Another Round Feels Like A Glass Half Empty

Stop me if you've heart this premise before... A group of middle-aged friends are having a mid-life crisis and form a pact to drink alcohol in an attempt to prove a theory that the human body is naturally .5% low in their blood alcohol level.  Naturally, hilarity initially ensues before things get more serious and the men figure their lives out.  Sounds like any number of Will Ferrell or Seth Rogan/James Franco movies, right?  Well, Another Round isn't nearly as silly or as formulaic as those movies, but it's essentially Old School in a nutshell.  However, I felt like the Best Foreign Film Oscar winner should have been so much more.  It was well-acted and well-directed (it even earned a shocking Best Director Oscar nomination), but I couldn't help wishing there was more to it.

Mads Mikkelsen (in a refreshingly non-villainous role) plays a high school history teacher who's essentially going through the motions, both in his job and in his marriage.  He is failing so badly in his job that his students and their parents stage an intervention with him in order for him to challenge his students better.  Fast forward a couple days to his friend and co-worker's 40th birthday party, where they discuss an out-of-left field scientific theory that the human body is born with a natural blood alcohol level shortfall.  That, by maintaining a BAC level at .05%, they will be able to tap into their potential and become higher functioning adults.  Mikkelsen and group of teacher/friends decide to test this theory.  They set a series of ground rules for this experiment and head out on their merry (inebriated) way.  At first, things look positive.  They all seem to be improving both in their lives and in their jobs.  Mikkelsen, in particular, is connecting with his students like never before.  However, like all things alcohol related, the boys decide to push things too far.
 

At this point, the boys decide to take their alcohol consumption to the point where they're all functioning alcoholics.  This is the point where the movie falls apart for me, and where it could have used a little more nuance.  It's established that each character is failing in their own way, but there's no motivation behind them pushing the limits of this drinking theory.  I guess each had to really bottom out before they realized that they all had it pretty good after all, or that drinking isn't the solution to fixing their shortcomings.  I feel like the third act went by too fast without fully exploring each character... especially Mikkelsen's.  The end of the film is purposely open-ended and doesn't take a firm enough stand.  Maybe we're meant to believe that he's starting over once again, and finding himself is more important than fixing his fractured family.  I don't know.  Maybe I need "Another Round" (thank you!  I'll be here all week.  Try the veal!) with this film to fully enjoy it.  I just don't think I have it in me.

There have been rumors that Leonardo DiCaprio will be headlining an American version of this film.  While DiCaprio always knocks it out of the park in whatever movie he's in, I just don't see a need for it.  Maybe I'll be proved wrong.  

Another Round is streaming on Hulu if you want to check it out.

The 8th Annual Oscar Pick-A-Palooza Featuring Adam Howard

 

It's that time of year again.  It's the 8th Annual Oscar Pick-A-Palooza featuring movie blogger extraordinaire, Adam Howard.

BW:  Alright, let's get started.  It's welcome back for the 8th annual Oscar Pick-A-Palooza.  2020 was an all-time downer of a year.  Theaters have been, for the most part, closed for over a year.  It was the first year without a Marvel movie release in what seems like forever.  Will Smith's Bad Boys For Life was the last major release before the world closed and it lead the American box office for a truncated year.  And yet, 2020 (and the first quarter of 2021) was a quietly decent year for quality movies.  It looks like this year's crop of nominees has, with some exceptions, done a decent course correction out of Oscars So White territory.  While there were some notable snubs (cough cough Da 5 Bloods), it was nice to see a slate of nominees that represented more than just the criminally underrepresented straight white male demographic (sarcasm alert!).  With almost everything getting a straight to streaming release, I was actually able to see a decent amount of the nominated films/performances (I still need to see Minari, but I've seen 6 out of 8 Best Picture nominees), so I should actually be able to carry my own weight in this back-and-forth this year.  Can we even call this the Oscars if almost none of these films got a theatrical release?  With that being said, our first category, Best Supporting Actress, is the one where I saw the least amount of performances.  It looks like it has one of the biggest WTF nominees in a long time.  Of course, I'm speaking of Glenn Close's Razzie nominated performance in critically derided Hillbilly Elegy.  On to the nominations.

Best Actress in a Supporting Role

Maria Bakalova (‘Borat Subsequent Moviefilm”) 

Glenn Close (“Hillbilly Elegy”) 

Olivia Colman (“The Father”) 

Amanda Seyfried (“Mank”) 

Yuh-jung Youn (“Minari”)

Will Win: Yuh-Jung Youn - I know I said I'd be carrying my weight this year, but I have no idea with this category.  Minari seems like a late critical favorite, so I'm going with Youn here.  I think Amanda Seyfried was just fine playing an old-timey Hollywood character, but it wasn't that great.  I haven't seen The Father either, so I'll go with Youn in this category.

Should Win: Maria Bakalova - In a year like no other, I'd love to see the Oscars take a chance on something different.  Bakalova was the heart of the Borat sequel and I'd love to see comedy recognized for once.

Snubs:  This was a hard one, but it's bonkers to me that Glenn Close is on this list for her performance in a Razzie worthy movie.  She pushed out Jodie Foster in her Golden Globe winning performance in The Mauritanian. 

Who takes home your statue?

AH:  Hey man -- as you know I have been basically boycotting the Oscars, but I can't resist following these races just a bit and of course I always have fun playing the prediction game with you. Definitely, the strangest year yet -- I for one found this year's crop of films a bit of a letdown after a very strong 2019 and the fact that I couldn't see most of the films I loved in theaters at all is a bummer too. But I do agree that this year's nominees are MOSTLY on point. The Spike Lee, Delroy Lindo and Regina King snubs do hurt, and I was really pulling for Bill Murray to get in there for On the Rocks, but I'm generally pleased with what's here. Definitely check out Minari when you get a chance, you won't be disappointed.

This supporting actress race is really hard to predict. There's the Glenn Close thing. I can't think of an actress who has made more efforts to win an Oscar with more mediocre movies -- Albert Nobbs, The Wife and now, HIllbilly Elegy, a movie I didn't see but heard universally horrible things about it. That's never stopped the academy before -- plenty of actors have won trophies for bad performances in bad movies (even Meryl Streep did it with The Iron Lady!) but something tells me that giving it to Glenn Close for such a polarizing movie would spark this biggest backlash since Crash. 

Will Win: This is really tough, but I'm gonna go out on a limb as say Amanda Seyfriend. She was my favorite part of a movie that really left me cold and she's been an underrated actress for some time now. Olivia Coleman just won Best Actress, I love Maria Bakalova but the Academy probably sees her nomination as a win and while Yuh-Jung Youn is fantastic in Minari the fact that she is pretty unknown to American voters may hurt her.

Should Win: I think I'll go with Bakalova here. She was a real comedic revelation in Borat Subsequent Film, and her performance was one of the most memorable I've seen all year. But I'd be happy really if anyone won here but Glenn Close, who I love, but who shouldn't win for bad work.

Snubs: Nothing comes to mind in what feels like a very lean year. I know it's not eligible because it's technically a television film -- but Letitia Wright is fantastic in Steve McQueen's Mangrove, so I'll just give her a shout out here.

BW:   think you can absolutely throw Steve McQueen's Mangrove in there.  If everything is going straight to TV, aren't they all television films?  

Moving on... next up is supporting actor.  Another head scratcher in this slate of nominees.  We have the two de facto leads of Judas And The Black Messiah competing against each other in the supporting category.  This was another WTF move by the academy.  I get putting Daniel Kaluuya in this category.  He was the best part of the so-so Messiah, albeit in a role that you and I both agree could have used a little more screen time or backstory.  But to also nominate Lakeith Stanfield, who in my opinion was more of a lead character in that movie, was confusing.  He's also just good, but not really that great in the film.  I think there were some other actors that could have made this list over him.  I do love that Paul Raci made it into the final 5 in this category.  He was one of the best parts of the fantastic "The Sound Of Metal."  Sacha Baron Cohen had the showiest role in The Trial Of The Chicago 7, even if he was a little too over the top at times.  Leslie Odom Jr. was also phenomenal as Sam Cooke in One Night In Miami.  Overall, I'd say this is a pretty solid group of nominees, with one misstep.

Here are the nominees:

Best Actor in a Supporting Role 

Sacha Baron Cohen (“The Trial of the Chicago 7”) 

Daniel Kaluuya (“Judas and the Black Messiah”) 

Leslie Odom Jr. (“One Night in Miami”) 

Paul Raci (“Sound of Metal”) 

Lakeith Stanfield (“Judas and the Black Messiah”)

Will Win:  Kaluuya.  Like I said, he's the best part of the somewhat disappointing Judas And The Black Messiah.  He's been killing it for years, so it'll be nice to see him get some critical recognition, even if it should have already happened for Get Out.

Should Win:  Kaluuya or Raci.  I'll be happy if either of these guys walk away with the Oscar.  I had never really heard of Paul Raci before, but I definitely hope to see more of him going forward.  I hope he has a post-Oscar nominated career similar to Mark Rylance, where he shows up in meaty supporting roles in prestige movies.

Snubs:  The biggest one for me would have to be Chadwick Boseman for his role as the leader (both physical and spiritual) of Da 5 Bloods.  I know he's probably going to win for his movie stealing performance in Ma Rainey, but I was hoping for a double nomination for the gone-too-soon actor.  The bigger crime, which we'll get to later, was Delroy Lindo, but Boseman was almost as critical to the quality of that movie.

Who is your best supporting actor?

 AH:  I pretty much agree with everything you said. Every year there's always a left field nominee, and usually in the supporting categories and this year's WTF is definitely LaKeith Stanfield. His performance is actually part of what didn't work for me in that film and while Daniel Kaluuya was great I feel like he didn't get enough screentime to give a fully realized portrait of Fred Hampton. Still, this is a mostly unassailable group and like you I am thrilled to see Paul Raci make the cut for his incredibly moving work in Sound of Metal.

Will win: Daniel Kaluuya. Sometimes these things are just all about momentum and I feel like he has it. right now. A couple months ago I would have said Leslie Odom,Jr. but I feel like his film peaked early and most people are just now embracing/seeing Judas and the Black Messiah. I actually think he made a strong case for winning back in 2017 for Get Out and should have been nominated for the following year's Widows. I don't love the movie but it's hard to knock his performance in it.

Should Win: Paul Raci. I will say Sacha Baron Cohen was probably my favorite part of the Trial of the Chicago 7, a movie whose over-the-top earnestness irked me throughout. It's great that he's finally getting recognized for his acting, not just his comic chops. I think Kaluuya is such a great young actor and is deserving enough here. Same goes for Leslie Odom Jr, who was also fantastic in One Night from Miami. But the Raci performance was just haunting and so real. He won't win, but it was a stunning, unforgettable work.

Snubs: Bill Murray. For me this one hurts. After years of some just ok movies, he came roaring back with his best turn in years in Sofia Coppola's underrated and bittersweet On the Rocks and I was really hoping he'd  be recognized here. Now, I fear he'll be one of those actors who never got the Oscar that we'll be kicking ourselves about years later (think Peter Sellers). I also think Chadwick Boseman could easily have been recognized here too for his stellar work in Da 5 Bloods. That was a case of note perfect casting and symbolism. I think he's had the most incredible posthumous streak of performances of anyone since James Dean.

BW: Moving on to the Best Actress category, I think the nominees in this category played out as expected.  I think the Academy, for the most part, got this category right.  For me, I think it's a 1-2 horse race between the heavy favorite Francis McDormand vs. Viola Davis in Ma Rainey (filmed in Pittsburgh!).  Both were excellent in almost polar opposites in terms of their character's personalities.  McDormand gave a beautiful, understated performance in Nomadland as a woman hitting the road and figuring out her life after the plant in her town closed up shop.  What I loved about that movie and her performance is that there was beauty in its simplicity.  You could almost watch Nomadland as a silent art installation and still come away moved.  On the other hand, Davis' performance shined in the bigness of Ma Rainey's personality.  From her singing, to the way she conducts herself in the studio, her character feels lived in and timeless.  The other nominees are kind of here for the prestige of having been nominated, though Andra Day did pick up a Golden Globe for her performance as Billie Holiday, so we'll see.  It's a shame that Vanessa Kirby's raw performance of a mother dealing with loss in Pieces Of Woman is overshadowed by its connection to Shia Labeouf's toxicity because she delivers a hell of a performance.  Carrie Mulligan is also the best part of the up-and-down Promising Young Woman, though there is some chatter about her gaining momentum.  It would be a shame if she wins over the big 2 because you and I both agree that all of the pieces in that movie didn't quite fit together perfectly.

Here's the nominees:

Best Actress in a Leading Role

Viola Davis (“Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom”) 

Andra Day (“The United States v. Billie Holiday”) 

Vanessa Kirby (“Pieces of a Woman”) 

Frances McDormand (“Nomadland”) 

Carey Mulligan (“Promising Young Woman”)

Will Win:  Frances McDormand, though I think it's closer than we expect.  She's already won two Oscars for leading roles.  Can she pull off a third?  I'd love to see Viola Davis finally get recognized for a leading performance.

Should Win:  Either of the two that I mentioned before are equally deserving to take home the top prize.

Snubs:  I'm drawing a blank here, but I've seen Zendaya's name thrown around as being snubbed for Malcolm & Marie, but I haven't seen that movie and can't speak on her performance. I loved Cristin Milioti in Palm Springs and it would have been a nice surprise nomination, but I'm not really coming up with too many snubs?  Who would get left off this list to make room for someone else?

Who is your best actress?

AH:  I agree with you on the slate of nominees feeling like a forgone conclusion but I see this race as way more wide open. Frances McDormand was fantastic in Nomadland, I'd argue far better than in her showier turn in Three Billboards which won her Best Actress just three years ago. This would be her third Best Actress trophy and second in just four years and so something tells me they'll want to spread the wealth around. As for Viola Davis, she is now Oscar royalty as the most nominated black actress in history, but I feel like as strong as she is in Ma Rainey (it's named after her after all) the Chadwick Boseman performance really steals the show and I don't think support for that movie is strong enough to reward them both. That leaves Vanessa Kirby -- whose movie I didn't see, Carey Mulligan and Andra Day, who surprised everyone by winning the Golden Globe for her performance as Billie Holiday.

Will Win: Carey Mulligan. I think the mediocre reception to the films of Kirby and Day, but not their performances will cancel them out. And I think Mulligan may pull off an upset here. She's universally viewed as the best part of a relatively polarizing movie. And here's the thing, clearly the Oscar voters love the movie because it made the Best Picture and Best Director races. This may be the best and only place to reward it. I could be wrong -- and I often am. But this is my wild card pick.

Should Win: Frances McDormand. I wish she was winning for this instead of Three Billboards, which is a movie that really left a bad taste in my mouth. But the best performance is the best performance and her work in Nomadland was just so moving and real. You're right about it almost playing like something out of a silent movie. She's definitely operating on a level that few actresses get to at this stage of their careers and I can't wait to see her in her husband Joel Coen's upcoming adaptation of MacBeth, alongside Denzel Washington.

Snubs: Elizabeth Moss in The Invisible Man. She was never going to get a nomination for such a commercial genre movie, but Moss has really been on a roll playing bugged out people on the end of their rope (Her Smell) or slightly possessed (Us) and i think she is so consistently underrated. 

BW:  Next up is Best Actor, which this year, is the category that best exemplifies the highs and lows of caring about these award shows.  Overall, I think it's a very solid slate of nominees with a major major missing piece.  It feels like it's going to be Chadwick Boseman's award to lose, and rightly so.  His brilliance was on full display from the moment he stepped on screen in Ma Rainey's Black Bottom.  A victory for him will be bittersweet because of the excitement of him finally being rewarded for his craft and the harsh reality that he is not here anymore.  Going down the line, I love that Riz Ahmed is nominated for Sound Of Metal.  He totally owned that movie and it's great to see him on this list.  While I have not seen Minari, I've heard nothing but good things about it and Steven Yeun's performance.  I thought Gary Oldman gave it his all in the uneven Mank, and Hollywood loves to celebrate itself.  This wasn't a surprising nomination.  I haven't seen The Father, but I feel like Anthony Hopkins has reached Meryl Streep territory where he gets an obligatory nomination every time he's in something of value.  The biggest miss here is obviously Delroy Lindo for his career defining performance in Da 5 Bloods.  How he can be universally left out of this award season is beyond me.  I don't think I've been so captured by a performance in a long time and for him to be left out entirely is almost insulting to the other nominees.  While it will be nice for them to win, it'd be like winning the NBA title in the two years that Michael Jordan was playing baseball.  Like it's great to win, but you didn't beat the best competition.  Anyway, on to the nominees.

Best Actor in a Leading Role

Riz Ahmed (“Sound of Metal”) 

Chadwick Boseman (“Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom”) 

Anthony Hopkins (“The Father”) 

Gary Oldman (“Mank”) 

Steven Yeun (“Minari”) 

Will Win:  Boseman.  Totally deserving.  Totally brilliant performance.  Totally devastating that he's gone. Wakanda Forever!

Should Win:  Boseman will and should win.  I also wouldn't be sad if Riz Ahmed takes home the prize.  

Snub:  Delroy Lindo.  Is this the biggest acting snub of all-time?  It has to be up there.

Who is your best actor?

AH:   I agree that this is a MOSTLY strong slate of nominees, and yes, Chadwick Boseman will be coronated on Oscar night -- and he's deserving. But Delroy Lindo gave the performance of THE YEAR as far as I'm concerned. So basically, this is the second year in a row where my favorite performance of the year was snubbed (last year it was Lupita Nyong'o in Us). Here's where I differ -- I don't think Anthony Hopkins has been over-lauded in his career. This is his first nomination in over 20 years (I believe) and based on everything I've heard, The Father is supposed to be return his Remains of the Day level form. I haven't seen it yet, so I'll reserve judgment but to me the glaring error here is Gary Oldman, a very good but also problematic actor (it's strange to me that his off-screen awfulness has been given a pass unlike so many others) who is for me the thing that worked THE LEAST about Mank. I'll never understand why Fincher felt Oldman needed to play someone 25 years younger when there are many excellent age appropriate actors who could have played the part just as well or better. His performance was very one-note for me. But hey I know a lot of people who think Mank is a masterpiece, so what do I know.

Riz Ahmed and Steven Yeun were both amazing in their films and feel like they're going to join folks like Michael B. Jordan in the pantheon of modern day leading men -- all sex symbols, all unconventional stars -- all pretty fantastic is almost everything they do, but ...

Will Win: Chadwick Boseman would be and should be right beside him. It's hard to know if his performance in Ma Rainey would have had quite the same impact had it not had the mystique of having been his last performance. The movie is good but I did feel like it failed to rise above feeling like a filmed play at times. But Boseman was a singular talent.

Should win: Without having seen the Hopkins performance, probably Boseman, although I wouldn’t be mad if Yeun or Ahmed won for their less showy performances.

Snub: Delroy Lindo. Full stop. I’d also say Sacha Baron Cohen for his remarkable performance as Borat, but he’s getting recognized for The Trial of the Chicago 7, so I’m good with that.

 

BW:  You know what, I was totally wrong about the number of nominations Anthony Hopkins has received.  I guess I just assumed he's been nominated a million times.  I stand corrected.

On to Best Director... another category with some pleasant surprises and some very noticeable absences.  It's great that we have two women nominated.  Chloe Zhao seems like the favorite for Nomadland and, to me, would be well-deserving of this award.  And while we both agree that Promising Young Woman was a good but flawed film, it's always exciting to see another woman break into the boys club.  Lee Isaac Chung did an excellent job directing the universally praised Minari.  The big surprise in this category would be Thomas Vinterberg for his work on Another Round.  I have not seen this film, so I can't speak on it's quality.  I guess the big surprise is who he pushed off this list, and I'll get to that in a bit.  David Fincher is on here for Mank, which is an Oscar-bait film celebrating the drama that occurred during the production of arguably the greatest film of all-time, Citizen Kane.  It's definitely not his best work and we've touched on some of the flaws of the film throughout our back-and-forth.  I'm not surprised to see him on this list, but it's a shame that he's here over a couple more deserving directors.  For me, this is an incomplete list and there's two big-time snubs.  The first being Spike Lee for his career-defining film Da 5 Bloods.  I know he's had his issues with the Academy for years and that, deep-down, I think he secretly might enjoy his outsider status, but to leave him off this list is criminal.  Also, the fact that he's only been nominated once for directing (BlacKkKlansman) is also criminal.  Another big-time snub would have to go to Regina King for the phenomenal One Night In Miami.  Whether it's because it was her debut as a film director or the fact that it seemed like the Academy didn't really reward stage to screen adaptations this year, she definitely got screwed.

Anyway, on to the nominees.

Best Director

Thomas Vinterberg (“Another Round”)

David Fincher (“Mank”) 

Lee Isaac Chung (“Minari”) 

Chloé Zhao (“Nomadland”) 

Emerald Fennell (“Promising Young Woman”) 

Will Win:  Chloe Zhao.  She seems to have the inside track to this award and for good reason.  It's well past due for another woman to join the boys club.

Should Win:  Zhao or Chung.  Both did incredible jobs, and of the people on this list, both are well-deserving.

Snub:  Other than Spike Lee or Regina King, I'll go with Aaron Sorkin.  I wonder if he's thought of as "just a writer" and it'll take a few more directorial efforts before he starts getting recognized.  While The Trial Of The Chicago 7 was very Sorkini-esque, and that could turn people off, I still thought it was directed really well in a way that kept the pace moving at just the right level.

Who's your best director?

AH: The Oscars diversity conversation is so maddening. It's always one step forward, two steps back. That being said, it's hard not to be thrilled by the presence of two women and two AAPI directors here (especially in the wake of a spike in hate crimes directed at that community), It's always been strange to me how every year a director is nominated whose film is not in the Best Picture race (in this case Thomas Vinterberg) while several filmmakers whose movies are get snubbed. The Spike Lee omission is particularly infuriating, especially since Da 5 Bloods is arguably an even more ambitious and powerful film than BlacKkKlansman was. I am not a big fan of The Trial of the Chicago 7, but I still thought Aaron Sorkin would make it because his stamp was all over that movie. I also am surprised that One Night in Miami didn't get more love for Regina King and appreciation overall. I too haven't seen Another Round, but I hear great things. I also felt like Promising Young Woman was exactly that 'promising' but it didn't really deliver for me until its devastating last act. And Fincher -- well he's a classic auteur who has several bonafide masterpieces to his name. His loss to Tom Hooper in 2010 (he was nominated for his era-defining The Social Network) is one of the greatest Oscar missteps in recent memory. And yet, while I think Mank is impeccably crafted and personal (Fincher's late father wrote it) I just didn't get as engrossed with it as I did with most of his work. Still, it's the most nominated film and if movies like Birdman are any indication, Hollywood loves movies about show business. 

Will win: Chloe Zhao. I still think she is the favorite. I've never heard any detractors of her film (although i could also say the same thing about Lee Isaac Chung) and its such a unique vision that she deserves much of the credit for the movie's success. I could see Fincher upsetting if Mank ends up running the table. But you're right Zhao has the momentum right now.

Should win: I loved Minari slightly more than Nomadland, but just by a hair. So like you I'd be happy with Chung or Zhao. But since only one woman has ever won Best Director, which is insane, I supposed I'm rooting for Zhao.

Snub: Again, we're on the exact same page. Spike Lee, who has truly returned to form after about a decade of shaky work, really deserved to be nominated and Regina King did a phenomenal job of taking what could have been a claustrophobic adaptation of stage play and made an emotional tour de force with four great, moving acting turns. I guess nominating more than two people of color was a bridge too far for the Academy Awards.

BW: On to the final category of the night, Best Picture.  Overall, this is a mixed bag of nominated films.  There's some very deserving nominees on this list and a couple head scratchers, especially when compared to a couple films left off this list.  Again, it's nice to see a range of stories, people, and cultures presented and a break away from #OscarsSoWhite, but I can't help but feel slightly let down by this list.  We've got some heavy hitters on this list (Nomadland, Minari, The Sound Of Metal) who absolutely belong at the top of this list.  I think The Trial Of The Chicago 7 is a film that belongs on this list, even if it's a slightly over-the-top film at times.  You've got a self-congratulatory film that Hollywood loves to nominate in Mank, and some good but ultimately lacking films (Judas And The Black Messiah, Promising Young Woman), whose place on this list could and should be disputed.  I haven't seen The Father, so I'll reserve judgement for now. Overall, there's 8 out of a possible 10 filmes on this list.  That leaves us two empty slots that could have potentially gone to Da 5 Bloods, One Night In Miami, and Ma Rainey's Black Bottom.  It seemed like, for whatever reason, they weren't nominating stage-to-screen films, so that could be a reason for the omission of One Night and Ma Rainey.  I think it's a dumb reason, but at least it's a reason.  Both films were deserving to be on here and both have a legitimate gripe with the Academy for being left off.  Da 5 Bloods is the best film of the year by far, and to not have it competing for the top prize is a shame... especially with a couple open slots in the slate of nominated films.  I know we keep harping on this topic, but the Academy really dropped the ball with this one.  I know Nomadland or Minari are probably going to walk away with Best Picture, and that's great, but it still feels like something is missing here.  I know each year I say I won't care about the nominations, and yet every year I'm still annoyed.  I know that art is subjective, and that they'll never please everyone with these, but to leave out such a powerful film is borderline insulting.  Not only to us, but to the other nominees.  You want to face the best competition and the 99 Chicago Bulls are sitting on the sidelines here.

Here's the nominees:

Best Picture

“The Father” (David Parfitt, Jean-Louis Livi and Philippe Carcassonne, producers)

“Judas and the Black Messiah” (Shaka King, Charles D. King and Ryan Coogler, producers)

“Mank” (Ceán Chaffin, Eric Roth and Douglas Urbanski, producers)

“Minari” (Christina Oh, producer)

“Nomadland” (Frances McDormand, Peter Spears, Mollye Asher, Dan Janvey and Chloé Zhao, producers)

“Promising Young Woman” (Ben Browning, Ashley Fox, Emerald Fennell and Josey McNamara, producers)

“Sound of Metal” (Bert Hamelinck and Sacha Ben Harroche, producers)

“The Trial of the Chicago 7” (Marc Platt and Stuart Besser, producers)

Will Win:  Nomadland.  It's a beautiful piece of art that's both timely and timeless.  They could play this movie in an art gallery without sound and you would still be blown away by its beauty and sadness.

Should Win:  Both Nomadland and Minari could and should win.  I won't be angry if either film wins.

Snub:  Other than the 3 I've mentioned (Da 5 Bloods, One Night In Miami, Ma Rainey's Black Bottom), I'll go with a couple comedy movies.  I don't think any film better captured 2020 than Borat 2.  It has gotten some love in some of the other award shows, so why not throw it in there?  Another film that I loved, but would never get nominated was Palm Springs.  It didn't break any new ground, but it did bring me a lot of joy in a year when there wasn't a lot of that going around.

Which film takes home your top prize?

On a final note, it looks like our 8th annual Oscar pick-a-palooza is wrapping up.  I look forward to doing this next year.  Who knows... maybe it'll be the year that they finally get everything right... lol.

AH:  I agree with everything you said, so I am not sure what more I can possibly add. I am surprised that 9 films didn't get enough voters to make it in, especially when terrible movies like The Blind Side have in recent years. The only explanation for the blatant omission of Da 5 Bloods from so many categories is that Oscar voters either didn't see it or didn't like it. For shame, cause I think it'll have a lot more staying power than a few of the films on this list. But to your point there's nothing outrageous here. There's no Crash, Bohemian Rhapsody or Green Book to make you want to bang your head against the wall, so that's something. But really other than Minari and to a lesser extent Nomadland and Sound of Metal, there are few movies here I feel really passionate about either. Which probably means I'll be skipping watching this year's awards show for the second year in a row, Last year's Parasite win still feels like an outlier -- the rare great, unassailable film that justly wins. But historically that just isn't what happens. It's why movies like The Artist, The King's Speech and How Green Was My Valley (which beat Ciitzen Kane!) are Best Picture winners and movies like Do the Right Thing aren't even nominated. The Oscars are barely a notch above the Grammys when it comes to irrelevancy. They reflect the stodgy and safes impulses of an industry that purports to be progressive but in many ways is deeply conservative.  Ultimately this looks like it will be a good year for diversity and women, and that's great, but as far as I'm concerned, the damage is done by these awards and can't be undone.

Will win: Nomadland. It's just a movie no one I know has a problem with. It's also incredibly moving and beautifully crafted. I think Minari is more enjoyable, but that is not a strike against this movie that is clearly capturing a mood and a moment that feels very relevant. The only think I could see upsetting it is Mank, which to your point has the whole Hollywood industry thing that they love and does have the most nominations. if it does win I do think it'll be the most eyerolly result, especially because I just don't think that film matters to anyone who isn't an Orson Welles fanboy. 

Should win: I agree with you again. Minari was my favorite of this bunch. But I also thought Nomadland was fantastic and is equally deserving.

Snubs: Da 5 Bloods obviously. I do wonder if traditional movie theaters were open and if Lee's film had been given a proper release and been successful would it have been ignored... we'll never know. Same goes for One Night in Miami, which plays well enough at home but would have been interesting to view with an audience.  And as long as we're throwing curveballs here I want to show some love for On the Rocks, a movie I know you're less enthusiastic about, but for me was just a lovely love letter to the city I love and a real return to form for Sofia Coppola.

Thanks for doing this with me again Brian. I have zero faith in the Oscars, but I always know i'll have a good back and forth with you. And congrats on becoming a daddy again!

 BW:  Thanks!

That's it, folks.  Tune in to the big night to see how we did in our predictions.

"The Rental" Is A Film That Should Have Been Better

 

*Minor Spoilers Ahead*

The "house/hotel that isn't quite what it seems" film has been done a million times, and it's successful because it works.  You take a person or persons and put them in a perfect seeming room or a house or a hotel room and mysterious, and often bad, things start happening to them.  When they're done correctly, they're usually very memorable.  It worked for Hitchcock in Psycho.  It worked for Kubrick in The Shining.  Hell, it even worked in a comedic way in Hot Tub Time Machine.  And it worked for 3/4ths of the new film, The Rental.  Two couples escape to an AirBnB for a weekend away from their jobs and lives, only to find out that the online description isn't exactly accurate.  They're being watched and tensions begin to mount, which leads to a finale that ultimately falls flat.  Critics were hailing this as a well-directed (it was) entry into the horror/suspense category.  For the most part, I agreed with them.  What left me feeling so empty about this is the lack of a concise ending.  Instead of letting the story play out to a satisfying conclusion, The Rental goes the route of turning it into a potential franchise, and leaving the film rather open-ended.

I can get behind open endings if done right.  If done well, an open ended film will leave you talking and guessing for years.  I loved Annihilation because it concluded the film just enough, while also leaving room for interpretation.  Great films leave you something to remember it by.  But they do offer something of a closing to the film's story.  I can't say that for The Rental.  It seems like Franco was more concerned with setting his villain up for future installments and that the characters in this film were only there to introduce us to the mysterious AirBnB killer.  They're essentially one long preview for the next film in the franchise.  Their stories never really mattered.  I think I'm upset because this film wasn't billed that way.  Maybe it's my fault for expecting something different.  For the most part it's acted well (Alison Brie, in particular), directed well and shot well.  These types of films work in the case of Jason or Freddy, because those characters are the main attraction.  The Rental seemed like a character driven story, where they got caught up in a bad situation, only to be swerved at the last moment.  I just can't get this bad taste out of my mouth.  Maybe you'll be able to.  

Wonder Woman 1984 Is A Fever Dream Of Neon & Spandex That Never Figures Itself Out

 

The original Wonder Woman was a triumph of a motion picture.  It was the first superhero movie to feature a woman in the lead and it felt special.  It was the antithesis to the slate of DC Universe films that had come out.  Whereas Man Of Steel and Batman V. Superman were dark and dreary, Wonder Woman was filled with life and wonderment.  Gal Gadot shined as the titular character in a bit of a fish out of water story set during the first World War.  Chris Pine was fantastic as her love interest.  The film didn't cut any corners in terms of storytelling for the sake of special effects.  It's for these reasons that I was so excited for the follow-up, now set in the 1980s (because when in doubt, set it in the 80s).  After setting through the 150-minute retro trip and having the evening to think it over, I can say that I'm mostly disappointed.  With few exceptions WW84 doesn't capture any of the original film's magic.  It seems to exist only because the first film made eleventy-billion dollars and a sequel was necessary.  That's not to say that it's an outright terrible movie.  I actually enjoyed the wacky nature of the film.  But overall, it was a letdown.

Through the first half of the film, I kept asking myself why they bothered to call it "Wonder Woman 1984" since it's relatively Wonder Woman free.  It was an odd choice, for sure.  Gadot's character is apparently miserable living on her own, having lost Pine's character in World War I.  She works for the Smithsonian Institution (NOT Institute like it was listed in the credits... My sister works for them and wanted me to point this out) as an investigator of supernatural relics from the past.  Kristin Wiig, who appears as a dorky assistant who everyone looks over, comes across a mysterious stone that appears to grant wishes.  Not soon after this discovery does she not so surprisingly turn into an 80s vixen.  Her transformation seems a little disappointing as she basically loses her glasses and starts wearing high heels.  This transformation feels like it was written by a man, so it's a little disappointing to realize that the director, Patty Jenkins, had a hand in crafting this story.  She also gets a bit of Wonder Woman's strength, which confusingly leads her down a path towards becoming the "Cheetah," one of the villains in the film.  She was wasted in this role.  Her comedic talents weren't used enough and her heel turn wasn't strong enough to live on its own.  She seemed to be going through the motions too much in this one. The other villain in this film is played in sweaty glory by The Mandalorian's Pedro Pascal, complete with Donald Trump haircut.  He's a wannabe oil tycoon who uses the stone to take grant wishes and gain power (confused?  Yeah, me too).  What results from this is a somewhat disjointed story around the globe as Wonder Woman (though mostly in her civilian clothes) is trying to chase down the stone to overturn its powers.    It's a 2 and a half hour story that probably could have been 90 minutes and one villain less.

That's not to say that the movie was a complete wash.  I rather enjoyed the inarguable chemistry between Gadot and Chris Pine (who is inexplicably brought back from the dead for this one).  There's a couple fun scenes where Pine is getting used to being in the 80s (though Marvel did it better with Captain America), and an almost too long montage of him trying on 80s clothing.  There's also a beautiful scene where they fly through fireworks in an invisible plane.  There's also a couple excellent action sequences, but those are too few and far between.

I'm not quite sure why this film was set in the 1980s other than to cash in on the Stranger Things nostalgia train.  We've already seen Wonder Woman in the present day with the other DC Universe films and I found her more convincing in those.  If they were using this to give her more back story then I guess it worked.  Overall, Wonder Woman 1984 seemed far too close to the other DC Universe films instead of a positive follow-up to the stellar original film.  It wasn't zany enough for it to work that way (Aquaman did WTF better than this one) and it wasn't serious enough to work that way either.  It was a well-intentioned swing and miss.

On The Rocks Doesn't Know What It Wants To Be

 

Last night I had the opportunity to view the latest straight to streaming movie of 2020, On The Rocks, directed by Sofia Coppola.  On its face, it had a lot going for it.  A talented director.  A stellar cast (featuring the first collaboration between Bill Murray and Coppola since Lost In Translation).  And, a decently interesting trailer.  Going in my hopes were high with this one. Not only was I getting to watch a new movie in a time where we every movie is socially distancing itself into 2021 or later, but it was a movie from a director I highly admire.  Say what you will about Coppola, but she has a certain style that I enjoy, and her movies are always interesting because of it.  However, I have to admit that On The Rocks doesn't live up to its billing.  It's a rather lifeless wannabe rom-com devoid of style or substance.  It's filled with things and scenes I feel like I've seen a million times before.

On The Rocks stars Rashida Jones and Marlon Waynes as a couple in a rut.  They've been married for awhile, have a couple (very cute) daughters, and like any couple of that status, can't seem to keep the romantic spark alive.  Jones' character is troubled by her husband's growing distance as his business is expanding, forcing him to travel a lot with his attractive coworker.  She is worried he might be cheating on her, and so she calls in her (quirky) father for analysis, played by Bill Murray.

Like most Murray performances, he's both cool and funny... and not really a great father.  He comes up with countless zany situations to track his son-in-law.  Before you know it, the film is entering cliched rom-com territory.  I feel like I've seen this a hundred times before with a Kate Hudson or Sarah Jessica Parker.  Jones is secretly trailing her husband, hoping to catch him in the act.  She's running off to Mexico to spy on her husband at a work retreat.  Murray is along for the ride egging her on.  The problem I have with this movie is that there's nothing new or anything with style in it.  Murray isn't doing anything new.  Coppola isn't applying any of her signature style.  And, worst of all, the film doesn't know if it wants to be an all-out rom-com or a more serious dramedy.  It toes the line of each genre without ever committing to either.  Lost In Translation was so refreshing because it presented Murray in a light that we had never really seen him in before.  It was new and exciting for him to go against type.  The chemistry between him and Scarlett Johansen was off the chart in that film.  In On The Rocks, he's still charming, but in a "been there, done that" kind of way.  Coppola doesn't really allow Jones and Waynes' characters to develop much on screen chemistry either.  Most of the time is devoted to the father/daughter dynamic.

Overall, On The Rocks is not a terrible movie.  Because of its pedigree, I was expecting more.  It's the one "straight to streaming" movie that I've seen this year where I didn't feel like it needed the cinematic experience. 

Can Tenet Save The Film Industry?

 

I know I'm not going out on a limb when I say that 2020 has been unlike anything the world has ever seen.  The pandemic has wreaked havoc on every fabric of our daily lives.  The film industry is no different.  Theaters across the nation have been shuttered since March, and almost every major release has been rescheduled to 2021... with one exception.  Christopher Nolan's Tenet has been the lone holdout.  Yes, it has been pushed back a few times, but it was hellbent on being released in 2020.  Major (and minor) movie chains across the country have had Tenet as the one glimmer of hope to hold on to in a year that will forever change how we view movies.  From Onward and Hamilton to last week's release of Bill & Ted Face The Music, movies have chosen to go direct to streaming and Video-On-Demand instead of delaying their releases for a year or more.  Netflix has continued to gobble up would-be theatrical films (like Spike Lee's masterpiece Da 5 Bloods).  So will we ever have a traditional film industry again?  Christopher Nolan seems to think so.  It is doing really well in foreign markets where they are lucky enough to have leadership that has been able to handle the pandemic, unlike the United States.  It's only open in about 65% of the movie markets in this country.  Luckily, I had the unbelievable fortune of going to a movie theater again for the first time since January to see his latest event film.  Tenet, while not quite up to the high watermark of his career (Dunkirk), is a mind-melding treat, and a must-see theatrical experience.

I have been very fortunate during the pandemic and I am fully aware of my privilege when I say that losing the theatrical movie experience was one of the hardest aspects of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic for me.  It's the one thing (outside of my family) that I truly love in life, and it's been hard losing that experience.  I am very privileged to work for a great company and to be able to work through this horrible event.  Needless to say I was downright giddy walking into the theater to watch this film.  It was like reacquainting myself with a long lost friend.  

As far as the film goes, I don't want to spoil much in this review as much of the plot is shrouded in mystery.  I will say this, Tenet starts at a fever pace and doesn't really let up for two and a half hours.  It's like a James Bond film with time travel.  All the calling cards of a Christopher Nolan film are here.  Gorgeous imagery, a pulse-pounding Hans Zimmer score, and spectacular practical effects.  John David Washington continues his ascendancy to the top of the Hollywood A-List as a secret agent who is drawn into a world of mystery and intrigue.  Without spoiling anything, he's tasked with preventing villains from the future hellbent on destroying the past.  If that sounds confusing, I have to say that it's not as hard to follow as some reviews have said.  Sure, a lot of the dialogue is needlessly stuffy, but on the surface, it's really no different than an international espionage thriller.  I think that if you try to think about it as you're watching it, you'll get more lost than if you just sit back and enjoy it.  Like Inception, it's not as confusing as you think it is.  Washington isn't the only star in this one.  Robert Pattinson continues his recent hot streak in a supporting role and Kenneth Branagh chews up scenery left and right as a Russian arms dealer.  They are all pieces that add up to a genuine thrill ride of a film.

Back to the special effects for a minute.  Christopher Nolan has outdone himself once again.  There are scenes that happen in real-time and reverse simultaneously.  The action in this film is eye-opening, and hard to explain.  I'll just say that it's some of the best effect work that I've seen in a film.  I can't wait to watch the making of this movie to find out how Nolan did it.

If you're lucky enough to get to a theater, you must-see Tenet.  It's well-worth the wait, and a bright spot in the dark cloud that is 2020.  Hopefully it's the film that reboots the film industry.

Bill & Ted Face The Music Is A Fitting Albeit Imperfect Conclusion

 

I've been on record about the failings of comedy sequels.  They mostly repackage the jokes from the first film in a slightly different setting, and they're often times completely unnecessary.  Successful comedy is largely catching lightning in a bottle.  I could go on and on with a list of failed comedy sequel titles (don't get me started on Anchorman 2), but I'll focus on a couple since they're relevant to this post.  The first being Ghostbusters 2 and the second being Bill & Ted's Bogus Journey.  Neither movie are terrible, but neither are great.  They both "expand" a story that didn't necessarily need to be expanded.  They have also (to this point) never had a third movie in the franchise.  Both Ghostbusters 3 and B&T 3 have been rumored upon with different directors/writers/producers attached at various points in their life cycles.  Ghostbusters tried to reboot the series with a largely ineffective and lifeless all-female version a couple years ago, and it's trying another reboot next year.  We'll never get an official Ghostbusters 3 with the original cast because of the untimely death of writer/star Harold Ramis.  And I'm OK with that.  The original Ghostbusters is my favorite movie of all-time.  It's perfect and endlessly rewatchable.  I have a love/hate relationship with the second movie.  It's not a bad movie, but it's not a great movie either.  It largely just exists.  I don't often choose to revisit it, and I'm OK with that.  The other comedy franchise to have a much-delayed third film is the Bill & Ted franchise.  Again, the first movie is perfect.  It's infinitely rewatchable and quotable.  Bogus Journey is just fine.  It expands a world that doesn't necessarily need to be expanded.  I don't often revisit it and I'm OK with that.  BUT, like any film nerd and Bill & Ted fan, I was timidly hopeful when they announced the third entry.  The initial trailer had some potential, and when the reviews started pouring in for Face The Music, I have to admit I began to be excited for it.  After watching it, I can admit that Bill & Ted Face The Music is a fitting send-off for our favorite San Dimas California boneheads.

Face The Music takes place 25 years after Bogus Journey.  The Wyld Stallyns haven't written the song that will unite the world.  In fact, after initial success as a band, they totally fell apart VH1 Behind The Music style.  Bill & Ted are still trying to write their destiny song, but their lives have pretty much fallen apart (playing bingo halls on $2 taco nights).  Just as things are about to hit rock bottom, their past (or is it their future) catches up with them.  Rufus' daughter tells them that "time as we know it" will end at exactly 7:17pm if they don't write their song.  Luckily for Bill & Ted, the time-traveling phone booth is always at the ready.  They embark on a trip through time to steal the song from their future "us-es."  Along the way, their daughters Billie and Theodora also jump through time to try to build a band out of history's greatest musicians.   Face The Music is a cute, heart worming journey to find their meaning.  I enjoyed it because I, too, am a 40-something struggling with not living up to my potential.

The film doesn't deliver a homerun by any means, but it's a solid double.  I wish that it could have seen a wide theatrical release (F-COVID), because this franchise deserves it.  I have to say that Alex Winter gives a better performance than Keanu Reeves, who seems a little wooden in his return to playing Ted Theodore Logan.  There's a couple other characters who steal the show.  Anthony Carrigan (of HBO's Barry fame) is hilarious as a time-traveling robot hellbent on killing Bill and Ted.  William Sadler's return to playing Death is also a highlight of the film.  If you're a fan of the series, it's definitely worth a view.  If not, I'd steer clear.