scott Pilgrim vs. The World) is methodical with each musical beat perfectly synchronized to some sort of badassery. This was his career masterpiece.

15. Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri– overall, I liked it, but this is really a charity appearance on this list as a consolation to a bunch of actors I love who were GREAT in it (Sam Rockwell, Woody Harrelson, Frances McDormand, and even a minor supporting role by Peter Dinklage). But this one missed the mark for me. Martin McDonagh (In Bruges, Seven Psychopaths) is normally razor sharp with every line of dialogue, but everything in Three Billboards felt forced to me. The forced racist dialogue of even the supposedly likable characters just had me sighing and rolling my eyes. Ok we get it, this guy is a cop who hates brown people, and that lady is a loose canon who says “cunt” in front of her kids. How daring of you. If you’re going to have uneducated townsfolk be your entire movie, at least be inventive and original with their idiocy, ya know? What disappointed me was that the “billboards” concept within the story (forcing difficult public conversation through unavoidable reminders) was such a juicy and relevant-to-today idea, but the film barely dove into it, instead just bumbling around, tripping over itself trying to redeem a shitty person with a bad mommy. In my humble opinion, this one has no business winning any major Oscars, but alas it seems to be a favorite in more than one category. To each their own I guess.

14. John Wick 2– one of the best sequels I’ve seen in a long time, regardless of genre. True to the avalanche of style in the original, while simultaneously bridging the gap to what we can only assume will be the culminating Babayaga finale. Director Chad Stahelski recognized that the most interesting aspect of his John Wick world wasn’t the infallible anti-hero himself, but rather the secretive, international, hyper-organized crime coalition of mafias and assassins: “The Continental Hotel”, so he wisely spent much of the sequel expanding on it.

13. Blade Runner 2049– I really believe this one got an unfair shake from the media upon its release. With a virtually impossible task of expanding on one of (if not THE best) sci-fi films of all time, Denis Villanueve (Prisoners, Sicario, Arrival) succeeded in a lot of ways. The final cut ended up being about 20-30 minutes too long, and I think the clunky-ness of the running time really affected the weight of each of the main sequences. But those individual sequences were all masterfully done. Where the film really succeeded was in its visuals, so it comes as no surprise that maybe the greatest cinematographer of all time was assembling those frames. Roger Deakins (Shawshank Redemption, Fargo, The Big Lebowski, O Brother Where Art Thou, A Beautiful Mind, Jarhead, No Country For Old Men, The Assassination of Jesse James, Doubt, The Reader, True Grit, among countless others) looks to end one of the most embarrassing (for the Academy) droughts in Oscar history and win his first statue on Sunday. He’s been nominated in the cinematography category 14 times.

12. The Killing Of The Sacred Deer– for those who enjoyed Yorgos Lanthimos’ 2015 absurdist dystopian satire The Lobster, I highly recommend his 2^nd English-language film. It is pure psychological horror with a metaphorical twist. The all-star cast includes Colin Farrell and Nicole Kidman, but newcomer Barry Keoghan steals the show as a twisted teenager who enacts revenge on Farrell’s character. Farrell plays a surgeon who holds a dark secret about his role in the death of Keoghan’s father. The title and premise play on the Greek tragedy Iphigenia in Aulis in which Greek king Agamemnon must sacrifice his daughter to the goddess Artemis to spare the lives of his army. Though the film was esoteric and deep in its metaphors, it was highly suspenseful and the psychotic ending, though extremely fucked up, was really thought provoking.

11. The Disaster Artist– the buzz around this one started falling off as soon as its star/director/producer James Franco became entangled in a sexual misconduct allegation. The film itself though was memorable. A very well shot, and hilarious telling of the true story of human enigma Tommy Wiseau and the creation of his so-terrible-it-was-good cult film The Room. Franco excels in front of and behind the camera, but the story rightly centers on the nature of chasing dreams, and how success is defined. An array of great supporting turns by Dave Franco, Seth Rogen, Alison Brie, and Paul Scheer round it out with belly laughs-a-plenty.

10. Lady Bird– Greta Gerwig’s directorial debut was a master class in indie comedy. The “coming of age high school girl” genre has been done countless times, yet this one still felt original and honest. With a short running time, Gerwig had little time to deliver authentic comedic moments, but her timing and editing were spot on. Not to mention Saoirse Ronan, who is quite the talent.

9. The Square– my favorite foreign film of the year, though a good portion of the dialogue is in English. Sweden’s Ruben Ostlund had a difficult task following up his 2014 relationship drama Force Majure which was a tragically realistic expose, but I think he succeeded admirably. The Square is ambitious in that it dabbles in both vicious satire of the world of fine art, as well as self-parody. It (expertly) poses a variety of thought-provoking and scathingly critical and often funny questions including “If you simply place an object in a gallery, does that make it art?” The film is extremely strange and often surreal in its delivery, but I respect ‘bold’, and this one is definitely that. It uses satire and black comedy mixed in to takedown the ideas within the Art scene (and society as a whole) that it finds most elitist and pretentious. It also includes one of my favorite scenes of the year: a dinner gala for Sweden’s richest art donors which features an unforgettable piece of performance art (played by the brilliant movement actor Terry Notary) that is suspenseful and hilarious at the start, but climaxes into a surrealist dark commentary on the posh dinner guests. If you can stomach the 2.5 hour runtime and some subtitles, I highly recommend giving it a shot. Just go into it with an open mind, ready to think. It won the grand prize at Cannes Film Festival. HERE is the super-dope trailer for a glimpse.

8. The Florida Project– one of the most talented up-and-coming American art house directors around, Sean Baker’s follow-up to his acclaimed shot-entirely-using-the-iPhone-5S indie drama Tangerine, about a transgender sex worker in Los Angeles. The Florida Project is slow moving and brutal to watch at times as it follows a depressingly inadequate mother and her angsty, but sharp toddler as they navigate poverty in the Florida motel they call home. Willem Dafoe gives a monster performance as the good-hearted motel manager cleaning up the messes of his tenants, both literal and figurative piles of vomit.

7. Call Me By Your Name– a super beautiful story of first love. In my opinion, it’s kinda cheating when filmmakers use Italy as a setting. Nearly every scene oozes with European charm and a bike ride down a dirt road into the town square suddenly feels like you’re watching an animated oil painting. What I enjoyed about the film was that it didn’t bother with old Hollywood tropes or depressingly tragic moments during its tale of gay love. There were no confrontations with disapproving family and no elements of shame. It was just a realistic, authentic story about falling in love for the first time. Timothee Chalamet was incredible as the vulnerable but confident youngster Elio. Aside from Daniel Day Lewis, his was my favorite performance of the year.

6. mother!– the epitome of “not for everyone”. Though the visuals were stunning and the acting was phenomenal, the film as a whole was a gigantic pile of metaphors you’re left sorting out in your own head at the end. That kind of thing interests me, but I completely understand those who have no time for such endeavors. The film is among other things, a direct biblical adaptation. Aronofsky (Requiem For A Dream, Black Swan) has since confirmed his intention with the film and who each character represents in the story of God, Earth, & his creations. With that said, artists rarely tell just one story at a time, and I believe the more interesting thematic layer was the personal parallels which were not only prevelant, but glaring. While Aronofsky was crafting a super complex and visually mesmerizing art piece with biblical origins (it should also be noted that mother! uses a few Buddhist and Hindu references as well as Judeo-Christian), he also made a brilliant piece of self-analysis. A dissection of his own struggle with artistic expression and the affect his own attempts at creation have on his world. I suppose what makes religious texts so effective is that their messages, stories, and lessons are broad & universal. Their words are often strategically vague. mother! is too at times. But its also really bold, artistic filmmaking.

5. The Shape of Water– I think my expectations were too high going into this one, because while I thought it was a beautifully made film, it didn’t blow my socks off as I’d been promised it would by critics I normally trust. Guillermo Del Toro is one of the most imaginative filmmakers of my lifetime, and this film certainly didn’t lack imagination but maybe I was expecting another Pan’s Labyrinth (harsh and powerful realism, with elements of fantasy) when Del Toro’s real vision for The Shape Of Water was always a true-to-its-core fairytale. And if that was his goal, he accomplished it.

4. Dunkirk– not so much a film, really. There was literally zero character development, very little narrative other than a real historical event, and barely any dialogue. But man, it was powerful to watch unfold in all its choreographed beauty. The way Kubrick or Fellini saw film (as a provocative art form with equal prestige as any other) is NOT the way Christopher Nolan sees film. For Nolan it seems like it’s more of a technical challenge he continuously poses to himself and from himself. That’s not to say he doesn’t usually deliver complex and interesting emotional stories within his technical-display-as-a-sport framework, he does (Memento, The Prestige, Inception, Interstellar). But when he sat down to write and map out what would become Dunkirk, I imagine it more resembled the process of someone assembling a grandfather clock. Dunkirk‘s primary goal is to induce wartime shell shock in its audience, and it succeeds. From the sound editing of every bullet, mortar, and artificial eardrum ringing, to Hans Zimmer’s cryptic score peppered with an orchestra of ticking wristwatches, to some of the most incredible aerial cinematography ever captured on film (not hyperbole; if you didn’t see it in IMAX, you fucked up) this movie was like a wet dream for movie nerds who love the details.

3. Wind River– my more detailed review from back when I saw this in theaters can be found HERE, but I really enjoyed this suspense mystery from Taylor Sheridan and was extremely disappointed it was completely snubbed by the Academy. It was brilliantly shot and brought back peak Jeremy Renner who I missed dearly.

2. Get Out– one of the most impressive debuts by a filmmaker I can remember. On the surface, the film is an extremely entertaining psychological horror genre piece. It pays homage to a variety of horror films that came before it, and even has those classic comedic moments that horror audiences gobble up. But under the surface is where the genius of Get Out lies. It defies standard genre categorization because even though it has mostly elements of horror, comedy, and thriller, it is at its core an in-your-face social commentary with very little regard for the audience’s desire to appreciate the subtext. It TELLS YOU HOW IT IS. Writer/Director Jordan Peele has stated the film is “Social Horror”. It makes poignant and painful commentary on what it feels like to be a black man (or more specifically a black filmmaker and intellectual) in America. Peele has also said that the “Sunken Place” represents the “silencing of oppressed people”. I find that quote important because while the story and content on screen are coming from Peele’s perspective as a black man, a lot of the ideas in the subtext are not exclusive to African-Americans. In reality, mostly everyone has a “Sunken Place”, and oppressors come in many forms. When the plot thickens and the motives of Get Out’s characters are revealed, it becomes much more than the “wild and wacky horror” movie it was marketed as. The oppressors in this story are a community of devious white folk who abduct black people and use Catherine Keener’s psychologist character (Keener was brilliant as per usual) to hypnotize them into a state of obedience. For a select few abductees, their “athletically superior” bodies are sadistically transformed into vessels to carry the minds of the highest (white) bidders. For Peele, the creepy community of out-of-touch elitist white people perfectly encapsulated the way he felt as a black filmmaker trying to break into Hollywood. The allegory of black people within a white community existing under a seemingly unbreakable spell in which they walk, talk, and think like white people, is haunting criticism by Peele. Almost as haunting as every time Bradley Whitford’s Dean Armitage character spoke about voting for Obama a third time or Jesse Owens’ 1936 olympic victory. Additionally, the idea expressed by Armitage about “physically superior black men” who are later hypnotized & “used for their bodies”, I think is Peele alluding to parralels with American sports & entertainment. Peele’s attitude towards audiences too weak to handle the harsh truths is (rightfully) “I don’t care”. He is a badass. I can’t wait to see what he has in store for his next film.

1. Phantom Thread– definitely falls into the “not for everyone” category as well, but I could talk about this film for 5 more pages. I’ll try to keep it short, especially because not that many people I’ve talked to have seen it, and I’ll try not to reveal too much. Here’s some non-hyperbole for you: Paul Thomas Anderson (Boogie Nights, There Will Be Blood, The Master) is on another plane of filmmaking existence. Paul Thomas Anderson is what every arrogant filmmaker on Earth thinks they are. Paul Thomas Anderson can be described as a “master auteur” without sounding pretentious and that’s normally not possible. I could not stop thinking about the ending for days after I saw it. The film is deceptive in the delivery of its message, it is immensely beautiful in the execution of its elegant visuals (Anderson served as Director of Photography/Cinematographer as well, something he’s never done before), it is perfectly acted and scored and designed, and it is a one-of-a-kind narrative about the weirdness of being a human in love. It also boasts a slew of quotable lines written as only PTA can, and delivered by the legend Daniel Day Lewis as only he can. Anderson’s films have only grown weirder and weirder as the years have passed and as a proponent of all things weird, it has made me love him more and more. This time around, rather than religious cult leaders or narcissistic oil tycoons, his story examines the weirdness of love. It intriguingly and subtly touches on dominance vs. submissiveness and the pleasure/pain involved in dancing between those two positions, a topic some may not care about or understand, but I personally find it a pretty entertaining dynamic to watch. The film begins as what seems like a story we’ve seen plenty before, one of a tortured artist with no regard for the feelings of anyone involved in his existence. Along comes a muse/love interest who dares to defy him, he loses something, he gains something, etc, etc. But as the third act (ohhh just wait ‘til that third act) proves with alarming quickness, this is not that story. This is not even close to that story. This film is NOT what you think it is (I’m looking at you, Jennifer Lawrence). This is a story of eccentricity and deeply fucked up people, but somehow ALSO an awesome love story. It is so unique, and that’s why I love it. Paul Thomas Anderson is a national treasure. Protect him at all costs.

Coosh’s 2016 Academy Awards Preview

I never know how to start, so WELCOME TO ANOTHER YEAR OF COOSH’S OSCAR PREDICTIONS! Sound the feasting horn! The only minor change from last year is that now the Oscars are racist. Just kidding, they’ve always been racist. This is America. But really, the hashtag of choice shouldn’t be #OscarsSoWhite, but rather #HollywoodSoWhite. Credit to the brave warriors of internet shaming for bringing the issue to light, but Hollywood’s greatest awards show is quite simply an accurate reflection of its embarrassing reality. Minority actors are largely relegated to supporting/bit roles while their white counterparts select their next role from a stocked vending machine chock full of diverse character arcs. Writers and directors of minority descent are routinely pressured into changing the race of their characters. If you’d like a collection of first-hand accounts you can find them HERE. It is an important issue that will probably progress as most racial issues do in this country: by a small group of passionate activists pushing us forward inch by inch, while everyone else lazily waits for the ignorant to die off. But beneath my blanket of cynicism lies a light at the end of the tunnel and it’s not so far away. There are more black filmmakers than ever before, and more female filmmakers than ever before. As those pioneers push forward, hopefully a new generation will spawn of studio heads and producers with a more modern world-view.

We’re going to start with the smaller awards this year and work towards Best Picture. If you don’t like it, just be grateful I didn’t do it in Buzzfeed slideshow format. If you actually sat down to read this entire post, I truly appreciate it. ADHD is basically wired into all human genetic code in 2016, so it means a lot and I hope you enjoy it!

Best Original/Adapted Screenplay

I have a personal vested interest in the Original category this year, as it houses the only major nomination for my favorite film of the year. I’ll discuss the Best Picture snub more at length at the end of this post, but Ex Machina was by far my most recommended movie last year. It was masterfully concocted from start-to-finish by writer/director Alex Garland. The screenplay itself was excellent, but the other aspects of the film outshined it. Specifically the deceptive tactics Garland employed, the camera work, and the acting all resonated more, so I don’t think it will get the votes, despite being the best story. Though it would be cool to see Inside Out break through the animated film barrier and take home an Oscar for writing, the statue will most likely go to Spotlight. And for good reason. Spotlight’s heart and soul was in its writing and dialogue. Every scene hinged on the investigative, probing dialogue between Ruffalo, McAdams, and the rest of the cast.

In the Adapted category, I believe The Big Short will begin its run of multiple Oscars with a win here. It is strange, and maybe ironic, but something about the tedious and boring nature of Michael Lewis’s books make them perfect source material for films. Though definitely interesting and highly analytical, it is undeniable that most of Lewis’ books are textbook-y in nature. But as it turns out, in the books’ quests for a comprehensive collection of facts/analysis about the subject, they coincidentally lay the foundation for talented screenwriters to put their own spin on the story. Except that foundation is unusually moldable because of the lack of emotional substance in the source material. When Aaron Sorkin and Steve Zaillian got ahold of Moneyball, they did created a story detailing the pioneering approach of statistics-based baseball management, but the film was about Billy Beane. They made the story accessible to the public by telling the story from Beane’s perspective and pushing the audience to sympathize and root for him. A similar accomplishment was made with The Big Short. While Sorkin chose the “tug-on-those-heartstrings” route for Moneyball, McKay injected his wild sense of humor into one of the most unfunny stories ever: a bold and courageous tactic.

Original

Who I think Will Win: Spotlight (Tom McCarthy & Josh Singer)

Who I Think Should Win: Ex Machina (Alex Garland)

Nomination Snub: The Hateful Eight (Quentin Tarantino). As most of Tarantino’s films are, The Hateful Eight is driven purely by its incredibly captivating dialogue. It is a skill that every screenwriter longs for, and Tarantino has perfected it beyond my comprehension. He is able to keep the audience engaged for 3 hours, with words. And for the nearsighted who accuse QT of racism because of his incessant use of strong racial epithets for effect, The Hateful Eight is the only Academy-nominated film this year that’s main protagonist and hero is a black man. A black man who spends 3 hours out-smarting every white person in the film.

Adapted

Who I think Will Win: The Big Short (Adam McKay and Charles Randolph)

Who I Think Should Win: The Big Short (Adam McKay and Charles Randolph)

Nomination Snub: The End of The Tour (Donald Margulies). Based off David Lipsky’s memoir, the film chronicles a 12-day stretch at the end of David Foster Wallace’s media tour for his groundbreaking novel Infinite Jest. In real life, Lipsky was commissioned to write a piece about Wallace for Rolling Stone magazine. Jesse Eisenberg plays Lipsky, while Wallace is brilliantly played by Jason Segel. It’s the type of film that’s not really about anything, but somehow leaves you thinking about its profound messages long after leaving the theater. I suppose some of that praise should be attributed to the brilliance of David Foster Wallace the person, but the screenplay presented his brilliance in an approachable way, and that’s not easy to do without sounding pretentious.

Best Supporting Actor/Actress

It seems to be Alicia Vikander’s year as most of the buzz is going to the Swedish-born actress who broke out in a big way in 2015. Her performance in The Danish Girl opposite Eddie Redmayne has already garnered her a SAG award. In addition to that, she left audiences slack-jawed in Ex Machina. Her nuanced robotic performance as Ava carried the film despite limited screen time. The story and its entire premise don’t work unless Vikander can sell it, and she does beautifully. Jennifer Jason Leigh’s comeback tour revved its engine with her performance in The Hateful Eight. When her character wasn’t getting repeatedly punched in the face, the twisted psychosis of her portrayal of outlaw Daisy Domergue shone through and provided the most entertainment of any of the supporting characters. Kate Winslet could challenge Vikander for the trophy with her portrayal of Jobs’ right-hand gal Joanna Hoffman in Steve Jobs. She provided the most engaging scenes opposite Fassbender. With an actor as strong as Fassbender, they needed to cast someone in that role who could match or exceed his presence, which is not an easy task, and Winslet was the perfect choice. No one is more consistently amazing than her.

For the Supporting Actor category, I believe a heartwarming underdog story is in the works! **Eye Of The Tiger begins** The combination of a weak field of nominees with an unexpectedly emotional performance is going to result in Sylvester Stallone winning an Oscar for playing Rocky Balboa at age 96. Ruffalo was great as the lead investigative journalist in Spotlight, but certainly wasn’t as exposed and vulnerable as Sly in Creed. I didn’t really understand the nomination for Mark Rylance for Bridge of Spies. His character was pretty stoic throughout the film. My guy Tom Hardy was captivating as always, opposite DiCaprio, as the borderline-lunatic amongst their group in The Revenant. His neurotic, survivalist attitude and eagerness to kill were chilling at times. I wouldn’t be surprised if Hardy or Ruffalo takes it down, but I’m rooting for the Italian stallion.

Supporting Actress

Who I Think Will Win: Alicia Vikander (The Danish Girl)

Who I Think Should Win: Jennifer Jason Leigh (The Hateful Eight)

Nomination Snub: Alicia Vikander- Ex Machina. I thought it was the more impressive performance. Her character’s emotional range was limited because she wasn’t actually human, but she still needed to inject the right amount of human expression so that the technology within the plot seemed impressive. Performing that balancing act throughout the film with flawless execution was what impressed me.

Supporting Actor

Who I Think Will Win: Mark Ruffalo (Spotlight)

Who I Think Should Win: Sylvester Stallone (Creed)

Nomination Snub: Jason Segel (The End Of The Tour). He was more than convincing as Wallace, which is no easy task. David Foster Wallace was known to speak with an incredible eloquence but what was atypical of him, as an intellectual, was that he lacked all the normal condescension that most geniuses can’t help but emanate when speaking. Segel displayed that quality admirably.

Best Actress

It’s a runaway, ladies and gents. Brie Larson has won almost all the other awards for which she’s been nominated for her role as Joy “Ma” Newsome. Her portrayal as an emotionally destroyed rape/kidnapping victim in Room was an emotional rollercoaster. Her character is forced to compose herself amidst her dire situation so she can raise her son who is trapped alongside her, in a small room 24/7/365 at the property of her kidnapper. Larson’s performance IS the film. There are some great actresses in this category (Blanchett, Lawrence, Rampling, Ronan), but Larson will take it home. I also find the Academy most frequently lazy in this particular category. They seem to nominate a rotating collection of 12-15 Hollywood actresses every year with a couple wild cards thrown in. There is always a plethora of commanding performances to be found in smaller indie films, especially for leading actresses, but the Academy seems to be content having the same major studio leading ladies enjoy all the nominations.

Who I Think Will Win: Brie Larson (Room)

Who I Think Should Win: Brie Larson (Room)

Nomination Snub: Emily Blunt (Sicario). I thought film was just alright as a whole, as it seemed like was shot as some kind of mosaic, composed of previously made border/drug crime dramas. Blunt on the other hand, stood out consistently during the film as its driving force. Benicio Del Toro’s character provided the mystery while Blunt pushed the narrative along.

Best Actor

Don’t want to jinx him, so **knock on wood**, but this should be a runaway as well. DiCaprio has been nominated for four Oscars and has won zero. Arguably his best performances weren’t even nominated. The academy has whiffed on opportunities to honor this generation’s finest actor time and time again. Hanks and Day-Lewis owned the generation before him, but Leo stands, without a doubt, amongst those giants. What’s Eating Gilbert Grape, The Basketball Diaries, Romeo + Juliet, The Beach, Titanic, Catch Me If You Can, Gangs of New York, The Aviator, The Departed, Blood Diamond, Revolutionary Road, Shutter Island, Inception, Django Unchained, The Wolf of Wall Street, and now, The Revenant. Look at the sheer density of his top work. Look at the variety in character types. Look at the captivating, authentic, original execution of each role. It is time to give him his day. His performance in The Revenant as famed frontiersman and trapper Hugh Glass was visceral and raw to its core, but will probably rank below half of the above performances when we look back on DiCaprio’s career at its end. His display of desperation and fear in the wild was the heart of the story, but much of his desperation was aided by the natural elements, and Iñárritu’s insistence on filming in the wild. Make no mistake about it, this Oscar will be about correcting past mistakes. The only upset win that WOULDN’T infuriate me would be Michael Fassbender. Fassbender burst onto the scene 9 years ago with a supporting role in the slow motion, bro-fest of closeted homo-erotica: 300. After Hollywood saw his abs, they collectively decided he had potential. Then, after he delivered masterful performances in the indie cult hits Hunger, Fish Tank, and Shame, nearly every top filmmaker on the planet was looking to attach him to their projects. His turn as Steve Jobs was wonderful as well. Side note: I swear to Jesus if Eddie Redmayne wins another Oscar over a more deserving actor/performance, I’m going to find DiCaprio and Michael Keaton and the three of us are going to beat that dainty Englishman until he looks like Stephen Hawking forever.

Who I Think Will Win: Leonardo DiCaprio (The Revenant)

Who I Think Should Win: Leonardo DiCaprio (The Revenant)

Nomination Snub: Idris Elba (Beasts Of No Nation– Netflix original). 10 years from now when virtually every movie is released via streaming services such as Netflix and Amazon Prime, this snub will be a great injustice. His performance was remarkable. He was intense, commanding, and measured perfectly throughout the film.

Best Director

I see this category coming down to George Miller and Alejandro Iñárritu. With that said, Adam McKay created something truly entertaining out of a steaming pile of esoteric financial jargon being hurled around by a ragtag collection of anti-heroes. Beginning his career as a purely comedic director (Anchorman, Step Brothers, Talladega Nights), McKay was able to convince a studio to let him adapt a book into a satirical faux-comedy exploration of the 2008 housing bubble crisis. McKay’s generous lathering of comedy that he applied to a story of fraud and deception was a stroke of genius. Not because it made the insanely convoluted world of finance more accessible to the layman in the audience (I mean, it did, but that’s not why it was a stroke of genius), but because it mirrored the extravagant misdirection that the worst fraudulent bankers utilized. In the same way the financial community peddles the dream of exponential gains to the under-informed public, McKay dumbs down the important points to such a degree that he has Margot Robbie, drinking bubbly in a bubble bath, break the fourth wall to explain sub-prime mortgages to the audience. McKay is well aware how insulting this brand of satire is to his audience, but that’s the point. He wants the audience to feel small and uninformed. He is deliberately treating us as the same idiots we were when the banks were pulling the wool over our eyes. Kudos to Mr. McKay for taking a risky approach to a difficult story, and pulling it off. It is only by the sheer artistic brilliance of Miller and Iñárritu, that McKay isn’t taking home a statue. In my opinion, it will be either Miller or the Mexican auteur that takes home the Oscar for Best Director. Truly a master of his craft, the atmosphere Iñárritu created in The Revenant was harrowing. With the help of the best cinematographer in the world, Emmanuel Lubezki (who is going for his THIRD consecutive Oscar in the cinematography category- Gravity & Birdman previously), they created a visual tone for a wilderness film like I’ve never seen before. By using strictly natural light (which severely limited their filming flexibility), the setting for the film immediately felt more intimate and primal. Lubezki’s camera work is an artistic talent that I’m convinced was given to him by a divine hand. The way he creates his sweeping pivot shots, his patented long takes full of calculated tempo, they are on another level creatively. It’s a joy to watch, and Iñárritu’s direction puts Lubezki in position to create his aesthetic art. Meanwhile, George Miller’s triumphant return to the Mad Max franchise was impressive as well. The stylistic elements he added to his original vision were amazing. It was a true exercise of imagination, which can backfire if put in the wrong hands, but Miller was able to piece it together into a non-stop thrill ride. The action was riveting and shot with an expert’s touch, and the thematic feminist undertones of the film were a nice touch, even though I did think the contribution of those undertones to the artistic message of the film were slightly exaggerated because, despite the feminist liberation story arc, the male protagonist continuously saves the day, which is contradictory.

Who I think Will Win: George Miller (Mad Max: Fury Road)

Who I Think Should Win: Alejandro Iñárritu (The Revenant)

Nomination Snub: Ryan Coogler (Creed). I don’t think anyone expected Rocky 7 to be as good as it was. Coogler wrote the story, and directed the hell out of the film. The cinematography of the fight scenes were the most impressive I’ve seen since Michael Mann’s work on Ali. They were creative, realistic, and intensely suspenseful. Coogler and Michael B. Jordan have some great artistic chemistry brewing between them after breaking out with Fruitvale Station a few years ago. Look for the pair to continue to push each other’s careers to new heights in the future as I’m sure they’re not done collaborating.

Best Picture

Anything other than The Revenant, The Big Short, or Spotlight is highly unlikely to take home the crown for Best Picture. Mad Max: Fury Road is too abstract and violent to win. The academy simply never chooses those types of films for the big Kahuna. The soul of The Revenant is really in its cinematography and the acting of DiCaprio. The suspense that Iñárritu, Lubezki, and DiCaprio create together is remarkable in its minimalism. Lubezki’s camera work during the battle scenes with the Ree and Arikara native tribes is an immersive experience. The long takes and swiveling point of views give the scenes an ultra-realistic, almost virtual reality feeling. It feels as if you are standing next to Hugh Glass as arrows whiz past your neck. It feels as if you are tied to the back of his horse as it careens off the edge of a cliff. I believe Spotlight is The Revenant’s biggest competitor, but solely because the critical response of the film has been so strong, and so the buzz for the film leading into the ceremony was strong. Often times, all it takes to collect the necessary votes is the right kind of buzz at the right time. Looking back on it now, it was quality entertainment, but Argo really isn’t a memorable film. Yet going into the voting period, it had tremendous buzz, so it ended up taking home Best Picture. A similar scenario could play out with Spotlight. The Big Short was super entertaining, and I was a huge fan of McKay’s approach and execution, but it’s also a silly film at times. The academy’s self image is too magnanimous to threaten its own legitimacy by giving its top prize to a satirical comedy. Bridge of Spies was mediocre at best, which was really surprising given the people involved. Spielberg directed, Hanks starred, and I barely finished it. Not too often you say that. It was an interesting story, but it was drawn out, wasn’t structured well, and fell into the trap of spoon-feeding its audience with the plot, constantly explaining itself. I found The Martian to be equally disappointing, simply because of the names involved. It was definitely an entertaining movie, and Damon had moments of brilliance as always, but it was simply a feel-good summer blockbuster and nothing more. Ridley Scott had some nice shots sprinkled in, but at times it was so corny, I half expected a laugh track to chime in after one of Damon’s little quips. And the end of the film? Really? The sweeping musical overture as the Houston mission control team erupts with cheers and high-fives? I was going to make a joke about using the same scenes as other films, but I didn’t know which of the 10 space movies with that ending to choose from. Oh and I apologize to all the Saoirse Ronan die-hards out there, Brooklyn was the only big nominee I didn’t catch this year.

Who I think Will Win: The Revenant

Who I Think Should Win: The Revenant

Nomination Snub: Ex Machina. It truly saddened me to find this one off the list of nominations when they were announced. I was hoping it would WIN, assuming it would get a nomination. The film follows Caleb (Domhnall Gleeson) as he wins a contest at his Google-esque company and the grand prize is a trip to the private island of the company’s genius founder and architect, played by Oscar Isaac. Upon arriving at his home/research facility, Caleb learns he will be the human component in a Turing Test to determine if the artificially intelligent robot Ava (Vikander) has developed consciousness. A seasoned screenwriter now, Alex Garland broke on the scene in 2002 by penning the apocalyptic horror/thriller 28 Days Later, which became a cult-hit under the direction of Danny Boyle (Trainspotting, Slumdog Millionaire, 127 Hours). In Ex Machina, his first time behind the camera, Garland more than proves his chops.The cinematography was gorgeous, the set design was fascinating, and the score of the film was simple, yet appropriate. He orchestrates three separate flawless performances and weaves them together with ease. The story is creative, yet realistic and within the realm of possibility, which is a delicate balance to uphold when working with science fiction. Despite the sci-fi story, this film is a pure psychological thriller. Garland dances around a multitude of existential questions about consciousness, sentient artificial intelligence, and human evolution while he slowly familiarizes you with each character little by little. He also gradually shows you a fraction of their internal neuroticism as each of the three characters has plenty to hide. This tactic keeps you guessing and unsure of which direction the film is going or what each character’s true intentions are. After Caleb has a brief mental breakdown in the bathroom, you are unable to really trust any of characters or their motives. Is it about a psychopathic eccentric genius that finally loses it? Is it a love story about the first sentient robot and the good-hearted boy who liberated her from the shackles of scientific research? You don’t find out until the end, and it’s a glorious payoff. But the brilliance of the ending wasn’t in some vapid attempt at a “big reveal” or twist, it was in its quick simplicity and tempered climax. All the characters made their final choices, and the consequences quickly but calmly played out, and you are left there sitting as the credits roll, contemplating the terrifying realization that this science-fiction will become science-reality in our lifetimes, and we will have a lot of philosophical questions to debate. FYI: As of right now it is available to stream on Amazon Prime.

Hope ya’ll enjoyed! Always open to discussion with anyone interested. You have my information. Have your people contact my people.

Coosh’s 2015 Academy Awards Preview

Welcome to Coosh’s Annual Academy Awards Predictions! I apologize for the publishing procrastination, but I wanted to attempt to see as many of the nominated films as possible before writing the post. I’m also going to take a slightly different approach this year and discuss my favorite films of the year more intensively in the Best Picture subcategory below, so if you’re here just for the predictions, feel free to scroll through.

This year was a great year in film. The diversity of genres nominated for Best Picture is as wide as it’s been in a long time, and many great filmmakers made their career’s best work. Birdman was a masterpiece for Mexican auteur Alejandro Iñárritu; combining character elements of his previous films (21 Grams, Babel) with a visual style that left cinematography blowhards like myself speechless. Similarly, prized American visionary Richard Linklater brought the indie world to its knees with the courageous Boyhood. An amazing accomplishment on a scale broader than any film before it.

During the last decade or so, there has definitely been an increase in the recognition of mainstream films at the Oscars. Some may attribute this to big time movie studios being more open to the idea of alternative films, abstract plots, and status quo-defying movies made on a larger scale. Take a film like Inception. 20 or 30 years ago such a complex and thought-provoking plot would have likely been relegated to a low-budget artistic approach. In modern Hollywood, however, the credibility of Christopher Nolan as a filmmaker, as well as the quality of the script, was enough for the studio to pour massive amounts of money into the film. They were able to transform an extremely complex and intricate plot into a mainstream production. They catered to the masses with grand-scale cinematography, explosions, and quipy dialogue without compromising the artistic integrity of the story. Certainly Inception wasn’t the first example of this cross-pollination within the industry, but a good example none-the-less. In my opinion, this is a very promising trend for the future of Hollywood. Last year in the Best Picture category, we saw the normal cream-of-the-crop artsy films but also a healthy portion of big-budget productions such as The Wolf of Wall Street, Captain Phillips, Gravity, and 12 Years A Slave. Interestingly, this year’s nominees in the same category are mainly low-budget. Hopefully, this is not a regression in this Hollywood evolution, but rather a reflection of how the cost of making a quality film is steadily decreasing thanks to improvements in technology and audience accessibility.

Best Picture

You’re going to get a large dose of Birdman kool-aid during this preview article, so best to just start mixing. I absolutely loved that movie. When I see a film, I’m looking for quality in specific places. I want to see risks being taken by the director, I want to see vulnerability from the actors, and I want to be left thinking about the film’s story, character archs, or general message for hours if not days after I see it. That is how I guage whether or not I love a film. I enjoy cookie-cutter Hollywood blockbusters or slapstick comedies as much as the next guy, but when I’m watching a film who’s goal is art, I look for creativity, originality, and execution of the artist’s message. I want the film to inspire thought. Birdman did that better than any film I’ve seen in the last few years. Alejandro González Iñárritu is most certainly an artist. His films challenge their audiences. He utilizes visual tricks and cues masterfully, and inserts thematic motifs on an obvious level, as well as a deeper sub-textual level. In Birdman, the entire film reflects its own plot. The film is about aging action movie star Riggan Thomson attempting to validate and reinvigorate his career by writing/directing/producing a Broadway play. The film stars Michael Keaton, an aging action movie star attempting to validate and reinvigorate his career in an imaginative, artistic low(er)-budget film. The film is about the three days leading up to opening night of a Broadway play. The film is also shot in the style of the stage, attempting (and succeeding admirably) in creating the illusion of one single continuous take… like a Broadway play. Using masterful camera tricks and top-notch talent all around, Iñárritu presents the film as if there were no cuts. An extremely difficult cinematic approach, and he accomplished it perfectly. He moves the audience from scene to scene seamlessly without distracting us. He immerses you in the world of Birdman from the opening shot, imprisons you inside it, keeps you in a state of intrigue with every snare drum beat or cymbal crash of the brilliant jazz drumming score, and doesn’t release his hold until the final shot of Emma Stone’s gorgeous smile. I think the reason this stylistic approach worked so well for the film is also because the actual plot is hectic and fast paced. Everyone involved with the play is scrambling trying to make sure its perfect in the last days leading up to opening night. The one-take, camera-swinging approach fuels that intensity. The other reason why the film works on every creative level is the acting. Each role was cast brilliantly, and each actor delivered perfectly. No wonder Keaton was able to tap into acting skills we haven’t seen from him in 20 years; this character hit home for him. Much like his character in the film, Edward Norton abruptly and brashly enters the story, and carries the supporting role to new heights. He, and again, the character he plays as well carry themselves with such validated confidence in his own abilities that he brings the best out of everyone else. With impressive contributions from the supporting cast (Stone, Zach Galifianakis, Amy Ryan, and Naomi Watts), and symbolic themes and motifs that actually provoke thought, Birdman came together like a Monet landscape. Mexican jazz drummer Antonio Sanchez helmed the musical composition. Almost as if Iñárritu knew it would *wink, wink*, the almost-constant jazz drumming in the background helped pace the rhythm of the film. Just as the cinematography fueled the plot of the film, the drumming score helped guide the shots along. Honestly, I could talk about this movie for another 3,000 words so I need to just stop now.

The only true competition (and some say favorite) for the Best Picture statue is Linklater’s Boyhood. It was also a great cinematic achievement, but in a completely different way. Linklater has a much more minimalistic approach to telling stories on screen, and is able to provoke reactions from his audiences through authentic statements about life in general. We saw this with many of his previous films (Slacker, Dazed and Confused, the Before trilogy). Are his films going to wow you visually? Probably not. Will they summon deep humanistic feelings and personal reflections about your own life? Without a doubt. What made Dazed and Confused a cult classic? Certainly hilarious performances by future Hollywood super stars made it entertaining, but what made it a cult classic was the way it reminded an entire generation about what it was like when they were young and stupid. Linklater has an innate ability to find the emotional or nostalgic sweet spot in his stories. Ask any director in Hollywood, and I’m sure they envy that skill. Boyhood, as most people know by now, was shot over the course of 12 years. The film began shooting before the script was even completed. The cast and crew would gather for a few days every year to work on the film. To create a story that is complex and emotionally provocative with only snippets and snapshots of a boy’s life is truly an incredibly difficult feat for a director. To better illustrate how difficult this is, imagine examining your own life from age 6-18 as if it were a storyboard. Each important moment in your personal growth gets a frame. You are now tasked with choosing a select few frames to best explain your individual evolution as a person. Now, of the hundreds of important frames in the storyboard of your life, you only get to choose 10 of them to express how you became who you are. That is what Richard Linklater accomplished with this film. He told a character’s life story using 10-12 snapshot scenes of his childhood… and it worked. It came together as a cohesive story. Ultimately, the story still moved at a very slow pace, and certain production obstacles came up (you tend to run into obstacles when you film for 1 out of 52 weeks per year, for 12 straight years). Thus the film wasn’t for everyone, but the level of artistic expression must be appreciated.

Other than Birdman, my favorite film of the year was the indie darling Whiplash. A true, old school indie film that had a slow but steady rise to production. Its generally unknown director Damien Chazelle wrote the script loosely based on his own experience as a jazz drummer in high school. While the script had promise, it wasn’t until Chazelle had the courage to make a “proof-of-concept” short film and entered it into festivals, that the road to producing the full-length feature began. The proof-of-concept short won the Sundance Film Festival Short Prize in 2013, which resulted in more opportunities for fundraising. Just one year later, the full-length version won the Audience Award and Grand Jury Prize at Sundance (a very rare feat). The film is directed beautifully, which is quite impressive for such an inexperienced filmmaker. There are truly gorgeous stylistic shots peppered into the film to go along with the gut-wrenching story. The plot revolves around the relationship between a young up-and-coming jazz drumming prodigy at the best music school in the country and his abusive teacher/band leader. The acting most certainly drives the film, but my favorite aspect of it was its underlying message, which was, in reality, a series of questions. Is emotional or even physical abuse the most effective way to tap into an artist’s genius? Can a musical or artistic talent reach its full potential without difficult, line-crossing motivation? How many great artists never reached their full potential because they weren’t pushed hard enough? How many great artists never reached their full potential because they were pushed TOO hard? The underlying themes of the plot were so interesting. Combine that with the career-defining performance from J.K. Simmons and its no surprise this tiny film gained such critical acclaim. Additionally, the final sequence was one my favorite closing scenes of all time. In the final 10 minutes of the film, you are taken on the most enjoyable of emotional roller coaster rides. Fitting title for the film considering the after effects I felt leaving the theater.

As a huge Wes Anderson fan, I would be hard pressed to not discuss The Grand Budapest Hotel. Surely Anderson’s best feature since The Royal Tenenbaums. Even though I did thoroughly enjoy Moonrise Kingdom, Grand Budapest Hotel was a much more interesting and developed story. It was layered with great performances across the board and included all the classic Wes Anderson minimalist motifs. While you can surely criticize Anderson on the lack of variety in the style of his films, no one actually wants to because Wes Anderson is so good at doing Wes Anderson. Ultimately, we just want to be entertained and his ultra-dry humor tickles the hell out of my fancy. While Ralph Fiennes has had some hilarious performances in the past (In Bruges comes to mind), this is easily his funniest. He carries the film completely.

Allllright enough accolades. Lets dish out some jeers. I was not a fan of the film American Sniper. My view on this film in no way reflects my view on patriotism, the Iraq war, or issues faced by our war veterans. I didn’t like the film, not because I thought it was war propaganda, but because I thought the movie sucked. It lacked original content. It also had a handful of laughable war movie clichés. It is possible to make a great war movie, and one that makes you question the affects of war on our soldiers in a thought-provoking way without pandering to a certain political ideology (i.e. The Hurt Locker). It’s also possible to make a great film about dueling snipers without going deep into political topics at all (i.e. Enemy At The Gates). American Sniper accomplished neither of these feats. Instead, it tried desperately to navigate the minefields of political discourse without leaning too much one way or the other. It felt as if the message of the film was “it doesn’t matter if you’re a democrat or republican, let’s just watch a badass Texan kill a bunch of terrorists”. The overly patriotic nature of the film was slightly annoying as well. There are important questions that our society must ask about war, and about its war veterans, and in my personal opinion, “how many Iraqis have you killed, Legend!?” isn’t the most pressing of topics. The film follows a man who CLEARLY had legitimate issues with post-traumatic stress and the after-effects of war, yet the film never took a break from the headshots to seriously address that topic. In fact the hero this film was based on was KILLED BY ANOTHER VETERAN SUFFERING FROM MENTAL PROBLEMS. Seems like a good enough reason to delve into that topic in the man’s biography film, but I guess Clint Eastwood thought his film would be enriched more by shots of terrorists being literally obliterated by American heavy artillery. The only bright spot of the film was Bradley Cooper’s performance, which was undoubtedly impressive. I think what we have is simply an extremely old and possibly senile director who is very proud of his country’s military, making a film about how heroic our soldiers are. I already knew they were heroic, and you brought nothing new to the conversation about why they’re heroic. Eastwood’s last few films: Jersey Boys, J.Edgar, Hereafter, Invictus, Gran Torino. Gotta go back 10 years before you get to something good. Time to ride off into the sunset, Josey Wales.

Who I Think Will Win: Boyhood

Who I Think Should Win: Birdman

Nomination Snub(s): Interstellar– I have a feeling this sci-fi epic will be a cult classic in a few years. As all of Christopher Nolan’s films are, its complex, and it blurs the line between reality and science fiction. No one does this like Nolan. Cool tidbit: scientific discovery happened during the making of this film. By using some of the world’s best scientists on the subject as consultants, Nolan was able to make the story as realistic as possible. The visual representation of the massive black hole in the film is the first accurate representation of what a black hole “should” look like in history.

Inherent Vice– A really enjoyable quirky dark comedy from Hollywood titan/prodigy/wizkid/stoner Paul Thomas Anderson (Boogie Nights, Magnolia, There Will Be Blood, The Master). Being one of my favorite directors on planet Earth, it’s going to be difficult for him to make a film I don’t like and Inherent Vice did not threaten the streak. It was dry and witty. It was random and eccentric, but not in a forced way. Hilarious performances from Joaquin Phoenix and Josh Brolin, and even a concise but brilliant cameo from Martin Short.

Best Director

Much like the Best Picture category, this one is a coin flip. Either Iñárritu or Linklater is taking home the statue. While I’d love to see Wes Anderson win this award at some point in his career as kind of a “Fuck You” to big-budget Hollywood, this year there were two great cinematic achievments that deserve the award more.

Who I Think Will Win: Richard Linklater, Boyhood

Who I Think Should Win: Alejandro Gonzalez Iñárritu, Birdman

Nomination Snub: David Fincher, Gone Girl– While the story is so ridiculous and infuriating, that’s not Fincher’s fault. Basing the film on the novel, Fincher had to work his magic to make this story fit the screen and not seem contrived and grandiose. He brought his classic style of darkness to the film, and did a phenomenal job keeping the audience on its toes with clever misdirection, an important part of any suspense thriller.

Best Actor

It seems as if Eddie Redmayne as a young Stephen Hawking is the favorite to take home the statue. I remember first seeing Redmayne in Robert De Niro’s The Good Shephard in 2006. He played Matt Damon’s character’s son in the film, and was extremely impressive even in limited screen time. In addition to being one of Britain’s most prominent young stage actors, Redmayne has started to develop himself as a screen actor as well. With great performances in My Week With Marilyn and Les Miserables, it appears he is poised to join the Hollywood elite with his first major acting award. Hopefully, he gets upset by Michael Keaton. As made abundantly clear above, Birdman was my favorite of the year, and in a tag team with the creative direction from Alejandro Gonzalez Iñárritu, the film was carried by Keaton’s performance. It would be a great comeback story to see Keaton win.

Who I Think Will Win: Eddie Redmayne

Who I Think Should Win: Michael Keaton

Nomination Snub: Jake Gyllenhaal, Nightcrawler– a solid movie that was made by one actor’s performance. One of Hollywood’s most underappreciated actors, never fully getting the credit he deserves. It was the best performance of his career. The character was haunting and creepy yet intelligent and calculated. He was oblivious to his borderline insanity, yet completely self aware of the differences between him and most people. Gyllenhaal executed this effortlessly.

Best Actress

Judging off articles I’ve read and Vegas odds, the two favorites are Julianne Moore and Reese Witherspoon. I didn’t see either of the films they are nominated for. Rosamund Pike’s performance in Gone Girl was chilling, so I’d have to say hers was my favorite of the nominees.

Who I Think Will Win: Julianne Moore

Who I Think Should Win: Rosamund Pike

Nomination Snub: Sienna Miller, American Sniper– she matched Cooper’s performance every step of the way and brought a nice authenticity to her character.

Best Supporting Actor

Its J.K. Simmons’ statue to lose. He is the overwhelming favorite as he should be. His performance in Whiplash was raw and full of energy. His character was both brilliant and sinister, and Simmons displayed both masterfully. Edward Norton was as strong as ever, but Simmons carried his film.

Who I Think Will Win: J.K. Simmons

Who I Think Should Win: J.K. Simmons

Nomination Snub: Josh Brolin, Inherent Vice– simply put, just a hilarious exhibition of dry humor.

Best Supporting Actress

Similarly to its sister category, this should be a runaway. Patricia Arquette’s performance as the matriarch in Boyhood was unforgettable. Complimented by Ethan Hawke’s aloof-but-loving father character, she had to be the backbone of the family. She was strong and nurturing without being unrealistic. The calmness of her performance was a perfect addition to the mosaic that was Boyhood.

Who I Think Will Win: Patricia Arquette

Who I Think Should Win: Patricia Arquette

Nomination Snub: Jessica Chastain, Interstellar– Even though she was only in half the film, she came through admirably as the unlikely savior of humanity.

Best Original Screenplay

This year the favorite for this prestigious award is The Grand Budapest Hotel. Theoretically, you could give this award to Wes Anderson every time he makes a film. His scripts are so wonderfully written with such a distinct and light-hearted style, it’s hard to ignore how good they are. I think Grand Budapest Hotel is his most intricate story to date, and the last time he took us through a storytelling maze such as this one, he was nominated for The Royal Tenenbaums but did not take home the Oscar. I believe this will be his night. Iñárritu’s masterful blueprint for Birdman is certainly deserving, but I think Anderson will finally be rewarded for being the best Wes Anderson he can be.

Who I Think Will Win: Wes Anderson, The Grand Budapest Hotel

Who I Think Should Win: Wes Anderson, The Grand Budapest Hotel

Nomination Snub: Damien Chazelle, Whiplash– its dumb to put Whiplash in the “Adapted” category just because the full length script was technically based of the script for the proof-of-concept short film.

Best Adapted Screenplay

Who I Think Will Win: Graham Moore, The Imitation Game

Who I Think Should Win: Paul Thomas Anderson, Inherent Vice

Nomination Snub: Gillian Flynn, Gone Girl– adapting your own book for the screen is much more difficult than it sounds.

 

Hope you all enjoyed my analysis! I’m looking forward to Neil Patrick Harris as the host as well, I expect him to do a great job!

Coosh’s 2014 Academy Awards Preview

Another year, another Oscars Predictions post. I use that first sentence because there really isn’t a non-awkward approach to introducing this blog without seeming self-righteous. I plan to dissect each of the nominees in the major categories of the Academy Awards, and hopefully all seven of you will enjoy it. While this year’s crop certainly couldn’t be described as a gold mine, there were quite a few gems sprinkled in the mix. Without further jibber-jabber, lets get into it. Don’t be discouraged by the length of the first section.

Best Picture

Nominees: American Hustle, Captain Phillips, Gravity, The Wolf Of Wall Street, Dallas Buyer’s Club, Her, Philomena, Nebraska, 12 Years A Slave 

Continuing the ever-dull format of the “Best Picture Nomination Bonanza”, the Academy actually did a fairly decent job this year presenting the best collection of films. With the exception of Nebraska (we’ll get to that later), I thoroughly enjoyed all these films. My favorite of the bunch is without a doubt The Wolf Of Wall Street. While I don’t believe it will win, it truly was the most brilliant of homages to all of Scorsese’s prior works. Was the film brash, outlandish, and even silly at points? Of course it was. But as someone who grew up idolizing Marty, his endless string of gangster films and beyond-complicated character studies have laid the foundation for my personal love of film. Hollywood has spent decades attempting to mimic the way he masterfully blends the blockbuster with the indie. I found great humor in the multitude of criticism of the film received from folks unfamiliar with the concept of satire. The point of the film was not to promote or encourage ghastly behavior and greed, but rather to show the presence of evil in that realm of our society. It showed that beyond Gordon Gekko and greed, the truly ruthless financial businessmen are missing something upstairs. An element of sanity and humanism that seems to have been pounded into submission by stacks of cash.

David O. Russell continued his dominating run of late with another quality flick in American Hustle. The story was intriguing, engaging, and the acting was top notch. It also represents the growing trend in Hollywood of the clique-oriented casting culture. While certain directors have always been partial to certain actors, more than ever we are seeing large groups of talented actors hitching their wagons to whatever director or screenwriter has shown them success in the past. Whether it is a dramatic director such as Russell, or a comedic producer like Judd Apatow, they’re finding their talent and sticking with it. Nearly the entire cast of American Hustle has appeared in another David O. Russell flick within the last two years. Dallas Buyer’s Club was an acting showcase more than it was a Best Picture winner. The film was made superbly, but it was merely a stage for McConaughey and Leto. I felt similarly about 12 Years A Slave. The film was beautiful, and just like Dallas Buyers Club, it had a deeper story to tell than just the plot of the film, but the actual final presentation left me not as fascinated as I was with the acting involved. While I really liked Her, I was more impressed by the screenplay than the complete product. The dialogue and plot points were masterful. 

Gravity is getting my vote for best film of the year. While my heart stands with Marty and The Wolf, my brain sides with Mr. Alfonso Cuaron. Since the day I saw Children Of Men, I knew I would be following this man’s career attentively for years to come. Gravity did not disappoint. The visual approach was stunning, the plot was suspenseful and interesting, the acting was solid, and Bullock’s character story arch involving her recovery from the death of her daughter was deeply emotional. Clooney’s “resurrection” scene was my favorite. (SPOILER ALERT) At the point that Bullock begins to give up, we know that Clooney has already died. So when he bangs on the pod door, the latch clicks, the door swings open, and a helmet-less Bullock is still breathing (and not frozen solid by the blistering cold of outer space), without a word of dialogue, Cuaron has shown us that what we are about to witness is not something happening in reality. He is not dancing around it, and not even for a second attempting to trick the audience into contemplating the actual survival of Clooney’s character. The audience is faced with two possibilities: either Bullock has also died, and the ensuing conversation is merely a friendly chat amongst ghosts, or she is hallucinating. The beauty within that simplicity is commendable. It is so easy in modern film to be sucked into those “OMG” moments, or the epic plot twists that stick in the brain of the moviegoer forever. Cuaron was simply trying to make a beautiful film. It is a combination of this scene, the closing scene involving Bullock’s primordial rebirth, as well as the historic opening tracking shot which introduced the storyline, setting, and main characters in one jaw-dropping continuous 13-minute take that made this film stand out to me. 

Then theres Nebraska. This movie sucked. There have been slow, quirky, visually bland indie films in the past that were at least able to create something relevant. That specific something may have been a feeling, an emotion, or a thought-provoking question as you walk out of the theater. Nebraska leaves you with nothing. Only the word “pointless” describes my thoughts. The film follows a man and his half-senile father traveling across a small part of the Midwest to investigate some possible lottery winnings, which everyone including the characters and the audience know isn’t real. It’s clear that Payne was attempting to capture the bland nature of Midwest America, and I think he succeeded in a different way than he thought he would. Even filming it in black & white was an attempt to enhance that blandness. It probably wouldn’t have been awful if he had infused the same type of humor found in his best film to date, The Descendants. Instead, it seems as if he sat in the editing room until all that was left was maybe five moments of slight amusement spread between awkward pauses, idiotic dialogue, and a wide pan over a broken down tractor in a barren field.

Who I Think Will Win: 12 Years A Slave

Who I Think Should Win: Gravity

Nomination Snub: Don Jon. Not just my JGL man crush talking here. This one was entertaining, well shot, well acted, and much more profound than its greased up exterior lets on.

Best Director

Nominees: David O. Russell (American Hustle), Alfonso Cuaron (Gravity), Alexander Payne (Nebraska), Steve McQueen (12 Years A Slave), Martin Scorsese (The Wolf Of Wall Street)

While Gravity was my favorite film of the year, much of the film’s artistic style came from masterful cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki who also orchestrated the memorable war-zone tracking shot in Children of Men. Nebraska was a steaming pile of hot garbage so Payne is getting no love from me. I enjoyed American Hustle but it inspired some of the same feelings I had about Argo last year. Great film, but a little flashy. Too many close calls and just-missed-ems. This is a battle between McQueen and Scorsese. If it were up to me, Scorsese would win this award for every film so I must bow out under the guise of bias. 

Who I Think Will Win: Steve McQueen (12 Years A Slave)

Who I Think Should Win: Martin Scorsese (The Wolf Of Wall Street)

Nomination Snub: Derek Cianfrance (The Place Beyond The Pines). Even though he is ultimately responsible for the film being 30 minutes too long, it was still a great work. Academy slept on this one this year because it came out too early.

Best Actor

Nominees: Leonardo DiCaprio (The Wolf Of Wall Street), Matthew McConaughey (Dallas Buyer’s Club), Chiwetel Ejiofor (12 Years A Slave), Bruce Dern (Nebraska), Christian Bale (American Hustle)

The problem with living in the age we do, is that often times very subtle, sometimes subliminal media campaigns just sprout up out of nowhere. For some reason, the media has decided that this is “McConaughey’s year”. No one is a bigger fan of the career shift he has forged in the last two years than I am, but if I’m looking at these singular performances, I think Ejiofor demonstrates more range and more discipline. McConaughey’s physical transformation is nothing to scoff at, but I can’t give the man an Oscar when he gave a better performance on television last Sunday. DiCaprio should have two statues already, but unfortunately he doesn’t, and Jordan Balfour doesn’t crack his top 5 roles. Nebraska was a putrid case of diarrhea so I’m not giving Dern any love. The Nebraska/Dern – Gran Torino/Eastwood parallels are blinding. I absolutely loved Christian Bale in American Hustle. He and Adams transformed that film from a quirky caper to an emotional suspense con film. Bale is STILL the most underrated actor in Hollywood despite winning an Oscar. He consistently delivers monster performances in vastly different roles. 

Who I Think Will Win: Matthew McConaughey (Dallas Buyer’s Club)

Who I Think Should Win: Chiwetel Ejiofor (12 Years A Slave)

Nomination Snub: Michael B. Jordan (Fruitvale Station). Meh on the movie, but Wallace/Vince got skillz.

Best Actress

Nominees: Cate Blanchett (Blue Jasmine), Amy Adams (American Hustle), Meryl Streep (August: Osage County), Sandra Bullock (Gravity), Judi Dench (Philomena)

Bleh. How bout some VARIETY in this category for once. Four of them have statues already, and the other one has been nominated 5 times. They’re all great, without a doubt, but I wish we’d see some wild cards from time to time. Blanchett was phenomenal in Woody Allen’s latest piece and seems to be the favorite to take home the award. Sandra Bullock’s performance in Gravity was perfectly satisfactory, but nothing incredible. She got the job done, but as with everything she does, it seemed forced. The best performance in this bunch came from Ms. Adams. She stretched herself to a handful of emotional peaks and carried the plot of the film on her back. She cried, she laughed, she seduced, she deceived. She has turned herself into a Hollywood Swiss army knife, which is something that not many actors can do. A fairy tale princess? Sure. A bah-tendin’ chowdah-head who carries huh-self like a strippah? Check. Lois Lane? Why not.

Who I Think Will Win: Cate Blanchett (Blue Jasmine)

Who I Think Should Win: Amy Adams (American Hustle)

Nomination Snub: Margot Robbie (The Wolf Of Wall Street). Couldn’t catch a lick of that Aussie accent! And my goodness those eyes…

Best Supporting Actor

Nominees: Jared Leto (Dallas Buyer’s Club), Michael Fassbender (12 Years A Slave), Barkhad Abdi (Captain Phillips), Jonah Hill (The Wolf Of Wall Street), Bradley Cooper (American Hustle)

I DON’T GET WHY WE’RE JUST GIVING MCCONAUGHEY AND LETO THE STATUES. The media (and Vegas) is claiming Leto has it locked up. The physical transformations that those two completed are extremely impressive, but the emotional display was lacking. It was there, and respectable, but the performances weren’t those powerhouse displays that move the audience.

Jonah Hill’s performance as the caricatured doofus Jew with phosphorescent teeth was impressive to say the least. Honestly, I never understood Hill’s nomination for his role in Moneyball. There wasn’t much there outside of Jonah Hill- the actor. Wolf on the other hand was a totally different story. This character was a complete departure from who Jonah Hill is. He was hilarious as always, but absolutely held his own, even delivering one my favorite Scorsese motifs; the public shaming monologue (i.e. go get your fucking shine box). Even so, Hill doesn’t get my vote. It was Fassbender who showed me the most with the least. Fassbender delivered a methodical dominance of every scene he was in. I found myself eagerly awaiting every word out of his mouth. He was totally enveloped by the character, and it wasn’t simply the evil, masochistic torture he inflicted on others. It was the way he brought the inner conflicts of Edwin Epps to the surface. That is a rare skill in an actor, and Fassbender is accomplishing it repeatedly. There’s a reason every director in Hollywood wants him in all their movies.

Who I Think Will Win: Jared Leto (Dallas Buyer’s Club)

Who I Think Should Win: Michael Fassbender (12 Years A Slave)

Nomination Snub: James Franco (Spring Breakers). Nuff said.

Best Supporting Actress

Nominees: Lupita Nyong’o (12 Years A Slave), Jennifer Lawrence (American Hustle), Julia Roberts (August: Osage County), June Squibb (Nebraska), Sally Hawkins (Blue Jasmine)

This should be a one-woman race. Nyong’o turned herself into a completely destroyed, fraction of a human. A beaten woman whose life was controlled by a sadistic monster. It is no easy feat to destroy yourself for a role. She broke down every urge, every desire, every action to its core, and stripped it of its humanity. It was a role that captured the essence of slavery even better than the role of Solomon Northup. Northup’s background made it unable for him to match the same type of sadness and symbolism brought to life by a character like Patsey. While I am infatuated with Jennifer Lawrence, her character called for comic relief rather than transcendent drama. Nebraska was a mound of cow dung so Squibb gets zippy.

Who I Think Will Win: Lupita Nyong’o (12 Years A Slave)

Who I Think Should Win: Lupita Nyong’o (12 Years A Slave)

Nomination Snub: Amy Adams (Her). In American Hustle she was a smart, sexy, bra-less vixen. In Her she was a frumpy nerd lost in a hopeless search for love.

Best Original Screenplay

Nominees: Her (Spike Jonze), Blue Jasmine (Woody Allen), Nebraska (Bob Nelson), American Hustle (Eric Warren Singer, David O. Russell), Dallas Buyer’s Club (Craig Borten, Melisa Wallack)

I believe its Her’s Oscar to lose. With all the recent uptick in pedophilia/rape allegations, I doubt Woody is going to take home another statue anytime soon. Nebraska was a soggy diaper, so it won’t win; which leaves only two viable contenders for the crown. American Hustle was superbly written, but as I’ve indicated before, it was pushed along by the performances of Adams and Bale. Same goes for Dallas Buyer’s Club with McConaughey and Leto’s performances. The beauty within the screenplay for Her was quite reminiscent of the brilliance that Spike Jonze emanated during his direction of Being John Malkovich and Adaptation. He is so effortlessly able to tap into the weirdest of concepts and create a completely relatable and realistic story out of them.

Who I Think Will Win: Her (Spike Jonze)

Who I Think Should Win: Her (Spike Jonze)

Nomination Snub: The Place Beyond The Pines (Derek Cianfrance, Ben Coccio, Darius Marder)

Best Adapted Screenplay

Nominees: 12 Years A Slave (John Ridley), Philomena (Steve Coogan, Jeff Pope), Before Midnight (Richard Linklater, Julie Delpy, Ethan Hawke), Captain Phillips (Billy Ray), The Wolf Of Wall Street (Terence Winter)

As always, my least favorite category for last. I’m a fan of Steve Coogan and his general comedic talents so if he wins an Oscar I wont be upset. Yeah lets go with that. 

Who I Think Will Win: 12 Years A Slave (John Ridley)

Who I Think Should Win: Philomena (Steve Coogan, Jeff Pope)

Nomination Snub: I don’t know.

Hope you all enjoyed. Make sure to share with anyone who loves movies!

Coosh’s 2013 Academy Awards Preview

Another year, another chance for the Academy to taint the sanctity of the Best Picture winner. First of all, I think I can speak for most Oscars fans when I say the 9 or 10 nominees for Best Picture system needs to be taken behind a shed and put down. It dilutes the prestige of the award. Last year The Help, Hugo, War Horse, and Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close were all nominated for Best Picture. Those films are about as memorable as a burnt hot dog. An unfortunate trend, which has plagued the last decade, has been making the overwhelmingly incorrect choice for the winner of this award. Often times, even in the moment, we are aware that the Academy chose incorrectly. While The King’s Speech was a wonderfully uplifting film, it had no business winning that Oscar. I remember exactly one scene from that movie. In fact, by my estimate it was the 4^th best film that year. The Social Network should have been the runaway winner, while Inception and Black Swan are great films in their own rights. The Academy needs to get back on the right track and the first step is reducing the nominations back down to five. Second step: mandatory reading of Coosh’s Annual Oscars Preview 🙂

Best Adapted Screenplay

This is Lincoln’s category for sure. Tony Kushner’s screenplay was vibrant, calculated, and the backbone of the film. Chris Terrio’s adaptation of the Argo story was very nicely put together, and David O. Russell’s script for Silver Linings Playbook was smart and funny, but I’d be very surprised if Kushner didn’t take home the statue.

Who I think will win: Tony Kushner for Lincoln

Who I think should win: Tony Kushner for Lincoln

Nomination Snub: 4-man crew for Les Miserables

Best Original Screenplay

The 2^nd most loaded category behind Best Supporting Actor. Much like with the rest of his films, Quentin Tarantino’s brilliant script for Django Unchained was marvelous and should be the frontrunner. Tarantino’s scripts are the foundation of all his films, and without the masterful dialogue, Django just wouldn’t be Django. Mark Boal’s adaptation of the Zero Dark Thirty story was also compelling. While the dialogue wasn’t as enthralling as Django’s, the story was certainly more delicate and thus Boal was less prone to taking risks. Zero Dark Thirty’s story needed to be told with precision, and that’s exactly how it was handled. Moonrise Kingdom would be the dark horse candidate of this category, but of all the Wes Anderson scripts, Moonrise wouldn’t crack the top three so I can’t see it winning this year.

Who I think will win: Mark Boal for Zero Dark Thirty

Who I think should win: Quentin Tarantino for Django Unchained

Nomination Snub: Rian Johnson for Looper, Martin McDonagh for Seven Psychopaths

Best Supporting Actress

Ladies and Gentlemen, this is what we call a stone-cold lead-pipe lock. Anne Hathaway was phenomenal in her short time on screen during Les Miserables. Despite only being on screen for maybe 30 minutes of the 150+ minute film, Hathaway crushed every note, and even brought her trademark waterworks along for the ride. Sally Field was great in Lincoln, but the character just didn’t show that much range. A similar diagnosis goes for Amy Adams’ performance in The Master. Helen Hunt gets this year’s Pornography Award, given to the actress who best demonstrates a willingness to spend the majority of a film completely naked. Sympathy nomination. Pretty weak year for this category.

Who I think will win: Anne Hathaway for Les Miserables

Who I think should win: Anne Hathaway for Les Miserables

Nomination Snub: Kerry Washington for Django Unchained

Best Supporting Actor

This is probably the most stacked I’ve ever seen a single Oscar category. Every nominee in this category has at least one Oscar on their mantle already. Christoph Waltz owes more than he can ever imagine to Quentin Tarantino. Waltz was a very successful Austrian-German actor, but since being cast in Tarantino’s Inglorious Basterds as the sadistic Nazi Hans Landa, his international appeal (and probably monetary worth) have skyrocketed. His portrayal of Dr. King Schultz was perfect, and added a wise element to the storytelling. Tommy Lee Jones was solid in Lincoln, but most of his screen prowess in the film derived from Kushner’s wonderful script. Phillip Seymour Hoffman’s portrayal of a masterful fraud was so methodical, but I’m not sure its Oscar-worthy. Alan Arkin’s role in Argo was certainly funny, but very similar to most of Arkin’s roles of late. The wise, but brash old man has been done by him before and he already won an Oscar for it (See: Little Miss Sunshine). And then we get to Bobby Deniro. His performance in Silver Linings Playbook caught me completely off guard. Deniro is my favorite actor of all time, and although his range has been demonstrated time and time again, in the last few years he seems to have mailed in a lot of his performances, just doing enough to get by. Who can blame him in his old age? But in Silver Linings Playbook, he was the epitome of a Supporting Actor. Every scene he was in lifted the rest of the cast. In particular, when sympathizing with Bradley Cooper in one scene, Deniro brought back that incredible vulnerability we haven’t seen in years and shed some tears. It was amazing to watch the GOAT commit himself like that again. Could you imagine the ovation he would get if they call his name?

Who I think will win: Christoph Waltz for Django Unchained

Who I think should win: Robert Deniro for Silver Linings Playbook

Nomination Snub: the entire supporting cast of Django Unchained. Dicaprio was phenomenal. You could barely take your eyes off him as he squeezed out every condescending line in that unforgettable southern twang. Samuel L. Jackson was hysterical as the traitorous head slave, and Don Johnson was amazing in his own right.

Best Actress

Also a pretty heavy category with lots of contenders. Jennifer Lawrence’s performance in Silver Linings Playbook was wonderful, but was it better than her performance in Winter’s Bone (for which she was also nominated)? I tried so helplessly to ignore the distraction of her gorgeous face and body, but I may have missed some of her best moments whilst ogling her lady parts. I may or may not have almost choked on my own drool. She had a slew of emotional scenes and wouldn’t be a bad choice to take home the statue. And my lord, that figure. Simply magical. In a time where every female curve is scrutinized, kudos to J-Law for shoving her voluptuousness in the face of every misogynistic studio exec who only casts women with visible ribcages. The second, but equal frontrunner is the elderly Emannuelle Riva for the French film Amour. Jessica Chastain was good in Zero Dark Thirty, but I don’t really understand all the hoopla about her performance in particular. It seems to me she got the nod just for being the protagonist of a very important film. She was serviceable, but was pretty stoic the entire film. This category also features the youngest actress to ever be nominated at 9 years old. Quvenzhane Wallis was phenomenal as the young Hushpuppy in Beasts of The Southern Wild. So cute I wouldn’t be surprised if Angelina Jolie tried to bypass some kind of state law to legally adopt her.

Who I think will win: Jennifer Lawrence for Silver Linings Playbook

Who I think should win: Emannuelle Riva for Amour

Nomination Snub: Helen Mirren for Hitchcock

Best Actor

They honestly shouldn’t even waste our time presenting this category during the telecast. They should just give Daniel Day Lewis his statue so he can start organizing his trio of Oscars in a little triangle. Do you think he’ll go equilateral Oscar triangle, or isosceles Oscar triangle? Hugh Jackman would be the one to cause the upset, but that’s just not happening. Jackman was very impressive in his portrayal of Jean Valjean, and wowed everyone with his singing voice. He showed scintillating range, the likes of which we haven’t seen him boast since Aronofsky’s The Fountain. Bradley Cooper showed the world he’s more than just a RomCom stud with his performance. He’s come a loooong way since being Jennifer Garner’s bitch on Alias, but was probably only the 3^rd best performance in Silver Linings Playbook. Joaquin Phoenix was eccentric and brilliant in The Master, but it’s just not his year. And then there’s Denzel doing Denzel things. I’m just tired of seeing him squander his talents trying to squeeze everything he can out of lifeless roles in mediocre movies. He plays a very slightly different version of himself in every film and he refuses to take risks. The one time we saw him try something SOMEWHAT different was when he took a villainous role in Training Day and we all know how that worked out. DENZEL, KING KONG AIN’T GOT SHIT ON YOU, try something new. At this point you wonder if he even can try something new. Hard-ass but emotional, Brooklyn accented Denzel has been pounded into our brains so many times I can’t even imagine him playing an oddball eccentric role.

Who I think will win: Daniel Day Lewis for Lincoln

Who I think should win: Daniel Day Lewis for Lincoln

Nomination Snub: John Hawkes for The Sessions, Anthony Hopkins for Hitchcock

Best Director

Reviewing this category is frustrating beyond words, as the two best achievements in directing this year aren’t nominated. Unfortunately all we can do is press forward. Spielberg is definitely the favorite for Lincoln, with Ang Lee marching close behind. Spielberg’s Lincoln was clearly important on a much larger scale than most films, and thus I believe Spielberg was pretty conservative in his approach. The film was elegant and tasteful, but nothing extraordinary. Lee’s take on the uber-popular book Life of Pi was a more liberal approach. Life of Pi employed stunning visual techniques throughout the film and had some of the most beautiful cinematography we’ve seen in a long time. Even though the film was aided by the structure of the storytelling within the narrative (the talented Irrfan Khan narrates most of the story), Lee did a masterful job utilizing the symbolism from the book in his direction. David O. Russell was superb in his compilation of Silver Linings Playbook, but that film rode on the back of the screenplay and the ensemble cast.

Who I think will win: Steven Spielberg for Lincoln

Who I think should win: Ang Lee for Life of Pi

Nomination snub: Katherine Bigelow for Zero Dark Thirty, Ben Affleck for Argo. These are two of the worst snubs I’ve ever seen. The statue should be going to one of these two directors.

Best Picture

For a more detailed look into my favorite films of the year, check out my Top 10 films of 2012 below. This is a 5-horse race as it stands. Lincoln, Argo, Silver Linings Playbook, Django Unchained, and Zero Dark Thirty will be vying for the granddaddy statue. As I explained above, Lincoln was a very elegant film, but overall not that entertaining. Argo was the exact opposite, making up for everything it lacked in practicality with its entertaining suspense. Silver Linings Playbook is an all-time great romantic comedy, but it’s pretty rare for RomComs to take home a Best Picture Oscar. In my opinion, Django and ZDT were the two best films of the year, and should be taking this category. Unfortunately, Tarantino’s brand of filmmaking doesn’t appeal to the cookie cutter nature of Academy voting, so I don’t think Django has much of a chance. Zero Dark Thirty was realistic, organized, well shot, and controversial. It was suspenseful, and at the same time, methodical. Not enough can be said about how much Bigelow was screwed out of a directing nod. Beasts Of The Southern Wild was my favorite of the long shots in this category. It took a more artistic approach, which can often lead some audiences to brush it off. Where Terrence Malick’s Tree of Life failed, Beasts Of The Southern Wild succeeds. Tree of Life, which I hate with the fire of a thousand suns, was boring, ambiguous, and pretentious in its artistic symbolism. Beasts Of The Southern Wild succeeded admirably in its attempt to supplement its interesting plot with symbolism.

What I think will win: Argo

What I think should win: Django Unchained or Zero Dark Thirty

Nomination Snub: Looper, Seven Psychopaths

Another year in the books! Hope you all enjoyed my take. I’ll be live tweeting the Oscars on Sunday. You can follow me @Cooshimanjaro

Coosh’s Top 10 Films of 2012

10. Hitchcock

A totally under-the-radar film about Alfred Hitchcock’s struggle to produce the film Psycho, and the ensuing battles with the censorship board. The film details Hitchcock’s innovative approach to creating Psycho at a time when Hollywood saw him as a declining legend whose greatness was behind him. Anthony Hopkins shines as Hitchcock but Helen Mirren steals the show as Alma Reville, Hitchcock’s wife. Behind the scenes, Reville was the muse, editor, and confidant for nearly all her husband’s works. Hopkins and Mirren have wonderful on-screen chemistry, and the film glides along with humorous wit. A great tribute to the classic filmmaker.

9. Lincoln

Some may be surprised at how high Lincoln is on this list seeing as how it is one of the favorites to take home Best Picture at the Oscars. While the film was beautifully shot by Spielberg, and Tony Kushner’s script was remarkable eloquent, the film lacked much excitement. It felt much like a History channel piece with better production value. Stellar acting though.

8. Looper

Along with Inception and Minority Report, Looper is amongst my favorite Sci-Fi films of this millennium. It was original, gripping, and thought provoking. Rian Johnson broke through and delivered a film with stunning visual elements to go along with his brilliant story. After Johnson teamed up with Looper star Joseph Gordon-Levitt to make the wonderful neo-noir Brick, I had high hopes for this follow-up and it didn’t disappoint. Unlike most time travel sci-fi films, Looper avoids wasting most of the film explaining the rules of time traveling (which is an exercise in futility, because the very nature of time travel is totally contradictory to linear story telling). Instead, Johnson doesn’t let his story get bogged down with an argument no one can win. He let his imagination guide the story, and it showed.

7. The Master

The acting was phenomenal, the writing was intriguing, and the tone was textbook P.T. Anderson. Hoffman’s performance stands out just as much as Phoenix’s in my opinion. Hoffman’s role was significantly harder to play. While Phoenix was no slouch himself, Hoffman carried the weight of the entire story on his back. The story is about a devoted charlatan. Hoffman had to create a true fraud that was perfectly believable and sincere, yet mysteriously vague at the same time. Much more difficult than Phoenix’s quirky, naive drunkard. This film is for film lovers. Those looking for pure entertainment need to find it elsewhere.

6. Argo

The most overrated film of the year. I only say this because Argo currently sits as the heavy favorite in Vegas to take home Best Picture. Don’t get me wrong, Argo was a great movie. I enjoyed it thoroughly. I just don’t think it is worthy of the granddaddy Oscar. While the film was shot perfectly by its star director, the acting was merely sufficient, and the final sequence bothered me just a little bit. The whole film felt authentic and realistic, and then came the final sequence. It came off a tad Hollywood-y to me. There were two instances I am referring to. There was of course the just-in-the-knick-of-time airport scene in which Iranian guards stand in awe at a series of storyboards for the crew’s fake film. And consequently when Alan Arkin and John Goodman casually stroll through the studio lot while they are supposed to be manning the telephone to confirm the crew’s story. They even stop, waiting for a scene being shot at the studio to finish before saying “eff it” and walking through the shoot. In my opinion these scenes took away from the authenticity of the story. It is bothersome because the story was crazy enough by itself. They simply didn’t need to add in the textbook Hollywood embellishments at the end.

5. Moonrise Kingdom

A shamelessly cute story about a couple adolescents in love. The great Wes Anderson was at the helm, and it was exactly what you’d expect: a minimalist’s approach to the cinematography, dry and witty dialogue, and hilarious performances by an ensemble cast. What more do you need?

4. Seven Psychopaths

I love Martin McDonagh. His films are definitely not for everyone, but if you can stomach the senseless killings and vulgarity, you are always in for a treat. Every time I see In Bruges, it gets better and better, and while this one wasn’t quite as perfect, I have a feeling it will stand the test of time similarly. The trio of Rockwell, Harrelson, and Walken were simply hilarious. While the story within a story aspect was slightly a Charlie Kaufman-esque rip-off, I still thoroughly enjoyed myself watching this film.

3. Silver Linings Playbook

Best Romantic Comedy in a long, long time. Perfect balance of romance and comedy, phenomenal acting by the whole cast, quirky, smart, sexy. There’s just loads of things to love about this movie.

2. Zero Dark Thirty

Stunning. I was on the edge of my seat the entire film. The only knock on the film is its length. It may have been possible to cut down the final length, but it wasn’t necessary. Bigelow did an excellent job creating the world of the young CIA officer Maya. The film was tempered, yet wild. Bigelow was able to handle the gravity of the story with grace and elegance. Much like The Hurt Locker, you walk away feeling as if you saw a realistic portrayal of the story, and gained an introspective insight into the emotions of the protagonist. Bigelow is on to something with her newfound style.

1. Django Unchained

What is there to be said about Quentin Tarantino that hasn’t already been said? He is a premier director because he is unafraid to make the film he wants to make. He couldn’t care less about awards. They mean nothing to him. All that is meaningful to Tarantino is creating a film that is his own, entertaining and smart. He has succeeded admirably. Attacking different genres (from Westerns to Kung Fu) with vigor, purpose, and a fresh mindset. What elevates all his films from neurotic craziness within his own mind to entertaining film is his proficiency with dialogue. His films are primarily conversationally driven, which is incredibly hard to pull off with consistency. Every piece of dialogue is calculated and gripping. While I didn’t like Django as much as Inglorious Basterds, it’s still my favorite film of the year.

Honorable Mention:

Beasts Of The Southern Wild– Where Terence Malick failed miserably with Tree of Life, Benh Zeitlin succeeded admirably. While Tree of Life was simply a series of artistic images, ambiguous symbolism, and virtually no plot whatsoever, Beasts Of The Southern Wild is heartwarming, inspiring, and artistic simultaneously.

21 Jump Street– I just thoroughly enjoyed this comedy. Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum had me laughing nearly the entire way through. Definitely aimed at my generation, but still hysterical. And the cameo by Johnny Depp (the original star of the original 21 Jump Street) was priceless.

Life of Pi– a beautiful film with lots to say about spirituality and friendship.

Dark Knight Rises– Nothing was going to live up to the hype, but Nolan did a wonderful job wrapping up the greatest superhero series of all time.

End of Watch– Thoroughly entertaining action movie about a pair of LA cops. Jake Gyllenhall and Michael Pena both excel. David Ayer’s guerilla-style approach to the film was both interesting and refreshing.

Marley– Great documentary about Bob Marley, the effect of his music on the world, and the effect of his stardom and stature on the country of Jamaica. A long, but in-depth exploration of one of the most culturally influential musicians ever.

Killing Them Softly– Quality mob crime flick with a badass Brad Pitt performance for the ages. Excellent directing by the talented Andrew Dominik.

Les Miserables– Great acting by everyone. Anne Hathaway and most of the cast hit it out of the park, but Russell Crowe’s singing voice was proportionally terrible. It was almost distracting how bad he was. Also, unlike other musicals adapted to film in the past, Les Miz has no breaks whatsoever in the singing. Nearly every word spoken is in song form, which was also slightly distracting.

Spike Lee & Django Unchained

It has been a couple months since I wandered into a packed theater house to catch a viewing of Quentin Tarantino’s latest revenge fantasy film, Django Unchained. While my unbridled admiration for the film was accepted the moment it ended, I wanted to take some time to let it marinate before delving into the murky waters that surrounded the film’s release. The most glaring criticism from beneath the surface of those waters was undoubtedly Spike Lee’s shallow remarks about the offensive nature of the movie. The precise language (in tweet form) was this:

“American Slavery Was Not A Sergio Leone Spaghetti Western. It Was A Holocaust. My Ancestors Are Slaves. Stolen From Africa. I Will Honor Them.”

Much like a loaded but calculated political attack, Spike’s comments immediately forced my mind into 20 different places. Spike’s venom was palpable through this single sentence and it seemed so unwarranted and silly that I was unable to process my own reaction. Not much stock can be put in the comment because Lee didn’t actually see Django Unchained. The tweet came after an interview in which he claimed he was not planning on seeing the film. Therefore, the brilliant satire of the story and dialogue, the wonderful parallel of the German fable motif, the stunning visual elements, and the hysterical performances by the flawless ensemble cast all sit on the other side of the proverbial blindfold over Spike’s eyes.

Of course, to criticize Spike Lee for a racial faux pas is like tiptoeing a minefield. Spike is held in such high regard for his harrowing racial commentary and expertise in the film industry. Lee’s career took off after he released the ultra-racially charged, but masterful Do The Right Thing in 1989. The film puts a perfectly wise, yet modest microscope over Brooklyn and forces your mind into a house of mirrors while instructing you to analyze your own thoughts and actions. It is so perfectly balanced in its racism, embellishment of stereotypes, and point blank social commentary that almost overnight, Lee had become not only a strong voice for the black community, but also an unofficial overseer of all things race in Hollywood.

Unfortunately, it seems Spike has lost touch with the open-mindedness that led him to create so many insightful stories. While no one would argue racism is dead, it certainly has evolved (or I suppose devolved?) since 1989. Spike’s approach is a painful shame, as Lee the filmmaker is as talented as anyone. He is capable of beautiful imagery, stunning symbolism, and delivery methods for his themes that most of Hollywood’s finest directors would kill for.

I have seen nearly all his films, and while his wit and charms certainly have grown and evolved, his harsh and cynical views of society’s racial issues has remained stagnant. You would be hard pressed to find one of his films that can go more than 30 minutes without alluding to someone’s evil agenda stemming from their own personal racial hatred. It makes you think about what burns deep inside Lee himself. Nearly every film he has made introduces a caricatured representation of the local Jew. He employs similar tactics with characters of Asian decent, Hispanic decent, and nearly every other racial group that exists in the melting pot of America. It is aggravating that he is so willing to liberally analyze every possible racial situation from all perspectives, yet so unwilling to give a chance to an abstract portrayal of the core nature of racism, which is of course stupidity (See: Klan Hood Argument Scene). Stupidity and Racism go hand-in-hand, and yet Lee refuses to give a white director a chance at mocking the partnership of Racism and Stupidity with brilliant Mel Brooksian satire. Instead, he seems perfectly content to judge Django by its cover (the countless reports about its egregious use of the N-word). Granted, Lee has long held a gripe with Tarantino for using the N-word in excess in his films and even spouting it off himself a few times towards the end of Pulp Fiction. To raise concern about the “overuse” of that word in Django is, in essence, attacking the only historically accurate aspect of the movie. Django Unchained takes place during a time when there actually was an “overuse” of the word. It really is as simple as that.

Tarantino on the other hand seems to finely tune his craft with each film he makes. Changing the tones, attacking vastly different subjects with vastly different genre films, all while adorning his flicks with his own personal flair. While Tarantino is the hipster’s hipster, one thing you cannot take away from the man is his unreserved originality. Obviously, he samples his favorite styles from his favorite directors and favorite films, but he uses them to create something that is his own. The backbone of his originality is his dialogue. He simply knows his way around an enthralling conversation.

To borrow the comparison from Spike’s tweet, a black man being offended by Django Unchained is congruent to myself, a Jew, being offended by Inglorious Basterds. Just about the only thing worse than slavery is all-out genocide by way of methodical extermination. HOW DARE TARANTINO SUGGEST THAT ALL THE JEWS HAD TO DO TO END THE HOLOCAUST WAS START A ROGUE UNIT OF NAZI-SCALPERS, GET ALL THE HIGH-RANKING MEMBERS OF THE THIRD REICH IN ONE CINEMA HOUSE, LOCK THE DOORS, AND SHOOT THEM DEAD ONE BY ONE? Isn’t it just easier to briefly put aside the harsh truths of reality? Isn’t it easier to appreciate a fantastical revenge story that’s brilliantly told in which the oppressed are represented by (for lack of a better term) stone-cold bad-asses? People overlook the significance of the word “fantasy”. That’s what these films are. They are Quentin Tarantino’s form of historical justice. There can only be so many Do The Right Thing’s, which saturate the audience in reality before it is played out. In fact, that’s probably the best description of Lee’s racial mindset: played out. At this point, its probably best for Spike to make like the ‘D’ in ‘Django’ and just be silent.