“ROMA” Review (✫✫✫✫)

SOURCE: Netflix

La belleza es donde la encuentras.

For some reason, the Madonna song “Vogue” came to mind while I was watching Roma, which is Alfonso Cuaron’s first Spanish film in 17 years since directing 2001’s Y Tu Mama Tambien. It’s the lyrics that specifically stick out to me, and despite Madonna’s jazzy disco groove and upbeat tempo, there’s a sadder story lying in the song about a woman trying to escape from life’s troubles. Everywhere she turns is heartache, she wants to escape the pain of life that she knows, and there’s a longing to be something better than what she is. And, perhaps most important, she learns that beauty is where you find it.

Alfonso Cuaron illustrates this sentiment early on in Roma. Whereas most movies work so hard to set up groundbreaking establishing shots that set the tone for the movie, Roma opens up on the black-and-white tile floor of a middle-class family in La Roma, Mexico City. The image itself is so plain and ordinary, and at first seems like an unusual opening shot for a family drama. But it’s what Cuaron does with the shot that makes it so compelling. Off-screen, we hear a maid throw soapy suds onto the tile floor, and the reflection raises a mesmerizing pattern of a broken yet beautiful city. Brick rooftops surround the image like a picture frame. Clouds break up the gray sky like cotton candy on a canvas. And far into the distance, a plane flies overhead, carrying its passengers into a new tomorrow.

The whole movie is like that, with Alfonso Cuaron finding captivation and interest in every frame, every pan, every close-up, every wide shot, and every sweeping capture of the scenery and sensation that’s on display. The cinematography never looks or feels forced, awkward, pretentious, or unearned. It is intimate and vivid, like a long-lost memory that has suddenly resurfaced back into your mind.

Roma is based on Alfonso Cuaron’s own childhood while growing up in La Roma with his parents and two brothers, as well as the caretakers that looked after them. Although much of the movie is based on Cuaron’s youth, the movie never makes it clear which character he’s supposed to be. In fact, I’m not even confident any singular one of the children in this movie is him. Any one of them could be him, or two of them, or even all of them.

The movie never specifies which is which, and it’s just as well. After all, Roma isn’t even about Alfonso. Instead it’s about his housemaid, played here by Yalitza Aparicio in her theatrical debut. While Roma does follow her everyday routine caring for the family and their children, the movie is about so much more than her work as a housemaid. It’s about her navigating life in 1970’s Mexico City during a period of political tension and upheaval. It’s about looking for love and finding heartbreak instead. It’s about finding balance and peace in a time where there is nothing but calamity and disturbance. It’s about searching for family and a home to belong to.

You can tell that Alfonso Cuaron comes from a very personal place in writing, directing, and shooting this small-scale epic, because the storytelling feels so honest. Cuaron himself is no stranger to making cinematic epics. He directed the third and arguably the best Harry Potter movie Prisoner of Azkaban, while the films Children of Men and Gravity were among the most thrilling science-fiction movies released in their respective decades. But Cuaron is coming from a much more intimate and vulnerable place with Roma, from the life experiences he’s portraying to the culture he’s paying homage to. The movie finds its heart in its most soft-spoken moments, like a mother whispering a lullaby to her child.

And newcomer Yalitza Aparicio is especially vital to making this movie resonate with us emotionally. Originally studying to be a preschool teacher, Yalitza stumbled onto this film when her sister encouraged her to audition. So much of her performance feels so natural and genuine, mostly because it is natural and genuine. Cuaron notably shot this film in sequence and would provide pages to the script days, sometimes even hours before shooting was supposed to begin so that the actors could more believably react to what they were experiencing. This leads to the most authentic and honest performance Cuaron could have pulled from Yalitza. She didn’t feel like an actress trying to mimic the part of a middle-class housemaid. She felt like she really was a young woman trying to navigate Mexico’s turmoils all by herself, and that wrapped you up in her journey all the more because of it.

Roma is a masterpiece. Go and see it. Movies come and go, but few capture your attention, your intrigue, your emotions, and your imagination as raptly as this picture does. Who would have dreamed years ago that when one humble woman accepted the job as a family’s housemaid that her life story would one day be told on the big screen? Imagine what stories Alfonso Cuaron’s children will tell of their father when he grows old.

Tagged , , , ,

Sam Raimi Confirms He’s Directing ‘Doctor Strange 2’

Sam Raimi is returning to the Marvel universe, only this time he’ll be helming a project much “strange”-r than his last superhero outing.

A fantasy-horror filmmaker whose projects range from The Evil Dead series to Oz the Great and Powerful, Sam Raimi is no stranger to taking on unusual and off-the-wall type projects. His 1990 cult action film Darkman is one of the few original superhero movies out there, while his 2009 sleeper hit Drag Me To Hell was a creepy and unsettling return to his horror roots. Perhaps most notable to the superhero genre is his Spider-Man trilogy, starring Tobey Maquire and earning an Academy Award for Best Visual Effects.

Now Raimi is making a return to the superhero genre to direct Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness. After previous director Scott Derrickson (Sinister, The Day The Earth Stood Still) dropped out of the project back in January, talks of Raimi taking his place circulated around shortly after Derrickson left the project. Raimi essentially confirmed his new role while speaking to ComingSoon.net, all while expressing his fascination with the sorcerer supreme.

Fun fact: Doctor Strange was actually name-dropped in Raimi’s Spider-Man 2, where “Daily Bugle” publisher J. Jonah Jameson was brainstorming names to call Doc Ock.

“I loved Doctor Strange as a kid, but he was always after Spider-Man and Batman. For me, he was probably at number five for me of great comic book characters,” Raimi said. “He was so original, but when we had that moment in ‘Spider-Man 2,’ I had no idea that we would ever be making a ‘Doctor Strange’ movie, so it was really funny to me that coincidentally that line was in the movie. I gotta say I wish we had the foresight to know that I was going to be involved in the project.”

Well there ya have it, folks. Sam Raimi is officially returning to the Marvel universe. I for one am very happy to see him return, as I was a big fan of both Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2. However, he did also lead the widely panned Spider-Man 3, a film that was so universally mocked that Sony was forced to reboot the series with Andrew Garfield. We’ll have to wait and see how Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness pans out, but at the moment, I for one am very excited to see what Raimi does with the elusive sorcerer. At the very least, Disney has a better track record when it comes to studio interference than Sony does. 

What do you guys think? Are you excited to see Sam Raimi return to the Marvel universe, or would you rather he just left behind the web he weaved? Whatever you think, comment below, let me know. 

– David Dunn

SOURCE: ComingSoon.net, CNET 

Coronavirus Contagions

It’s time we face the facts here: the coronavirus is not going away anytime soon. Since it first surfaced in Wuhan, China in December last year, it has gone on to infect over 308,000 people across the globe, killing over 13,000 of them. And since it has come to America earlier this year, the United States went from having less than 10 cases in January to now over 26,000 cases this month. For those of you not keeping up with the math, that’s faster than even Italy’s growth rate.

What does that mean for us? I’m not exactly sure. Since earlier this month, the coronavirus seemed like an afterthought, a distant threat that was impacting other countries but mostly remained separate from ours. Now it’s reshaped almost everything in our everyday life, from working from home to delayed movie releases to even shopping for groceries. Just a few weeks ago, my biggest frustration with the coronavirus was how it delayed upcoming movie releases such as James Bond’s No Time To Die and A Quiet Place Part II until the fall. Now my biggest fear is contracting the virus myself, or even worse, spreading it to somebody else.

There are some positives to glean from this. For one thing, the majority of people who contract the coronavirus only suffer from mild symptoms, with 81% of victims eventually recovering from the disease, according to the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention. It still remains to be one of the low-risk diseases globally, with the SARS and MERS epidemics killing between 10-30% of its infected, both significantly higher than the coronavirus’ 4% fatality rate. And numerically, it is still one of the less deadly diseases, with thousands of people dying daily from both AIDS and the seasonal flu, whereas on the coronavirus’ worse day it hasn’t even topped a thousand yet.

So in terms of globally and nationally, the coronavirus is still relatively low-risk. But I don’t want to shortchange this threat. The most concerning thing about it, of course, is that it’s asymptomatic, which means you could have it and not even know it. This doesn’t mean much to you, of course, but it could jump from you and infect somebody close to you that is more vulnerable to the disease than you are, such as the elderly and those with pre-existing conditions.

We’re also not prepared if this outbreak grows to exceed Italy’s numbers, as hospital beds, respirators, and ventilators are overwhelmingly short on supply. This is before you even get into the fact that we’re working with incomplete numbers since testing for the disease is even more scarce than hospitality availability. And don’t even get me started on the ramifications of President Trump’s decision to fire the pandemic response team in 2018.

This is all before you even get into the economic impact of the coronavirus. Since the virus has broken out, many local governments and municipalities have forced local businesses, shops, stores, gyms, and hotels to close down, while limiting many restaurants to takeout and delivery only. This will leave a massive hole in both our local and national economies and most likely will lead to a recession and maybe even a depression. Many people are pushing for government bailouts, but that can only last for so long. It’s funny how those who were decrying the threats of socialism are now happily willing to accept it, so long as they get a paycheck from it.

Look, I don’t want to start a panic, but we also need to be practical at what we’re facing here. The fallout from the coronavirus will be significant. Whether it is in the form of further infections, massive unemployment, or social and economic collapse, the hammer will drop somewhere in some form as a result of this virus. In its best-case scenario, the coronavirus will inconvenience America – indeed, the whole world – for the next several months. At its worst, it will reshape our entire society as we know it.

Where does that leave us? For now, everyone needs to stock up, keep their heads down, and distance themselves from the rest of the outside world. That will be difficult for some extroverts that need human connection, while it will just be everyday life to some introverts like me. Regardless, limiting the spread of the virus is the best way to fight it at this moment. Even if the pandemic spreads into the coming months, it will at least be contained enough so hospitals will be able to treat patients without overwhelming the healthcare system.

As for myself, I don’t know what I’m going to do yet. I publish on this website to bring you the most up-to-date information on new movies and theater releases, but since there won’t be many in the foreseeable future, that puts me into a bit of a pickle. Even if movies are still coming out like Wonder Woman 1984 is this summer, I doubt I would go to the movie theater to see them. That just wouldn’t be the smart or safe decision at this point.

No, instead I think I might focus more on recent releases I’ve missed reviewing, like Onward, The Invisible Man, and Sonic The Hedgehog. I’d also like to focus more on video work as well since I have yet to do my best and worst movies of the decade lists. Heck, I still want to review that disaster of a Cats movie that released that December. Did you know that there’s a cut of that movie out there where the cats’ buttholes were not digitally removed? I didn’t know it was possible to make that movie any more horrifying.

I’ll figure out what I’m going to do for this website in the coming weeks. But for now, stay home, keep yourselves healthy, and don’t unnecessarily put yourself at risk of the disease.

Stay safe out there, fellow movie lovers. I’ll let you know when my review of the butthole cut of Cats is coming out.

Love,

David

‘Borderlands’ Movie Nabs Eli Roth As Director

Well, depending on your viewpoint, this is either wonderful or horrible news for the Borderlands movie.

On Thursday, Gearbox Software President Randy Pitchford announced via Twitter who would be directing the upcoming live-action Borderlands movie based on Gearbox’s critically and commercially acclaimed video game series of the same name. That director is none other than the horror head honcho himself, Eli Roth.

Eli Roth is a strange, albeit oddly appropriate, choice to helm the upcoming dystopian action movie. Following a group of vault hunters on the planet Pandora trying to find long-lost treasure, Borderlands has spawned a series of sequels, spinoffs, and even an off-kilter marriage proposal, all while creating a massive cult following of fans. With the level of popularity and prominence Borderlands has amassed, a film adaptation of the science-fiction franchise almost seemed inevitable. 

Unfortunately, video game movies don’t have the best track record, even with the recent successes of Detective Pikachu and Sonic The Hedgehog. That being said, a Borderlands movie could definitely work, if given the right director to handle it.

Whether Eli Roth is the right guy or not is very dependent on which Eli Roth you’re getting. I won’t deny that Roth has delivered some solid horror movies in the past: his debut Cabin Fever was an amusing homage to B-movie horror cinema, while Hostel delivered a wildly disturbing yet entertaining slasher flick. But his larger filmography is mostly unimpressive, with the Death Wish remake simply being a vacant and cliche revenge thriller while the cannibalistic Green Inferno was just gross and stomach-churning. Even 2018’s The House With A Clock In Its Walls was a generic and uneventful family comedy.

Top that all off with the fact that he doesn’t have much experience with CGI-heavy films to begin with, and what you have left is a big, fat “huh?” in regards to his involvement with this movie. Wouldn’t it have made more sense to bring in a filmmaker that has more experience with CGI and dry, smirking banter? Guardians of the Galaxy’s James Gunn, for instance, would have been a perfect fit were it not for the fact that he’s busy working on Suicide Squad 2. David Leitch would have been another solid choice, considering his work on other high-octane and witty action flicks such as John Wick, Deadpool 2, and Hobbs & Shaw. Heck, Quentin Tarantino would have been a great pick as well if he ever got his mind off of Kill Bill: Vol. 3 and his adaptation of Star Trek.

What do you guys think? Do you think Eli Roth is a reliable choice for a Borderlands movie, or do you think Claptrap and crew deserved more? Comment below, let me know.

– David Dunn

SOURCE: Kotaku, IGN

‘Parasite’ Creeps Into Top Honors At 92nd Academy Awards

I gotta say, I’ve covered the Academy Awards for a long time now. Year after year, I watch as they award their Oscars to winners both old and new. I see them give their statuettes sometimes to those that are most deserving, other times to nominees that couldn’t be less deserving. And with each passing ceremony, there isn’t one where the Academy doesn’t spring at least one surprise on its unsuspecting viewers.

Take this year’s awards, for example. Not only is this the first year where a comic-book film was nominated the most (Joker with 11 nominations), but this is also the second year where the Academy led its ceremony without a host. Last year it was to the ceremony’s benefit, as the awards carried out at a brisk pace while simultaneously being quick-witted and funny. This year, however, the awards seem airy and directionless, like they were scrambling to get through all the categories and find some loose way of connecting them together.

Don’t get me wrong, some of the presenters were very funny, like Will Ferrell and Julia Louis-Dreyfus when they confused the cinematographers and film editor’s jobs, and James Corden and Rebel Wilson, who came out in these awful-looking Cats costumes and stressed the importance of good visual effects. Other times presenters seemed random and pointless, like when Kelly Marie Tran and Anthony Ramos came out to present… another presenter. 1917 actor George Mackay illustrated the monotony of the presentation brilliantly, saying he was a “presenter to present another presenter who was going to present… another presenter.”

But the Hollywood elites who read from the envelopes this year were the least of the night’s surprises. In fact, the biggest surprises of all came from a film that I wasn’t even expecting to win the night’s top prizes:

SOURCE: CJ Entertainment

Best Picture: The Academy’s top honor didn’t go to 1917, a beautifully-filmed war epic that captured the essence of its tragedy in one seemingly endless shot. It didn’t go to the witty and wild love letter to 60’s cinema Once Upon A Time In Hollywood. And it also didn’t go to a movie about the mental descent of one man that would grow to become Batman’s greatest nemesis in Joker. No, the Academy instead chose to give the night’s highest recognition to a film you probably haven’t even heard of: South Korea’s harrowing yet hilarious commentary on classism and economics, Parasite. 

This is significant for a few reasons. One: Parasite is so out of the box and so unusual for the Academy that you wonder if their tastes are changing for the new generation. It’s strange that the Academy has gone a whole decade without recognizing at least one war film like 1917, or that it wouldn’t take up the chance to be self-absorbed in their own culture with Once Upon A Time In Hollywood like they were with The Artist or Birdman. But Parasite is just such an unusual choice for the Academy. Take away the fact that it’s a Korean film for one second: the fact they would even consider an exercise in minimalism and implication like this is so out of left field for Academy voters. If it wasn’t, then why wasn’t Get Out awarded Best Picture in 2018? Or The Revenant in 2016?

Two: Parasite is the first foreign-language film to have won Best Picture… ever. That is a stunning title for it to own, especially when you consider the fact that the Academy has overlooked nominees such as Roma, Amour, Babel, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, Life Is Beautiful, The Postman, and several other films dating all the way back to 1938. This also does not consider outstanding foreign-language films that weren’t even nominated for Best Picture, including A Separation, Pan’s Labirynth, The Sea Inside, Joyeaux Noel, Amelie, Ikiru, and several others.

Is Parasite undeserving of the Oscar? Absolutely not. It was cunning, captivating, poignant, thoughtful, and like all great movies, had something powerful to say about our culture. Should it have been the first foreign-language film to have earned the Best Picture honor? Probably not. It makes you wonder where the Academy has been in all years previous to Parasite, as well as what they’re going to do moving forward now that the gates are open for all foreign-language films at the Oscars?

Speaking of Parasite

Best Director: The bigger surprise isn’t even the fact that Parasite won Best Picture, which it might have been able to nab anyway since it also won Best International Feature and Best Original Screenplay (more on that later). The biggest surprise is that director Bong Joon-Ho won Best Director, beating out DGA winner Sam Mendes for 1917

Again, Bong Joon-Ho is not undeserving of this honor in the least. The way he mirrored the two worlds of the rich and the poor was stunning and captivating and showed the true genius of a brilliant director at work. But what’s so surprising is that his win supersedes Sam Mendes’ win at the DGA Awards, which have been used to predict Best Director Oscar winners for decades now. Are the DGAs slowly moving towards irrelevance in regards to the Academy? Only a few more ceremonies will confirm that for sure.

Either way, congratulations to Bong Joon-Ho and his well-deserved win. I’ll admit 1917 was my favorite to win both Best Picture and Best Director, but I can’t fault Parasite by any means. Joon-Ho made a brilliant film, and nobody can take that honor away from him.

Best Actor: The Academy was right to award Joaquin Phoenix his first Oscar in his 30-year career for playing a meek clown gone mad in Todd Phillips’ Joker. He completely earned the Oscar for giving one of the most haunting and darkly comedic performances of the decade. Congratulations to Joaquin for his well-deserved win, although his acceptance speech where he complained about the evils of milking cows was a little strange.

Best Actress: Judy Garland may have never won an Oscar, but Renee Zellweger did for portraying the actress in her dramatic biopic Judy. It still blows my mind that this home-grown Texan could portray the late actress’s final years in show business and pull it off with the conviction and appeal that made Garland a household name in the first place. Congrats to Renee for winning her second Oscar. Here’s to never forgetting an unforgettable performance.

Best Supporting Actor: Brad Pitt rightfully won his first acting Oscar for playing a quietly disturbing stunt double in Quentin Tarantino’s Once Upon A Time In Hollywood. Having recently revisited Pitt’s psychotic portrayal of a man’s splintered persona in David Fincher’s 1999 hit Fight Club, I was surprised to find out that he’s only been nominated for three acting Oscars prior to his first win, including 12 Monkeys, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, and Moneyball. Pitt’s nominations don’t do justice to his commitment in the roles that he plays. Either way, congratulations to Pitt for his well-earned win. He taught me a lesson about never paying an uninvited visit to Cliff Booth at night.

Best Supporting Actress: As expected, Laura Dern won Best Supporting Actress for playing a sensitive yet savage divorce lawyer in Marriage Story. Having re-watched Dern and her co-star Scarlett Johannson in both Marriage Story and Jojo Rabbit, I’m still baffled as to how Dern could have the edge over Johannson, especially when you see her passioned and sensitive performances in both of the movies she’s nominated for. If you want to talk about talent that wasn’t even nominated, Jennifer Lopez gave a commanding performance as a stripper with attitude and swagger in Hustlers. Either of those women could have walked away with the Oscar and it would have made perfect sense. But Dern has a couple of scenes in her office and in the courtroom and suddenly she’s an Oscar frontrunner? Why? What did she do that was so special compared to her fellow nominees, or even her fellow co-stars?

Either way, congrats to Dern for winning Best Supporting Actress. I could think of five other movies she deserved to win the Oscar for more so than this one, but I guess the path doesn’t matter as much as the destination does.

SOURCE: Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures

Best Animated Feature: Like clockwork, Toy Story 4 won Best Animated Feature, despite the fact that How To Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World and Klaus were both better films. If the Academy keeps this up, they should save the viewers some time and simply rename this category to the Disney-Pixar award. At least then they’d be honest.

Best Documentary Feature: Okay, I got this one wrong, but to be fair this category was already a toss-up in the first place. I figured the Academy would go with a film as unique and creative as the one that followed one of Bekirlija’s last beekeepers in Honeyland. I should have known the Academy would have gone political and given the Oscar to the Obama’s first documentary produced under their new production company, American Factory. Earning an Academy Award is officially the newest thing that the former President can claim that the current President cannot.

Best International Feature: Of course since Parasite won Best Picture, Best International Feature was obviously going to be a shoo-in. I do find it odd that it technically has won two best film Oscars on one night, but either way, it isn’t undeserving. If you haven’t gotten the memo by now, you need to watch Parasite at your earliest convenience if you haven’t done so already.

Best Original Screenplay: Again, Parasite upsets in the original writing category after securing its win at the WGA’s. When I predicted Quentin Tarantino would win for Once Upon A Time In Hollywood, I did so only knowing that the Academy almost never awards writing Oscars to foreign-language films. In fact, the last time a foreign-language film even won the original writing Oscar was Spain’s Talk To Her in 2002, and after that eight other films were overlooked in this category before Parasite finally won last night. Again though, it deserves the win as Bong Joon-Ho’s writing is just as clever and captivating as his directing is for the film. I just hope Bong Joon-Ho doesn’t go too crazy with celebrating. I would like him to not die of alcohol poisoning and keep making more movies as wonderful as Parasite.

Best Adapted Screenplay: In another stunning upset, Taika Waititi wins the Adapted Screenplay Oscar for Jojo Rabbit and shuts Greta Gerwig out for Little Women. If Academy voters are smart, they’ll hide out in their bunkers and wait for rage Twitter to blow over. Little Women fans are going to be upset about this one for a while.

SOURCE: 20th Century Fox

Best Film Editing: Yet another category I got wrong. I thought Yang Jin-Mo was going to win for seamlessly assembling various perspectives into one cohesive and tragic narrative in Parasite, but I neglected how exciting and dizzying Ford v Ferrari was while simultaneously being coherent enough to follow all of the fast-paced racing action. Michael McCusker (Walk The Line, 3:10 To Yuma) is not undeserving by any means, and I’m happy he can finally call himself an Oscar-winner. At the very least, Ford v Ferrari’s best editing win makes more sense than Bohemian Rhapsody’s win did last year.

Best Cinematography: Roger Deakins rightfully earned his second Oscar for his masterful one-shot technique in Sam Mendes’ emotionally stirring war epic 1917. If any other nominee won, rioting from the cinematographer’s branch would have been the only appropriate reaction.

Best Makeup and Hairstyling: Bombshell won best makeup, as expected. Thank you, next.

Best Costume Design: I thought Once Upon A Time In Hollywood’s timely wardrobe would appeal to the Academy as it does to its colorful and charismatic characters. I figured since Jacquelin Durran already won once for Anna Karenina that the period piece play wouldn’t work as well on the Academy this time around. I should have just went with the period piece, because Little Women won as predictably as Anna Karenina did in 2012. Jenny Eagan was also not nominated for Knives Out, which means that in a way, I lost twice in this category.

Best Production Design: In a happy upside, Once Upon A Time In Hollywood won the Oscar for Best Production Design. Nancy Haigh deserves her win for accurately recreating 60’s signage and movie sets. That is, before Quentin Tarantino covered it all with blood and splattered brains.

SOURCE: WARNER BROS. PICTURES

Best Musical Score: As predicted, Hildur Guonadottir won for providing the haunting, eerie string themes for Joker’s descent into madness. I’m just frustrated Thomas Newman has to go through his 15th nomination for 1917 and still not win a blasted Oscar. But in either case, congratulations to Guonadottir for making a beautiful yet unsettling theme for the Joker’s mental and moral decay. Meanwhile, let’s hope the 16th time is a charm for Newman during a future ceremony.

Best Original Song: Elton John won his second Oscar for his uplifting and empowering theme “I’m Gonna Love Me Again” for Rocketman. Thankfully so, because I don’t know how fans might have reacted if Bohemian Rhapsody won four Oscars and Rocketman didn’t win at least one. Either way, congrats to him for his well-deserved win. He made everyone feel the love tonight.

Best Sound Editing: Ford v Ferrari beat out the rest of the nominees for Best Sound Editing. I personally made the case for 1917, but Ford v Ferrari admittedly did have some exemplary sound editing in it. I’m not as frustrated by the loss like I was last year when Bohemian Rhapsody unbelievably won this award over A Quiet Place. I doubt any nominee winning this year could top my shock any more than that win did last year.

Best Sound Mixing: If that “Wayfaring Stranger” scene in 1917 didn’t convince you that it deserved to win for sound mixing, then nothing ever will. Thankfully, Academy voters saw that scene and was as moved as I was and rightfully awarded the film with the Oscar anyway.

Best Visual Effects: What did I tell you? What did I bloody tell you? The Academy can’t support outstanding visual effects to save its dang life if it means awarding it to a superhero movie. They did just that this year by giving the best visual effects Oscar to 1917 instead of the vastly more grand-scale Avengers: Endgame. Granted, I do not feel 1917 is a better film than Endgame is, but that’s like comparing apples to oranges. After all, 1917 is a grounded war eulogy while Endgame is the epic conclusion to a superhero saga that was several years in the making. Still, recognize the better work when you see it. 1917 may be the more moving film, but you’re bonkers if you think that film compares visually to the sensation and spectacle of Avengers: Endgame. At this rate, Disney should just buy out the Academy and give themselves the visual effects Oscar every time they’re nominated just to get a fair chance in this category.

Disclaimer: I’m kidding, of course. I don’t want Disney to get even more power-hungry than it already is. But still, I hope you understand how hot-blooded I am about this snub, especially since this is hot off of the heels of Avengers: Infinity War losing to First Man in 2019.

And finally, the shorts. I don’t know what is going on with me, but I’ve been on a roll with these categories as of late. Last year, I unbelievably got all of them right as opposed to most ceremonies where I get most of them wrong. This year I’m continuing the good streak as The Neighbor’s Window, Hair Love, and Learning To Skateboard In A Warzone (If You’re A Girl) all won Best Live Action, Best Animated and Best Documentary Short respectively. That helped boost me in predicting 16 out of 24 of the categories correctly this year. Not my best Oscar performance, but definitely not my worst.

Thank you all for tuning in yet again this year, fellow Oscar lovers. Now go and see Parasite. You obviously need to.

– David Dunn

Tagged , , , , , ,

‘Knives Out 2’ Confirmed For Production

While it won’t walk away with any gold on Oscar night this weekend, Knives Out will still have one thing that most of the Best Picture nominees won’t have: a sequel.

After sweeping up audiences off of their feet this past Thanksgiving, Knives Out will return to the big screen with an all-new case to solve. According to writer-director Rian Johnson (Looper, Star Wars: The Last Jedi), Knives Out 2 will feature a new story and an all-new cast. The only element that will be consistent between the two films will be Daniel Craig’s Benoit Blanc, who will presumably return in the sequel to solve yet another mind-boggling mystery.

I have two different reactions to hearing about this news. My gut reaction is excitement, since Knives Out is one of the most clever, meticulous, and ingenious films not just from the year, but from the decade. How many other films have a cast as outstanding and memorable as this one? How many other mystery-thrillers have a plot as dizzying and well-crafted? How many quality who-dun-its like this even grace the screen any more? Watching Knives Out felt like a chess match playing out in real time, with characters moving across the board trying to get each other at such a quick pace that you’re constantly trying to anticipate what their next move will be. It’s hands down one of the most brilliant films of the year, and hearing that a sequel is underway is exciting at first.

But then you marinate over the fact that this will be a new story with a new cast attached to it. No Harlan Thrombey. No Marta Cabrera. No Hugh Ransom, Linda Drysdale, Joni, or Walt Thrombey. It will be an all-new scenario with an all-new cast of characters, which in turn means that this really will be an all-new film.

I’m down for yet another Christine Agatha-themed mystery thriller with Rian Johnson at the helm. After all, he already proved he could do it masterfully with the likes of Knives Out. But since most of the film is presumably going to be so different from the original, why have it related to Knives Out at all in the first place? Why not just set up a new scenario with an all-new detective who isn’t Benoit Blanc and have them solve the new mystery? Why have it be connected to Knives Out at all? That feels like it might hinder the film more than help it, especially when you’re comparing two mystery thrillers released so closely together.

What do you think? Are you excited that Knives Out is getting a sequel, or do you think Rian Johnson should turn the page on a new mystery? Comment below, let me know.

– David Dunn

SOURCE: Deadline, SiriusXM

 

“1917” Review (✫✫✫✫)

SOURCE: Universal Pictures

A snapshot of war.

I didn’t have any words to describe how I felt in the theater after 1917 ended. I still don’t. How do you describe something like that, something so harrowing, vivid, and unflinching? Watching 1917 shook me to my core. I didn’t feel relief as the movie ended, I felt shell-shocked. Yes, my cinematic experience ended, and like the soldiers that left the battlefield in the movie, I was able to go home. But as I laid my head down on my bed and looked up at the ceiling, I didn’t feel like I even left the battlefield. I’ve had those images ingrained in my memory that will stay with me forever, the same ones that those soldiers took home with them when the war finally ended.

One of those images that are stuck in my mind is the last dedication the film offers before the credits roll: “In memory of Alfred Mendes.” When I looked up the name later on, I realized that Alfred Mendes is, in fact, the grandfather of director Sam Mendes. The movie itself is a loose adaptation of Alfred’s own life experiences fighting in World War I, though not so much to the point where it doesn’t carry the same truth with it.

1917 follows two young British soldiers named Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman) and Schofield (George MacKay) that are given an important assignment: cross the German front lines and deliver a message calling off the second battalion’s attack the next day. See, the battalion believes they have the Germans on the run and that they’re going to snuff them out. They’re wrong. The Germans have made a tactical retreat past the Hindenberg line to counterattack with vicious artillery. If the battalion doesn’t pull back, all 1,600 of their men will be wiped out: including Blake’s brother Joseph.

When 1917 begins, the camera follows Blake and Schofield through a beautiful tracking shot that captures everything that’s a part of these young boys’ lives: the muddy grounds they sleep on, the mess tent where all the soldiers eat, the medical bay where the wounded are treated, the trenches where men have shot and bled in. It’s all captured in immaculate and stunning detail. When the boys step down into a bunker to get their orders from the commanding general, I noticed that 10 minutes have passed and the film hasn’t cut away to another angle or shot. As the next 10 minutes passed, I realized that the movie was never going to. It was just going to be this one long, continuous shot through the whole movie.

This one-shot technique isn’t new to modern-day cinema. Best Picture winner Birdman utilized this same one-shot approach in 2014, and Sam Mendes even mimicked this style in the opening sequence to his 2015 James Bond film Spectre. But here, he’s escalated the technique to a whole other level by incorporating it smoothly into a war picture. It’s difficult enough executing this technique within the walls of a worn-down Broadway theater or in the streets of Mexico during Dia De Los Muertos. Doing it in the blood-soaked battlefields of France during WWI sounds next to impossible.

Yet Sam Mendes and cinematographer Roger Deakins pull it off spectacularly, and in the most masterful way possible. With the one-shot technique, it would have been too easy for the camerawork to seem jarring or distracting, like how a film student might capture everything through a shaky hand-held video cam. But the sweeping cinematography is absorbing and immersive, capturing the full scale of war violence and casualty but not missing the smaller, more intimate moments of personal torment these soldiers experience. It’s like Mendes took a snapshot of war from his grandfather’s scrapbook and placed you immediately in the moment when the photo was taken. Few films immerse you in their reality as powerfully as 1917 does. I truly have never seen anything like it.

With this one-shot technique, Deakins deserves all the praise for pulling off this masterstroke in the expert way that he did. But the truth is he did not accomplish this alone: everyone involved with the film lent to its sense of isolation and loneliness, from the editor Lee Smith who seamlessly transitioned between long takes without you noticing to the monumental sets by Dennis Gassner. Even the extras, some sequences requiring more than 500, were vital to making this film feel as vivid and real as it was.

But Dean-Charles Chapman and George MacKay especially deserve praise for shouldering so much of the film’s emotional weight. These guys had to deal with not only bearing already challenging performances of two soldiers facing off against the entire German army, but they had to pull it off with the extra pressure of filming in several long, continuous takes. I make no exaggeration when I saw both of them were flawless in their acting. Dean-Charles Chapman is phenomenal as the ambitious, bright-eyed soldier desperate to save his brother, but MacKay is especially moving as his best friend. There was one emotion-stirring scene where he has to run across a battlefield while explosions are going off all around him, yet he runs with the tenacity and conviction of a soldier desperate to finish his mission, even if it kills him. Nothing in either of these men’s performances feels rehearsed or unnatural. Everything just flows and feels completely seamless and alive.

The most heartbreaking thing you realize about 1917 as it slowed down to its final moments is that this isn’t just a film: this is a snapshot of the full tragedies and anguishes of war, and we’ve only experienced a small part of that in the theater. Can you imagine what Sam Mendes’ grandfather had to endure during this same conflict? How many corpses he passed by on the front lines, how many friends he’s lost, and how many nightmares and sleepless nights he had to endure when he finally came home? And yet, the saddest thought that crossed my mind when 1917 ended wasn’t everything that these men experienced during the first World War. It was knowing that there was a second one after it.

 

Tagged , , , ,

2019 Oscar Predictions

Life is funny. At the beginning of this decade, I was screaming into a camera ranting about how the Academy Awards robbed The Dark Knight Rises by giving it precisely zero Oscar nominations. As year after year passed, the Academy kept making one senseless snub after another, from no nominations for Captain America: Civil War and Wonder Woman to not giving Sylvester Stallone his much-deserved Oscar for playing a weary Rocky Balboa in Creed (I still haven’t gotten over that, and probably never will). Last year seemed like the Academy’s first genuine attempt at branching out across all genres and recognizing mainstream films that truly deserved it, even going so far as to give Black Panther three Oscars and a Best Picture nomination. And then they end the decade by giving the most nominations to a film about Batman’s greatest nemesis, the Joker. We started the decade with no nominations for Batman, and then we end the decade with Joker earning some of the most nominations out of any film in the past 10 years.

Like I said, life is funny. And the one thing you need to remember about humor is that tragedy plus time equals comedy: and we have no shortage of tragic snubs to experience this year.

Take, for instance, Joker itself. Yes, it’s nominated the most this year with 11 nominations, including Best Picture. However, it’s not expected to sweep the night by any metric. After all, when you compare Joker side-by-side with the epic and grand scale of 1917, how do you think it compares? It isn’t even a competition: Joker is blown clean off of the German front lines.

That, however, isn’t the least of the losses we’re expected to witness throughout the night. Read on to see my predictions for how the Oscars will play out for the last time this decade:

SOURCE: Universal Pictures

Best Picture: It has become impossible to get into the minds of Academy Award voters and rationalize their loop-de-loop thinking when it comes to the Best Picture winners in the past few years. First, they award Spotlight with Best Picture over The Revenant, despite the fact that Revenant won three Oscars for directing, acting, and cinematography while Spotlight only won one for writing. Then Moonlight unexpectedly beat La La Land for Best Picture, with the infamous mixup announcement happening between the two nominees. After that, The Shape of Water frustratingly became the first science-fiction film to win Best Picture, even over the likes of Star Wars, Inception, and 2001: A Space Odyssey. Finally, the play-it-safe Green Book won over the heartfelt and personal Spanish film Roma, a controversial move that did not go unnoticed by the larger moviegoing community.

In all of Oscar history, no foreign-language film has ever won Best Picture, which is why I’m hesitant to say South Korea’s Parasite will win it now. That leaves the night’s biggest contenders to duke it out for Best Picture: 1917, Joker, Once Upon A Time In Hollywood, and The Irishman. I doubt it will be Joker since it has the unfortunate stigma of being a comic-book movie working against it. I simultaneously don’t think Martin Scorsese will win for The Irishman either since he hasn’t won an Oscar since directing The Departed in 2006. That leaves 1917 and Once Upon A Time In Hollywood, both heavy contenders for different reasons. Once Upon A Time In Hollywood is a jeering, clever, and sharp commentary on violence and media consumption, while 1917 is a mesmerizing masterpiece that immerses you in the soldier’s experience on the battlefield.

My bias may be influencing my prediction here, but I genuinely do believe 1917 will win Best Picture. For one thing, a war film has surprisingly not won Best Picture yet this decade, despite the fact that every decade has had at least one war film winning Best Picture at least once. It has also been silently sweeping up Awards season, previously winning Best Picture awards at both the Golden Globes and the Producer’s Guild.

Also, 1917 is just truly the most deserving winner out of the nominees. Few films place you so vividly in the reality of its characters as well as 1917 does with its tale of two soldiers venturing through the German front lines to stop a devastating attack. If 1917 does end up winning Best Picture, it will be very well deserved.

Best Director: Sam Mendes won the DGA Award, which means he will also win the Best Directing Oscar for 1917. Again, Mendes made a powerful, moving film made all the more impactful through its one continuous shot filming method (more on that later). Aside from his DGA win, Mendes is simply the most deserving out of all the nominees. That’s really saying something considering his competition is in The Irishman’s Martin Scorsese, Parasite’s Bong Joon-ho, Once Upon A Time In Hollywood’s Quentin Tarantino, and Joker’s Todd Phillips.

Speaking of Joker…

Best Actor: It will be a national outrage if anyone wins in this category other than Joaquin Phoenix for Joker. Not only did he deliver a visceral and haunting portrayal of a decent man gone mad and murderous, but he also gave one of the most unsettling performances this decade that challenges even Heath Ledger’s portrayal of the clown prince of crime. Leonardo DiCaprio did a great job switching between comedic and intimidating in Once Upon A Time In Hollywood and Adam Driver gave a vulnerable and affectionate performance as a heartbroken husband in Marriage Story. But no, if we’re talking about the best actor and the best performance of the year, it’s not even a competition. Joaquin for the win.

Best Actress: I loved Scarlett Johannson in Marriage Story and thought she did a wonderful job tenderly demonstrating how a family falling apart affects somebody as both a wife and mother. But the Academy has a history of awarding real-life roles moreover original ones, especially this year where Scarlett is up against three biographical performances in Bombshell, Judy, and Harriet. Who will it go to? My money is on Renee Zellweger considering how she completely disappears into her portrayal of Judy Garland in Judy. Sure, she’s won an Oscar before for Best Supporting Actress in 2003’s Cold Mountain, but considering she’s been out of the spotlight for a hot second, this seems like the perfect opportunity to recognize some of her under-the-radar work. Charlize Theron or Scarlett might pull an upset in this category, but it isn’t likely given Zellweger’s tenure.

Best Supporting Actor: There are several reasons to consider Brad Pitt winning Best Supporting Actor in his pointed and indomitable performance as a stuntman filled with swagger and violent tendencies in Once Upon A Time In Hollywood. One such reason is that Pitt has never won an acting Oscar before and all of his competitors have. Another reason is that he already won the corresponding SAG award a week after he was nominated. But my reasoning is simple, straightforward, and to the point: his performance is just too freggin’ good to ignore. In a long line of memorable Quentin Tarantino performances from John Travolta in Pulp Fiction to Christoph Waltz in Inglorious Basterds, Pitt’s is the most restrained and unnerving. Brad Pitt absolutely owned his role, and he deserves no less than the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor for it.

Best Supporting Actress: First of all, shame on the Academy for not nominating Jennifer Lopez as a hardworking stripper with attitude in Hustlers. Her commanding presence dominated that entire film, and it’s ridiculous she wasn’t even recognized with a simple nomination. It’s even more maddening when you realize no Latina actresses were nominated in any of the acting categories this year, not even Penelope Cruz in Pain and Glory or Ana de Armas in Knives Out. Absolutely outrageous, but that’s regressive Hollywood at work here people.

As for the rest of the supporting actress nominees, my personal favorite is Scarlett Johansson in Jojo Rabbit as a German mother trying to keep her son playful and happy in a world rotting from death, misery, and antisemitism. But she’s picked up no traction this awards season, and it’s unlikely that she’ll pick up the pace in the next few weeks. No, Laura Dern is much more likely to win as a compassionate and charismatic divorce attorney in Marriage Story, which is weird because A) She’s in the film very little, and B) She doesn’t have a lot of space to really make an impact as a character. Or at least, not as much as her co-stars Adam Driver and Scarlett Johannson do. It would be like Ray Liotta winning Best Supporting Actor as Adam Driver’s attorney, even though he was in the film very little and did even less.

Still, she was good in the role she played and fulfilled the part that she needed to. I’ll be happy if I get this category wrong, but for now, I’m going with Laura.

SOURCE: Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures

Best Animated Feature: If we’re going off of merit, the clear winner in this category deserves to be How To Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World. It was deep, affecting, incredibly moving, and featured the same beautiful and fast-paced animation you’ve seen from this whole franchise. I doubt it will win, however. The previous two movies lost to Pixar and Disney respectively both times, the first time with Toy Story 3 and the second time with Big Hero 6. I expect this year’s ceremony to repeat that trend with Toy Story 4 winning the Oscar for Best Animated Feature. It’s a shame, especially since How To Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World was so committed to its ending whereas Toy Story 4 didn’t even commit itself to the toys’ original ending. But whatever. There are worse snubs that will pop up throughout the night.

Best Documentary Feature: Best Documentary has always been a difficult category to predict, especially when you haven’t even seen half of the nominees like I have. However, there’s one film that is a slight outlier to the rest of the nominees, and that is Honeyland. Not only does this Macedonian documentary focus on a lonely beekeeper keeping the craft alive in the mountainous region of Bekirlija, but Honeyland is also nominated for the Best International Feature. To put that into context, no film has ever been nominated for both Best Documentary and Best Foreign Language Film at the Oscars, so that has to carry some significance to it. Again, no assurances on this category, but if I have to place my bet on one of these nominees, I’m going with Honeyland

Best International Feature: Parasite. If anything else wins, the Dolby Theatre deserves to be burnt to the ground.

Best Original Screenplay: If there was any fairness in the Academy Awards’ voting process, they would just hand Rian Johnson his Oscar for Knives Out and call it a day. Unfortunately, he’s up against four other Best Picture nominees in the Best Original Screenplay category, so he doesn’t stand a snowball’s chance. Ridiculous that one of the most creative, cunning, and crafty films of the year gets diluted to a mere honorable mention. But that’s the Oscars for you. At least Knives Out got nominated for something, which is more than can be said about Us or Uncut Gems.

That remains the dilemma of who will win the Oscar for Best Original Screenplay? I doubt it will be 1917 since that film’s aesthetic and technique is more impressive than its actual writing is. I also doubt it will be Parasite since three other foreign-language films have been nominated this decade and all of them lost, though I am pleased the Academy nominated Bong Joon-ho and Han Jin-won in this category regardless.

That leaves Quentin Tarantino for Once Upon A Time In Hollywood and Noah Baumbach for Marriage Story. Who will win? Tarantino has won this award twice already, once for Pulp Fiction in 1994 and another for Django Unchained in 2012. Three-peats are not common for Best Original Screenplay, but if anyone can do it, I guess it’s Tarantino.

At the same time, Noah Baumbach made a deeply affecting and personal homily with Marriage Story that was equal parts heartbreaking and hopeful. He has conversely never won an Oscar, though he was nominated once for The Squid and the Whale in 2005. Plus, the Academy has awarded more tender and heartfelt screenplays as of late than they have for witty and wild ones, with Manchester By The Sea winning in 2017 and Green Book winning last year.

This category is a coin toss, but if I’m going with my instincts, I’m going to guess Tarantino wins his third Oscar for Once Upon A Time In Hollywood. Don’t be surprised if Baumbach pulls an upset, however.

Best Adapted Screenplay: If Issa Rae’s “congratulations to all these men” remark tells you anything, it’s that the female filmmaking community really did not appreciate that Little Women director Greta Gerwig was not given a Best Director nomination. The Academy will make it up to her by giving her the Best Adapted Screenplay Oscar for Little Women now. I don’t want to even think about the wrath the Academy might face if they snub Greta Gerwig twice in the same ceremony.

SOURCE: CJ Entertainment

Best Film Editing: This category in particular is difficult to predict nowadays, mostly because you don’t know whether the Academy is going to give the Oscar to a nominee that truly deserves it like The Social Network or Whiplash, or if they’re going to give it to something completely bonkers like Bohemian Rhapsody. In the end, I find myself completely absorbed and mesmerized by Yang Jin-mo’s brilliant assembly of beauty and chaos in Parasite and cannot imagine any other film winning for Best Film Editing. It’s possible one of the flashier films like The Irishman and Ford v Ferrari might pull off a win, especially since Bohemian Rhapsody was last year’s underdog and it unbelievably beat both Vice and BlackKklansman. In unpredictable times like these, it’s best to go with the best nominee as opposed to the best prospects. So Parasite it is.

Best Cinematography: It would not have been possible to have made the film Sam Mendes did if it weren’t for Roger Deakins’ skilled and masterful cinematography for 1917. The way he fully captured the desperation and tragedies of war was captivating and heartbreaking, and it makes it even more impressive that he filmed it to look like one continuous shot. In many ways, 1917 is just as much Deakins’ film as it is Mendes’, and no other nominee deserves the Oscar as much as he does. If anyone else wins, it will be the 13th time the Academy has snubbed Deakins.

Best Makeup and Hairstyling: The first time I caught a glimpse at Charlize Theron in Bombshell, I seriously mistook her for Megyn Kelly. A lot of the makeup work done for the film is that exemplary, with characters appearing so starkly similar to their real-life counterparts that you could put them right on Fox News and you almost wouldn’t be able to tell the difference. The makeup work on Joker and Maleficent is equally stunning, but if we’re going to go with the most skillful makeup job here, my money is on Bombshell.

Also, praise to the Academy for nominating five nominees in the makeup category this year as opposed to the usual three. Makeup artists are often the most overlooked professionals in Hollywood, and I’m glad they’re getting the exposure they deserve here. Hopefully, this is a trend the Academy will keep up for future ceremonies.

Best Costume Design: The Oscar winner for Best Costume Design is particularly difficult to predict this year, mostly because all of the nominees are so outstanding. Previous Academy Award winners Sandy Powell, Jacqueline Durran, and Mark Bridges are respectively nominated for The Irishman, Little Women, and Joker, while Mayes C. Rubeo and Arienne Phillips are also nominated for JoJo Rabbit and Once Upon A Time In Hollywood. While JoJo Rabbit’s costumes were packed with as much personality and uniqueness as its wildly entertaining characters were, Once Upon A Time In Hollywood deserves special praise for doing the same thing while simultaneously calling back to the wardrobe of 1960s pop culture. I love all of these costumes equally, but if I’m going with the most likely winner, I’m going to have to guess it’s Once Upon A Time In Hollywood. 

Side note: Shame on the Academy for not honoring Jenny Eagan’s beautiful and mesmerizing work on the mystery-thriller Knives Out. The costumes on the film’s suspects were so colorful and alive that they echoed back to the mini figurines from “Clue.”

Best Production Design: Another difficult category to predict, especially with two clear frontrunners going head-to-head: 1917 and Once Upon A Time In Hollywood. Fun fact: the Academy Award winners for 1991’s Bugsy are also nominated here against each other – Dennis Glasner for 1917 and Nancy Haigh for Once Upon A Time In Hollywood. Man, if that isn’t an entertaining coincidence, I don’t know what is.

Anyhow, predictions. Many of the sets for 1917 were created from scratch in order to accommodate the one continuous shot filming method. This is especially impressive in scenes involving the claustrophobic trenches or the muddy No Man’s Land, given the harrowing detail in the damage and casualties surrounding the British soldiers. However, there is one flaw not necessarily with the production design itself, but rather the capturing of it. In especially dark scenes where they’re filming in the thick of night or deep in a tunnel, it’s impossible to observe the set design through all of the shadows. The sets in these sequences very well could be amazing or terrible. We will never know because of how opaque these sequences were.

Once Upon A Time In Hollywood, however, didn’t have a dark moment in it (well, in terms of the lighting, that is). Since that is the case, we’re able to absorb its full production design in detail, and man is it gorgeous. Whether Sharon Tate is walking up to an oldie theater to watch The Wrecking Crew, Rick is acting on-set of a spaghetti western, or Cliff is eerily investigating Spahn Ranch, all of the sets in Once Upon A Time In Hollywood were colorful, vibrant, and ripe with 1960s life. It’s a close call, but Once Upon A Time In Hollywood has a slight edge for being represented more on-screen and meeting the challenge. Sorry, Dennis. At least 1917 isn’t going home empty-handed in the other categories.

Another side note: Again, the Academy was wrong to snub David Crank and Jeremy Woodward’s phenomenal craft in assembling Harlan Thrombey’s ancient, isolated mansion in Knives Out. If the first 10 minutes alone wasn’t convincing enough of their hard work and deserving of being nominated, then certainly the other two hours were. Their absence was absurd and ridiculous to the highest degree, and Jacob would be rage-tweeting about it online if he found out his grandfather’s mansion wasn’t nominated for an Oscar either.

SOURCE: WARNER BROS. PICTURES

Best Musical Score: Do you know who I feel really bad for? Thomas Newman. Not only has he been nominated a whopping 13 times by the Academy, but he has also never won an Oscar for Best Musical Score. Not once. Not with The Shawshank Redemption. Not with American Beauty. Not with Finding Nemo, WALL-E, Skyfall, Saving Mr. Banks, or Bridge of Spies. The only other nominee who’s been snubbed the number of times Thomas Newman has been was cinematographer Roger Deakins, who was also nominated 13 times for Best Cinematography before he finally won for Blade Runner 2049.

This year, unfortunately, is no different for him. He’s facing stiff competition with the likes of Alexandre Desplat for Little Women and John Williams for Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker. Most of his nominees, however, have already won Oscars. Thomas Newman is one of the few composers to have not won yet, along with Icelandic newcomer Hildur Guonadottir for Joker.

Since this is the case, the underdog brawl comes down to Newman for 1917 and Guonadottir for Joker – and Quonadottir has a slight edge, only because Joker won the Golden Globe for Best Original Score while 1917 didn’t. This is the only category where I really hope I’m wrong, however, as Newman is an outstanding composer and deserves to be recognized at least once in his 35-year career, especially for the hauntingly gorgeous themes he provided in the backdrop of 1917.

Please, Academy. If you have any sense or decency, give Newman his much-deserved Oscar already. Otherwise, you’ll look like the jokers Hollywood already believes you are.

Best Original Song: Elton John fans are already ticked off that last year’s Bohemian Rhapsody won four Oscars, whereas Rocketman only got one nomination this year for Best Original Song. If “I’m Gonna Love Me Again” doesn’t win the Oscar now, then it will break Rocketman fans’ hearts. Don’t let the sun go down on them, Academy.

Best Sound Editing: 1917. I know its commonplace to give this award to war pictures, but 1917 stands out even when compared to fellow winners Dunkirk and American Sniper. I don’t usually care much about the sound categories, but 1917’s sound editing truly deserves to be recognized. If not it, then Ford v Ferrari. 

Best Sound Mixing: 1917. Again, compared to recent winners Dunkirk and Hacksaw Ridge, 1917 is truly masterful in its sound engineering. There are scenes where a loud, ear-piercing BANG will go off from the screen and it just sends shivers down your spine. Other times, the soft and quiet sounds of a soldier singing “Wayfaring Stranger” crescendoes into a beautiful melody that captures your heart and your emotions. Again, its possible Ford v Ferrari might pull an upset, but 1917 is the current leader in this category for very good reason.

Best Visual Effects: A lot of people believe Avengers: Endgame is the clear leader in this category. No. Not this time. Last year’s Avengers: Infinity War clearly deserved to be the winner, but the Academy chose to give the visual effects Oscar to the shoddy, dull, and vastly unimpressive First Man instead. Does Endgame deserve to win against the likes of its fellow nominees Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker, The Irishman, and The Lion King? Obviously, but it won’t win because of the Academy’s preconceived bias. So screw the Academy. Avengers: Endgame won’t win the Oscar for best visual effects, even though it clearly deserves to.

That being said, 1917 was stunning in how it placed you on the German front lines in World War I, especially in conjunction with Deakins’ one-shot filming technique. I still don’t know how the film fully encapsulated the epic-scale war violence and tragedy that it did. 1917 may not be my first pick for best visual effects, but it’s definitely a solid second, and I think it’s going to end up winning. If Avengers: Endgame ends up winning in its place, Thanos needs to come back and snap the Academy members off of the voting board.

And finally, the dreaded short categories, which I never watch and am yet condemned to predict anyway. I usually go with the most interesting titles for these categories, so with that criteria in mind, I’m gonna guess that The Neighbor’s Window, Hair Love, and Learning To Skateboard In A Warzone (If You’re A Girl) wins Best Live Action, Best Animated and Best Documentary Short respectively. I unbelievably got all three of these categories right last year, so let’s see if the good man Oscar looks down favorably upon my ballot again this year.

And those are my predictions, folks. Tune in on Feb. 9 to see how well I did on my ballot this year, as well as vent my frustrations at how Knives Out was unbelievably not nominated for anything this year except for Best Original Screenplay – which it should have won, by the way.

– David Dunn

Tagged , , , , ,

Why So Snubby?

SOURCE: WARNER BROS. PICTURES

Another year, another Oscars ceremony without a host. This is a year of many firsts for the Academy Awards. For one thing, this is the first year in quite a while where they’ll be hosting the ceremony in early February as opposed to late February/early March, so they’ll essentially be airing it in back-to-back weekends between the DGA’s and the WGA’s. This is also the first consecutive year to conduct the ceremony hostless, a trend they’ll be keeping up from the previous year when Kevin Hart was dropped from the show. And perhaps most surprisingly, this is the first year where the film to get the most nominations is not a period piece or a biopic, but a comic-book film.

Yes, dear reader: the critically-lauded Joker received not one, not 10, but 11 Oscar nominations, including Best Picture. Since the Academy has an especially sordid history with snubbing one comic-book film after another (with the likes of The Dark Knight, The Avengers, Captain America: Civil War, Logan, and many more), I’m surprised they recognized Joker with so many nominations. Granted, none of them are undeserving. Joaquin Phoenix has certainly earned his Best Actor nomination, as did Todd Phillips for his Best Director nomination. Besides those nominations, Joker is also nominated for Adapted Screenplay, Original Score, Cinematography, Film Editing, Makeup and Hairstyling, Costume Design, Sound Editing, and Mixing.

Following up Joker with 10 nominations is the Sam Mendes WWI drama 1917, the Martin Scorsese gangster epic The Irishman, and the hotshot Quentin Tarantino love letter to 60s cinema Once Upon A Time In Hollywood. Again, none of these Best Picture nominees are surprising in the least. The Academy laps up Martin Scorsese just about as many times as they do Meryl Streep, and war pictures have a great track record with getting nominated by the Academy as well. Pay attention to 1917 and The Irishman in the technical categories especially. They stand a really good chance at snagging a few of those awards.

The biggest surprise out of those three films was how many nominations Once Upon A Time In Hollywood racked up. With 10 nominations, Once Upon A Time In Hollywood is officially Tarantino’s most nominated film, right after Inglorious Basterds with eight nominations. Not that it wasn’t deserving. Leonardo DiCaprio and Brad Pitt alike were both spitfires in the movie, and Tarantino was arguably at his best behind both the script and the director’s chair. But sweeping the technical nominations was especially unexpected. A few of them, such as cinematography and costume design, were a given. But sound editing, mixing, and production design? That came from left field out of nowhere.

Next up with six nominations apiece is the WWII satire film Jojo Rabbit, the coming-of-age drama Little Women, the heartbreaking divorce homily Marriage Story, and the eerie yet entertaining Parasite. Parasite is certain to have the newly-named International Feature Film award on lockdown, and director Bong Joon-Ho is an early favorite in the directing category as well. Little Women was a little unexpected for best leading and supporting actress, adapted screenplay, costume design and original score, but since no female directors are nominated for Best Director this year, it’s kind of necessary to give this much love to a female empowerment film. Marriage Story, meanwhile, swept in most of the acting categories, with Scarlett Johannson even being nominated twice for both Marriage Story and Jojo Rabbit. Do any of these films stand a chance against the heavyweight titans of Joker, 1917, Once Upon A Time In Hollywood, and The Irishman? We can only wait until Oscar night to find out.

And the last, but certainly not least, Best Picture nominee is the racing drama Ford v Ferrari, which is also nominated in the sound and film editing categories. The most shocking thing about this nominee isn’t that it only has four nominations (against everything else, that’s more or less to be expected). What’s shocking is that Christian Bale, who gave a stellar performance as Ken Miles, isn’t nominated for Best Actor. And to be fair to the other nominees, I haven’t seen Antonio Banderas in Pain and Glory or Jonathan Pryce in The Two Popes. But they don’t stand a snowballs chance against their peers, so you have to wonder why Bale wasn’t even being considered over them?

SOURCE: Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences

Speaking of snubs, this year has no shortage of them just like with any other given year. The biggest snub Disney fans will notice is that Frozen 2 isn’t nominated for Best Animated Feature, although it is still nominated for Best Original Song with “Into The Unknown.” Jordan Peele’s thoughtful and observant horror film Us was given a resounding zero nominations, not even for Lupita Nyong’o for her hypnotizing dual performance as a petrified mother and her murderous doppelganger. Perhaps most shockingly, Uncut Gems was nominated for a big, fat “nothing” for this year’s ceremony, not even a Best Actor nomination for Adam Sandler’s mesmerizingly brazen performance. Thanks a lot, Academy. We’re going to get Grown Ups 3 now because of you.

But the most maddening has to be the absence of Rian Johnson’s masterful murder-mystery Knives Out, a movie that challenges us socially and politically as much as it does narratively and thematically. Knives Out was brilliant in just about every which way it could be, from the performances and the cinematography to the music and the editing. Even the bloody costumes and set designs were among the most colorful and stylish production jobs of the year. But nope, no nominations for those categories either. I get that five nominations limit what you can include in these categories and where. Still, I would have been fine to knock down a few nominations from Joker if it meant a few more nominations for Knives Out. At least Rian Johnson was nominated for Best Original Screenplay, so he can now call himself an Academy Award nominee at the very least.

Overall, this is a decent year for the Oscars. I’m glad to see comic-book movies like Joker get a little more love this time around, even if it is arguably a little too much love. Regardless, we have a lot to look forward to and many more surprises and snubs coming our way. Get ready, folks. At least there won’t be a host on February 9.

– David Dunn

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

“STAR WARS: THE RISE OF SKYWALKER” Review (✫✫1/2)

Ending the Skywalker saga for the third time. 

There was a line from Luke Skywalker that echoed through my mind while watching Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker: no one’s ever really gone. I’d like to expand upon that thought with one of my own: nothing really ever ends. As The Rise of Skywalker crescendoed into its last emotional note and faded into its last end credit sequence, all I could think of was that this really wasn’t the end of the Skywalker saga. How could it be? Hasn’t it ended twice already with Revenge of the Sith and Return of the Jedi? Since it has ended multiple times before, why should this ending feel any different? What makes Rise of Skywalker special?

Even though Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill) met his unfortunate demise at the end of The Last Jedi several years ago, the ninth and supposed final movie in the Star Wars series is titled Rise of Skywalker, although the movie never specifies which Skywalker it’s referring to. The movie shows the series’ newest heroes Rey (Daisy Ridley), Finn (John Boyega), and Poe (Oscar Isaac) as they take on Kylo Ren (Adam Driver) and his newest empire. While they’re doing that, an enemy from the past emerges to take on the new resistance and bring in a new age of the Dark Side.

Since the studio put in the extra effort to keep The Rise of Skywalker’s backstory as vague as possible, I feel I need to try and do the same in this review. But since the trailers and posters have given away one particular detail several times, I feel no shame in informing you that Ian McDiarmid is back as Emperor Palpatine. Yes, that Emperor Palpatine. You know, the one that turned Anakin Skywalker into Darth Vader. The one that murdered several Jedi in Revenge of the Sith. The one that was vaporized at the end of Return of the Jedi. You know. That Emperor Palpatine.

One of my biggest concerns going into this movie was how exactly they were going to bring Palpatine back and have it make sense. After all, the dude got thrown into a bloody laser beam by Darth Vader at the end of Return of the Jedi. How were you going to simply write him back into the franchise and justify his return?

Well, the short answer is that they don’t. They just kind of plop Palpatine back into the franchise and expect fans to just go with the flow. And for the most part, that’s how the rest of The Rise of Skywalker plays out. One bombshell reveal is plopped one on top of the other, and instead of explaining some of those twists and turns, the movie just kind of overlooks the exposition and simply skips ahead to the lightsaber duels and space fights. For Star Wars fans looking forward to The Rise of Skywalker answering all of the series’ mysteries and questions, they will be left feeling disappointed.

The good news is for Star Wars fans who aren’t as invested in the series and are simply looking for extravagant lightsaber duels, space fights and stunning action sequences, they’ll have more than enough to satisfy them here in Rise of Skywalker. The director, J.J. Abrams, is no stranger to grand-scale science-fiction and blockbuster action. His last three films, Super 8, Star Trek Into Darkness, and Star Wars: The Force Awakens have had epic proportions of scale in them that led to wonderful feelings of elation and grandeur. Who could forget the first time we saw the sheer size of that mysterious creature in Super 8, or when Benedict Cumberbatch revealed his true identity in Star Trek Into Darkness, or when we realized Rey was in-tune with the Force in The Force Awakens? Abrams is great at building up to really memorable moments in his movies, and they are just as prevalent in Rise of Skywalker as they are in Abrams’ other films.

The problem is those moments don’t really amount to much. While Revenge of the Sith and Return of the Jedi satisfyingly closed out their respective trilogies with emotional payoff and resolution, The Rise of Skywalker just feels sloppy and disorganized in its assembly, like a wrench was thrown into the gears of the Millenium Falcon and Chewie had to do a rush job to fix it in the middle of lightspeed. And to be fair to Abrams, he had an impossible task to deal with. He had to unite fans of both The Force Awakens and The Last Jedi under the banner of one movie, despite how polar opposite those films are. Mind you that I enjoyed both of those movies, The Force Awakens for its nostalgia and spectacle and The Last Jedi for its boldness and subversion of expectations. But trying to unite the fandom from both films is impossible. It would be like trying to get Star Wars and Star Trek fans to agree on which is the better franchise.

In the end, Rise of Skywalker solidifies two things. One, that this sequel trilogy is essentially the anti-prequel trilogy. Whereas the prequel movies got better the further it progressed, the sequel trilogy got worse, so how you react to this movie really depends on what your reaction is to the rest of the franchise. Two, that Disney had no idea how to plan for this series or which direction they wanted to go. Thankfully, J.J.Abrams is a competent and reliable enough filmmaker to make a decent film despite everything he was working against, but fans who were looking for the concluding chapter to provide a satisfying ending will leave the theater feeling unfulfilled. Regardless, Disney’s greatest failure with this new trilogy was trying to convince us that this really is the end of the Skywalker saga. HA. Good one, Disney. I’ll see you again when I’m Luke’s age.

Tagged , , , , , ,