Double Dip - Knives Out & Uncut Gems Are Two Of 2019's Best

One of my earliest movie memories involved watching the great Murder On The Orient Express in middle school.  Why we were watching it, I have no idea, but I was hooked.  I spent the entire movie at the edge of my seat, desperately trying to figure out the murderer's identity.  We watched half of it before lunch and half after.  My classmates and I spent the entire lunch break discussing our theories.  From that moment on, I was hooked on the "Who-dunnit" format.  The problem with that is that Hollywood seemed to sour on the idea of the all-star murder mystery format.  Recently, Hollywood has tried to revive the format with Quentin Tarantino's The Hateful Eight and a remake of Murder On The Orient Express to mixed results.  They were either too long or just unwanted, but at least the format was making a comeback.

That's why I was pumped for Rian Johnson's Knives Out from the moment I saw the trailer.  I'm a little late in seeing this one, but I'm glad that I finally got an opportunity to watch it, because it might be the most fun I've had at the theater all year.

Knives Out is a bit of a comeback for Johnson after his polarizing, yet refreshing take on Star Wars (2017's The Last Jedi), and he doesn't disappoint as the director of this ensemble whodunnit.  You can tell he's freed from the weight that Star Wars brought upon him (and the legion of toxic fanboys who will never be satisfied).  He fills every frame in this movie with joy, humor and suspense, and the result is a top-notch movie that I hope revives the genre.

Knives Out doesn't stray too far from its format.  It picks up a week or so after the birthday party (and potential murder) of a successful murder mystery writer (played with an almost kid's like glee by Christopher Plummer), whose quirky family all stand to gain financially from his death.  There are many suspects and the spider's web that is woven together kept me captivated the entire time.  Without spoiling it, I will say that this movie is more of a how-dunnit than a traditional who-dunnit, but I enjoyed this particular twist.

The entire cast gets to shine in this one.  From Jamie Lee Curtis & Don Johnson and relative newcomer (to American films at least) Ana De Armas, to Chris Evans (in full a-hole mode here), Michael Shannon and LaKeith Stanfield, every actor seems like they're having the time of their lives.  Every character is richly developed and adds their own personal intrigue to the story.  Every performance could easily have stolen the movie, but I'd have to give that crown to Daniel Craig as the inspector hired to put the pieces together.  He is not above self-deprecation, but is seemingly in control the entire time.  His "Foghorn Leghorn" southern accent only adds to the laughs.

I can't say enough about this one.  If you have a chance to see it before awards season officially kicks in, you should definitely take that opportunity.

The other gem (pun intended) of a movie that I recently had the pleasure of watching was Uncut Gems.  It's an intense film from the Safdie brothers, a duo that have established themselves as master filmmakers after only a few movies.  Their previous film, Good Time, was one of my favorite films of the year that it came out and told a similar story of a down-on-his-luck criminal struggling to stay ahead of his bad decisions.

Uncut Gems ups the ante in every way from that film.  It features a never-better Adam Sandler, in the performance of a lifetime, as a degenerate gambler/jewelry dealer who can't seem to get out of his own way.  Did I mention that this movie is intense?  It starts with its foot on the gas and doesn't ever let up.  You can't help but white knuckle your seat when you sit through this.  It's shot and acted in such a frenetic way that it never stops to breathe.  I absolutely loved it and it just may be the best movie I've seen all year. 

Back to Sandler for a moment.  I realize that he's way past his prime as a comedic star.  He's responsible for some of the worst movies of all-time.  Audiences have abandoned him to the point where he had to go to Netflix to get his bro comedies made.  I'm not faulting him for that.  Hell, If I could goof around with my buddies and get paid for it, I would do it in a second.  However, when he manages to step out of his comfort zone, he usually delivers in a big way.  From Punch-Drunk Love, Spanglish and Funny People, to the underrated Reign Over Me, Sandler has proven that he's a more than capable dramatic actor.  He's unbelievable here.  I wish he'd take more chances in his acting choices going forward, but I wouldn't be excited if he lines up another Grown-Ups after this one.  I really can't laud his performance enough here.  He displays the right blend of sleaze and confidence here, while also slowly crumbling under the weight of decisions.  He definitely deserves to be (at the very least) nominated for his performance, and I think he should win outright.

You have to go see this one.  It will not disappoint and will certainly make my top 10 of the year.  I really can't see it dropping out of the top 2 or 3 of 2019 for me.

Naysayers Be Damned! The Rise Of Skywalker Is A Triumph

Star Wars, like everything else in 2019, has become polarized.  2017's The Last Jedi fractured the fan base almost to a point of no return.  People are vehement in their defense of (I'm in that category) or their hatred of that film.  Somehow Rian Johnson simultaneously sent the franchise in an exciting new direction while also murdering the childhood of countless (toxic) fanboys.  I, for one, loved that film.  Its primary message was "in order to move forward, you have to kill the past."  It was a bold new direction for the franchise that always looked to the past, and I was very excited to see where they were taking it.  Sure, there were flaws (Mary Poppins-Skywalker, anyone?), but damn if Rian Johnson wasn't afraid to take big, bold steps.  I guess I'm in the minority because Disney went back to the well with JJ Abrams (director of spectacular Force Awakens) to right the ship.  The Rise Of Skywalker is definitely more of a course correction than a step in a new direction, but holy moly is it a fun ride. 

I've long maintained that the biggest mistake Disney made with this new trilogy of films is that they didn't allow a singular vision to tell the complete story.  They were more concerned with pumping out a new film every two years than telling a cohesive story through a new trilogy.  I contend that if they let JJ direct the entire trilogy, there would be a lot less polarization in the fanbase.  The Force Awakens opened up a new set of characters and stories, while weaving in past favorites.  Last Jedi did the opposite.  It was as if Johnson was burdened by the other film rather than growing the story from it.  Important characters (well, at least we thought) were killed off without reason and other important characters spent their time middling through weird side quests (casino scene, I'm looking at you).  What Skywalker does smartly is get the band back together.  Rey, Poe, Fin, et al have always been stronger together, and this film proves that point to a T.

Skywalker opens up with a rumor of the return of Emperor Palpatine, and our yin and yang (Rey and Ren) homing in on his potential locations.  Battle lines are drawn as both The First Order and The Resistance move towards one final battle.  I don't really want to spoil anything, but there are some truly breathtaking battle and fight sequences in this one, and the story being told, while familiar, is downright entertaining.

Going back to our group of heroes, their chemistry shines in this one.  Finn and Poe bicker like a pair of brothers and the connection of Rey and Ren really drives this film to its spectacular conclusion.  That's not to say that the old guard doesn't get their moment in the sun.  This film weaves in the late Carrie Fisher (from a mix of deleted scenes from the first two films) admirably and she's given the send-off her character deserves.  The great Billie Dee Williams returns as everyone's favorite space playboy, Lando.  I couldn't help but cheer out loud during his scenes.  Nostalgia plays a big part in this film, but it never feels forced.

Returning to my original point of a fractured fan base.  It seemed like The Force Awakens had everybody screaming for joy, while The Last Jedi was a critical hit and a audience miss.  The Rise Of Skywalker is more of a return to safety, but I didn't mind the nostalgia romp.  JJ Abrams had the unenviable task of finishing the Skywalker saga, while also bringing the aliented fans back into the fold.  If the audience reaction from my screening tonight is any measure of success, then he did so on both fronts (there were a couple "thank you JJs" yelled as the credits rolled.).

I absolutely loved The Rise Of Skywalker.  It did a fantastic job of finishing off the Skywalker saga, and was a hell of a lot of fun.  As I said during my review of The Force Awakens... congratulations JJ, you made a triumphant film!  Go see it!

Joker Is A Scorcese Meets Kubrick Masterpiece

 A lot of the buzz surrounding Joker is how much it (and its star Joaquin Phoenix) resembles Taxi Driver.  And while that is mostly true, I couldn't help but think that this film owes a lot to Stanley Kubrick as well.  It reminded me a lot of A Clockwork Orange with a bit of 2001 and The Shining sprinkled in.  It's a very open-ended film and other than a few references to Gotham City and the Wayne family, you'd never know it was a comic book movie.  It's a genre elevating film and one of, if not the best films I've seen this year.

The other pre-release buzz about Joker is how controversial is.  How it glorifies Incel culture and will inspire countless copycat killers.  This couldn't be further from the truth, and the media is doing this country a disservice with the hysteria it's drumming up.  Director Todd Phillips is right when he complains of a double standard.   We're in the midst of the Keanu Reeves revolution, and yet John Wick 3 was one of the most disturbing movies I've seen in quite some time.  The hundreds of point-blank shootings in that film almost turned my stomach... and I'm a huge fan of action oriented movies.  Meanwhile Joker is a brilliant character study of one man's dissent into madness.  The violence in this film is not glorified by any means, and there are less than a handful of violent scenes in this one.  I get that a horrible tragedy will forever be linked with the Batman franchise, but to say that this film is dangerous is a flat out overstatement.

There's not enough words to describe how brilliant Phoenix's performance is in this film.  He fully committed to this role in a way we haven't seen in a long time.  It's clear from the opening scene that Arthur Fleck is a man with some serious mental problems.  His uncontrollable laugh causes him to get picked on and even beaten.  He's a man down on his luck, but also one with serious delusions of grandeur.  He fancies himself a standup comedian, but doesn't actually know how to tell a joke.  He dreams of being on the Murray Franklin Show (hosted by Robert DeNiro's character - essentially The Tonight Show, Gotham Edition), but he's a nobody... and he'll always be a nobody.

There are many parallels to our society in this film.  The rich eating the poor.  Our refusal to help the down and out.  Our insistence that "mental illness" is a problem without actually offering up a solution or wanting to do anything to fix the issue.  This movie is a cry for help that goes unanswered.

It's also a villain's origin story, and yes, there is violence, but this is by no means a celebration of that violence.  It's up to the viewer, and it's something that has stayed with me throughout the weekend.  It's my opinion that a lot of the "glory" in this film was actually the Joker's interpretation of his actions.  We're seeing it through his twisted eyes.  I really enjoyed that there can be many readings of this film.  How much of it actually happened and how much it happened inside Joker's head?  The opening and closing scene in this movie gave me more questions than answers.  It could have taken place entirely inside Joker's mind, or most likely, a mix of both.

Joker is not your average comic book film.  It barely resembles one at all, but it feels like a breath of fresh air to the genre.  Don't let the "controversy" sway you from seeing this wonderful film.  I already want to go see it again.

It Chapter 2 Is A Let Down From Chapter 1

There's a running motif throughout It Chapter 2, in which a character who plays a writer doesn't know how to end a story.  I couldn't think of a more appropriate (albeit too self-aware) way to describe this movie.  It Chapter 2 was always going to struggle with its finish, the way the 1990s miniseries did and (I'm told) the book does.  I had high hopes that the phenomenal team behind the 2017 remake would be able to write the ship, but alas, they weren't.  It Chapter 2 is a mixed bag of scares and cheese that never quite finds itself.

It Chapter 2 picks up 27 years after the events of the first movie.  The creature that haunts Derry is back and at it again.  People are once again going missing and its up to the Loser's Club to fulfill their youthful promise and return to put away Pennywise The Clown once and for all.  As you can imagine, the gang is hesitant to return.  They eventually do return and we're treated to a bunch of up and down performances.  The "famous" actors (James McAvoy, Jessica Chastain and the movie-stealing Bill Hader) are given the meatiest roles, while the other actors don't quite live up to the others on the top of the marquee.  The Losers' time away from Derry has caused them to forget the events of the past, so most of the first half of the movie is a catch-up of sorts, where the grown ups have to confront their past in order to gain the power to fight Pennywise.  The scares in these scenes, while formulaic, are some of the better moments of the movie.  Once these acts are completed, it's time for the final battle with the killer clown (portrayed, once again, by the fantastic Bill Skarsgard).

This is where the movie really struggles.  Most of the pre-release buzz about the movie dealt with the nearly three-hour run time.  I didn't notice it much during the first 2/3rds of the movie, but the "final" sequence (which in reality is about 20 "final" sequences) is where the movie drags.  I haven't read the book, but this movie apparently stuck fairly close to it.  I would have preferred a re-write that got Chapter 2 to a better, more succinct ending.

Another issue I had with this movie is the off and on CGI that filled some of the horror sequences.  There were breathtaking moments, for sure, but there were also a lot of "cheap" looking effects.  It took me out of the movie a decent amount of the time.  It's like they ran out of money for the special effects and just tried to patchwork certain scenes together.  The kids from the first movie appear a lot in this one in flashbacks and they used de-aging special effects on them to make them look like they did 2 years ago.  It was quite distracting, and something that I wish they had avoided.

I didn't hate Chapter 2, but I certainly felt it could have been better.  Skarsgard's Pennywise is in a league of its own, and the marquee actors (particularly Bill Hader) shine during large chunks of the film.  However, it wasn't enough to save Chapter 2 from its meandering ending that was at times too cheesy for its own good.

Hobbs & Shaw - This Movie Is Insane(ly) Fun

I continue to be amazed by the Fast & Furious franchise (Universe?), and that a movie about catching thieves who stole DVD players (remember those?) would spawn 7 direct sequels (with two more on the way) and its first spin-off in Hobbs & Shaw.  If you go back to the first few films, they definitely had a straight to DVD vibe about them.  They were nothing special and the producers could have easily ended the franchise after the forgettable Tokyo Drift. However, I'm glad they didn't, because we never would have been introduced to The Rock's best on-screen character, Luke Hobbs.  He was the Viagra that the F&F franchise needed and transformed the series from run-of-the-mill racing movies to James Bond in cars.  Sadly, like most great bands, these actors couldn't quite last.  The Rock and Vin Diesel essentially refused to be on set together in the 8th installment, and it doesn't look likely that they'll ever collaborate in a F&F film again.  Hey, if Axl & Slash can play in Guns N' Roses again, anything is possible.  Until that day, we'll probably get a slew of spin-offs to keep the characters active... and I'm OK with that.

Hobbs & Shaw is a movie that feels like an action film from a forgotten era.  It's a 90s-style thrill ride from start to finish, and a definite escape from real world madness.  To describe the plot of this film would probably be an insult to the word, "plot."  It essentially boils down to the following: Bad guy does bad guys stuff, and two former foes team up to stop him.

I've long been a fan of The Rock, the wrestler, and Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, the actor.  He has a natural charisma that not many people have.  He's a larger than life screen presence, both in the ring and on the silver screen.  My one quibble with him is that he needs to learn to say "no" to every role thrown at him.  For every Fast & Furious success, there's a Rampage or Skyscraper (legitimately one of the worst movies I've ever seen) that tanks.  Just because someone offers you something, doesn't mean you have to take it.  I think he needs to be more selective with the roles he chooses going forward.

On the other hand, Jason Statham has more misses than hits.  He works best when he has someone to play off of, and Hobbs is the perfect Yin to Shaw's Yang.  They spend the entire movie trading insults and somehow it never got old. 

Another bright spot to come out of this is that Idris Elba gets to shine as the villain.  He's a genetically modified human (you read that correctly) hellbent on taking over the world.  Elba is delightfully devious and gets plenty of room to shine here.

The final act is bat shit crazy (in the best way possible) and you have to see it to believe it.  There's a fight with cars, helicopters and tribal Samoan weapons.  I can't really describe the madness since it makes my brain hurt, but you can kind of get my point. 

Hobbs & Shaw is an insanely good time at the movies.  Stay tuned for a couple surprise cameos and, I believe, five post-credit scenes. 

Once Upon A Time In Hollywood Is The Least "Tarantino" Tarantino Movie - And That's A Good Thing!

Quentin Tarantino is, without a doubt, one of my favorite directors of all-time.  He's also a master of subverting expectations.  Think of Death Proof and the mid-movie twist, or how Kill Bill 2 was essentially a completely different movie than the first volume.  He's always keeping his audience guessing, and I love that about him.

I understand that he's a love it or leave it personality to most people, but I'm fully on board the "love it" train.  My one gripe about his filmography is that most, if not all, of his films can be considered homages to certain genres and film stars.  From war movies to kung-fu to westerns, his most recent films have been essentially "Tarantino does _____."  For the longest time (since Jackie Brown, really), I've wanted Quentin Tarantino to do an original, character driven story.  After watching his latest film, the sun-soaked and trippy, Once Upon A Time In Hollywood, I can share that my hopes have been rewarded.  Once Upon A Time In Hollywood is Tarantino's least flashy, more grounded film in years.  It's a film that catches you in a dream and made me want to watch it again immediately.

Once Upon A Time is essentially a few days in the life of Rick Dalton (a never funnier Leonardo DiCaprio) and Cliff Booth (a movie-stealing Brad Pitt), who are a washed-up actor and his forgotten stunt man.  The movie isn't really "about" anything, but rather a series of vignettes that culminate with a fateful night in the annals of Hollywood history.  It's a sublime piece of historical fiction, but a welcomed surprise for a movie buff wannabe like myself.

Your love for this film will largely boil down to your ability to sit through large chunks of "inside baseball" dialogue and scenes about the inner-workings of late 60's Hollywood.  Of course, Tarantino does his best with dialogue and scene building to entice even the most hardcore Tarantino cynics.  Both Dalton and Booth are some of the more three-dimensional leading characters that Tarantino's put together on film.  Dalton's insecurities and realizations about becoming washed-up seem to mimic Tarantino's own brush with film mortality (he's on the ninth of a planned 10 film career).  DiCaprio plays him with such gusto and with little self-awareness as to how foolish he is that it might just be my favorite performance of his illustrious career.  And Pitt has never been cooler on-screen (and that's saying a lot!).

A lot of fuss has been made about the lack of dialogue for Margot Robbie's Sharon Tate, but I think it's been unfounded.  Robbie has the unique inability to completely set a mood with a smile, and her performance here is no different.  The shadow of the Manson family hovers over this entire movie, but it doesn't detract from anything.  They're creepy by being minimally invasive, and I think Tate's innocence is the perfect antibody for them.

I'm not saying Once Upon A Time In Hollywood is a perfect film.  I'm not even quite sure where to rank it in Tarantino's filmography.  It's a film that requires repeated views to peel back all the layers.  It's definitely not for everyone and it's length (Tarantino's really struggled with length since the death of his longtime editor, Sally Menke) will surely turn people off.  In fact, I struggled with its pacing in the first act until I finally succumbed to its mood.  Just sit back and enjoy the ride, because it's a gorgeous one, and one that will only grow in stature as the years go by.  I'm not even ready to give it a star rating, but if someone offered me a ticket to go see it again today, I would jump on that offer in a minute.

Spider-Man: Far From Home - The Marvel Train Keeps On Rolling

**END GAME SPOILERS AHEAD**



I went into Spider-Man: Far From Home fully ready to write about Marvel fatigue, and how I couldn't possibly imagine the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) continuing after the death of multiple popular characters.  I, myself, was a little fatigued by the 3 hour epic that was End Game.  In fact, Far From Home was the first Marvel movie in a long time that I didn't see on opening night.  It's not that I'm done with the MCU, it's just that I needed a breather after End Game.  However, the machine doesn't stop and the train keeps on rolling... and I was totally and completely entertained by Far From Home, the perfect kick start to the next chapter in the MCU.

From the first scene, this movie serves as a mood setter.  Peter Parker's back from the dust, and back in school.  There's a hilarious scene to open the movie, where the in-school news program at Midtown Science pays tribute to the stars we lost in End Game.  It's perfectly "bad" in a high school television product kind of way.  I can't really do it justice by explaining it, so you'll just have to take my word for it.  Anyway, back to Peter Parker.  He's looking to relax after saving the world from Thanos, and he's looking forward to a much-deserved vacation.  He's hilariously planning on telling MJ (played with a millennial's charm by Zendaya) that he loves her during their upcoming trip to Europe.  The relationships between the teenagers in this film is a delight.  There's a sense of awkwardness to them in the best possible way.  However, Parker quickly realizes that his plan is not going to be a smooth one as the MCU (and Nick Fury) are not quite done needing Spider-Man's help.  He's Tony Stark's chosen replacement as the leader of the Avengers... and its something that Peter Parker struggles with.

Once the class gets to Europe, a mysterious space traveler named Mysterio appears (Jake Gyllenhal) and need's Spidey's help battling a series of Elementals (Essentially they're creatures made out of the four major elements).  I can't really explain Mysterio further than that since his character is shrouded in mystery (hey, that's in his name!), so I'll only say that Spidey will be tested like he's never been tested before, and his journey to Avengers' leader is a fun, action packed one.

Far From Home is a relentless charmer, and one that even the most skeptical MCU fans can't help but enjoy.  Tom Holland continues to be the best cinematic version of Spider-Man we've ever seen, and this one has me fully back on board the MCU train.  Stay tuned during and after the credits for two highly enjoyable sequences... one that features an old Spider-Man nemesis.  You won't be disappointed!

Toy Story 4 Doesn't Quite Reach The Series' High Water Mark - But It's Still An Absolute Delight

Wait... you were thinking that there wasn't any more life in the Toy Story franchise after the 3rd installment perfectly wrapped things up?  Well, think again.  Welcome to the age of ever-lasting franchises.  Buzz, Woody, and all our favorite toys are back in the 4th (and, I think, final) installment of the Toy Story franchise... and they're (almost) better than ever.

I, for one, didn't think that Pixar could pull this off.  I honestly thought that Toy Story 3 was the best movie of the year that it came out and that it legitimately deserved a chance at Best Picture.  It ultimately lost the the cute, but forgettable The King's Speech.  I dare you to find a more emotional moment in a feature film than Woody and Co. holding hands as they sank to their doom.  I don't often cry in movies, but I definitely choked up during this scene.  But the emotion wasn't done there.  (Spoiler Alert!!)  The passing of the toys from Andy to Bonnie at the end of that film perfectly ended their (Toy) story.

Fast forward 9 years.  Woody and the gang are settled in to their new lives as Bonnie's favorite toys.  However, something isn't quite right with Woody.  He's no longer the favorite and doesn't get picked to be played with.  He's stuck in the past and can't quite understand why he's not the #1 toy in Bonnie's life.  However, he's not the only one struggling.  Bonnie has to go to kindergarten, and she's unsure of this next milestone in her life.  Woody senses that she needs his help and stows away in her backpack on her first day of kindergarten. During her first day of kindergarten, Bonnie creates "Forky," her new favorite toy.  Yes, he's just a spork with feet, arms and a face, but it doesn't matter to Bonnie.  There's just one problem with Forky (voiced perfectly by Veep/Arrrested Development veteran Tony Hale)... he thinks he's trash, and wants to return to said trash can.  Woody, through trying to save Forky from self-harm, has found his new mission in life.  Obviously, the plan doesn't work out pefectly and, once again, our favorite toys are on the run and desperate to get back to Bonnie.  I don't want to ruin anything for you, but they end up at an antique store being hunted by nightmare-fuel inspired toys.  They meet new friends (most notably "Duke Caboom," voiced by MVP du jour Keanu Reeves), and must thwart their enemies to escape.

While this is all fun and games, and works perfectly well for kids, the Toy Story movies have always had a deeper meaning in them.  Toy Story 4 is no different.  It held a special meaning to me because it's essentially about growing older and saying good-bye to the past, while finding new meaning in your life.  As an almost 40-year-old, I found this message quite refreshing.  Toy Story 4 tells us to live life to your fullest.  You can honor and cherish your past, but it's important to find meaning and excitement in your present.  Woody's journey is emotional and heartwarming, and the ending will have you searching for your nearest box of tissues.

Toy Story 4 closes out the saga of Woody, Buzz & Company in a highly entertaining yet sweet and sincere way.  I'm kind of bummed that even this wonderful series has fallen victim to sequel fatigue.  It's the right kind of sequel and not an unnecessary cash grab (although my living room full of Toy Story toys begs to differ).  Maybe Avengers: End Game took all this summer's box office return out in its wake, but there does seem to be a real (and quite scary to moviegoers like me) downward trend at the box office.  I thought this movie would be a cure, but it appears to be another symptom of that trend.  Hopefully movie studios can right the ship, but with a full slate or sequels, remakes and reboots on the horizon, I'm not confident in their ability.

Avengers: End Game - Spoiler Free Review

We will never see a cinematic experience like the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU).  Many will try to copy it or emulate its success, but the MCU has been the most-successful, best produced series of films of all-time.  It's truly a marvel (pun intended) to behold.  However, like Avengers: End Game, to understand the present, we must look to the past.

Back in 2008, the world was a different place.  We were nearing the end of the disastrous George W. Bush presidency, and while comic book movies were popular, they still weren't considered essential viewing.  That all changed with a simple phrase... "I am Iron Man."  Robert Downey Jr., then a brilliant but formerly troubled actor, took up the mantle of Tony Stark/Iron Man, and the world was never the same.  Little did we know, but the original Ironman movie would go on to change how we view, not only comic book movies, but the film business in general.

Flash forward 11 years and 22 films later (including a monumental Best Picture nomination for Black Panther), and we are at a landmark moment in American cinema.  Avengers: End Game is the culmination of everything that has come before it and a conclusion to the MCU as we know it.  Sure, others will come after it, but we will never experience something like this current form of the MCU again.  That's not a spoiler, but rather a declarative statement.  End game feels like an and and a beginning and everything in between.  It's a wonder of a film and one of the best large scale blockbusters I have ever seen.

It's going to be hard to make a substantive review of End Game without spoilers, since major plot points start forming right from the get go, but I'll try my best.  End Game starts 5-years after the snap heard round the universe.  Humanity is still reeling from being halved in an instant, and this includes the remaining Avengers.  They're a group without a purpose and it's taking their effect.  I like how this film deals with a supposedly invincible group suffering its first major loss.  It makes for interesting character growth.  They're still searching for Thanos and looking for a way to avenge (see what I did there?) their friends and families.  Unfortunately, any more than that and we're canon-balling our way into the spoiler zone.  I will say this.  Thor steals this movie.  His full-on turn into comedy continues here and it's truly a sight to behold. 

I'm giving End Game 3.99 stars out of 4.  It's one of the best superhero movies ever made and it is the perfect capper to this run of MCU films.  At 3-hours, it could rub some people as overstuffed, but I didn't mind it one bit.  It ties together old story lines and current ones.  Its largely self-aware, but not in a way that damages the story.  It's an absolute delight to see.  Bravo to the entirely MCU team and the Russo brothers for pulling this off.

I'll give you one spoiler, though.  There is NOT a post-credit scene, so if your butt is going numb after 3+ hours, feel free to head out during the credits.

'Shazam!' Shows DC Isn't Afraid To Have Fun

If you could have one super power, what would it be?  We've all asked it.  We've all thought about it.  And that's essentially what Shazam! boils down to.  Fulfilling a childhood dream.  It's light, bright and fun throughout... essentially the exact opposite of the first run of DC Extended Universe (DCEU) films.  It was an absolute delight to sit through.  It knows it's silly, and it totally embraces it.

Shazam! fixes the biggest issue that people have had with the DCEU films to date... namely, that they're too dark and brooding.  I don't think this film could have worked had it adapted a serious tone.  This film tells the story of an orphan who happens to stumble upon a secret wizard lair, only to inherit all the wizard's strengths and powers.  There's one catch.  He appears as an adult version of himself and wears a silly suit and cape.  Zachary Levi shines as the superhero version of Shazam.  He plays the character with a child's sense of wonder and naivete.  He has to learn all of his superpowers, so we are treated to multiple "training" sequences.  Each funnier than the last.  The only downside to the endless training montages is that they really cut into the run time of the movie.  As with most DCEU films, the main villain is underdeveloped and (in my opinion) doesn't get enough screen time.  The final fight doesn't feel like it has the weight behind it that it should.  The other, non-Shazam, members of the cast are mostly serviceable.  They fill their roles nicely, but aren't anything to write home about.  This is really Zachary Levi's movie and he does a great job with it.

My complaints about this film are minimal, since it's so much damn fun.  It's a breath of fresh air to the superhero genre the way Guardians Of The Galaxy was.  In a way, it feel like a PG-13 rated Deadpool.  It's very aware of its own silliness, however it's not as self-reflective as Deadpool.

I'm giving Shazam! 3.1 stars out of 4.  There's a couple post-credit scenes to stick around for that set up the next film.  It's a barrel of laughs in a world that needs them.  Definitely check this one out.

Masterful 'Us' Warrants Repeat Viewings

The knock on Us, the new horror masterpiece from Jordan Peele, is that it's not Get Out.  I think that is totally unfair to this film and a director's previous work should not enter into the equation of whether or not a current film is good or not.  I get it that people want another Get Out... because that film was such a brilliant and audience pleasing thriller.  And because of its success, and the fact that it was his first film, Jordan Peele will always be measured up to it.  Just as M. Night Shyamalan films will always be mentioned in the same sentence as The Sixth Sense, Peele films will always be mentioned with Get Out, fairly or not.  I just don't want that film's success to take away from his brilliant sophomore effort, Us.  This film fires on all cylinders from beginning to end, that I almost wish that this was his directorial debut.  It's that good.  People need to stop trying to measure it up to Get Out. Us stands firmly on its own two feet, and will easily be in my top 5 for 2019.

Us is much less concerned with being a straight forward film.  It's ending is open ended and not as uplifting as Get Out.  It's only after you peal back the layers,  that you see there's much much more to this one.  It leaves much up to interpretation and our imagination.   Little of this film's deeper meanings are spoon fed to us.  I'm sitting here writing this review with a couple different interpretations of this film open in different web windows.  They all make sense, and yet they are not definitive interpretations.  This one hits closest to home for me.  There's breadcrumbs sprinkled throughout this film, that you'll only pick up with repeated viewings.

Us tells the story of a family that goes on vacation only to be attacked by their identical (albeit more psychotic) doppelgangers.  These doppelgangers (known as the tethered) want to kill and replace their other halves.  It's a 21st century Invasion Of The Body Snatchers, but with Peele's signature blend of horror and comedy.  It'll keep you on the edge of your seat, and never lets you get settled. 

Kudos to the stellar cast for pulling off the double duty, both as protagonists and chilling antagonists.  Lupita Nyong'o leads the way with her Oscar-worthy performance (I can't get her doppelganger's whispery voice out of my ears!).  Winston Duke, Elizabeth Moss and Tim Heidecker all shine playing both sides of their characters' personalities.

Like I said, Us warrants repeated viewings.  I'm already counting down the time until I can watch it again.  It cements Jordan Peele as a master filmmaker, and proves that original ideas can still thrive in today's world of blockbusters, sequels and remakes.  3.8 stars out of 4.

Julianne Moore Shines In The So-So Gloria Bell

There's a lot of movies where the performances (or a single performance) are greater than the film itself.  The most recent movie that comes to mind was Bohemian Rhapsody.... a "by the numbers" biopic of the late, great Freddie Mercury and Queen.  I honestly thought Rami Malik's performance was the only saving grace of that dull and flat film.  I know it nabbed a ton of Oscar nominations, but it was a wildly overrated film.  I bring this topic up, because I recently saw Gloria Bell and thought to myself, "wow, Julianne Moore is great in this!" while at the same time feeling that the movie wasn't as great as Moore.  I liked it a lot more than Rhapsody, but in the end, her performance is what stayed with me.

Gloria Bell is about a middle-aged divorced woman who works a boring insurance job, who spends her evenings dancing away at singles dances at night clubs.  She has children, who each have their own issues in life.  A son who is left to look after his child when his wife leaves him, and a pregnant daughter who is thinking about moving to Sweden with her baby-to-be's father.  There's a lot of fun family dynamic scenes that establishes each of the characters.  Moore's character meets another lonely soul played by the always fantastic John Turturro.  They form a connection, but there's something sad and lonely about Turturro's character that prevents their relationship from really blossoming.  He plays pathetic with gusto and is believable as a divorcee who hasn't quite moved on from his former marriage.  He's a coward and a bit of an obsessed lover, but Turtorro makes him believable.

The movie never quite took off the way I wanted it to, but it's worth seeing for Moore's (and to a lesser extent) and Turtorro's performances.  Gloria Bell is about a woman finding herself and gaining the strength and courage and comfort of self-love.  It's worth a viewing for anyone who wants to get away from the daily grind of life.  It's not a home run, but it's a solid double.  2.4 stars out of 5.

Captain Marvel Plays It Too Safe... And Wastes An Opportunity To Make A Great Movie

FYI, if you haven't seen Avengers: Infinity War yet, this post will ruin it for you.  Spoilers-A-Plenty.


Still here?  Good.  The last we left Nick Fury, he was using an old-school pager to call for some sort of help as he was flaking away into a Thanos-induced nothingness.  We didn't know who or what he was calling... until now.  The who in this particular scenario is Carol Danvers (aka Captain Marvel), an energy infused woman of mysterious origins.  Captain Marvel opens on the alien planet of HALA where the inhabitants are in the midst of an alien war.  Danvers' character is part of a group of warriors tasked with capturing and/or killing the Skrulls, a shape shifting alien race.  Eventually, her path leads her to earth in the 1990s, when she crash lands into a Blockbuster Video store (RIP).  Earth is where the majority of this film takes place.  She eventually crosses paths with a young Nick Fury (an enjoyable Samuel L. Jackson) and joins him for a mysterious source of energy that will win the alien war. 

For better or worse, Captain Marvel follows the successful Marvel formula.  It introduces new characters while tying it into the already established Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU).  However, that formula started to get a little stale.  Recently, films like , Guardians Of The Galaxy, Black Panther, Thor: Ragnarok and Ant-Man began to push new boundaries.  Each film and character had their own distinct personalities to them.  It looked like Marvel was loosening the reins on its directors, allowing them to create unique visions and experiences.  However, it looks like Marvel was a little timid giving Captain Marvel free rein in terms of tone and direction.  It takes place in the 90s, and yet it doesn't feel quirky enough.  It tries humor, but doesn't go far enough.  It has a strong female lead without giving her too much power or personality. 

Brie Larson does a good job portraying Captain Marvel and Annette Bening collects a paycheck as her mentor.  However, both are pretty bland characters that don't get to push the boundaries that their Oscar-worthy talents would allow them to do.  Sadly, this film feels like more of a Nick Fury origin story featuring Captain Marvel rather than a stand alone Captain Marvel film.  Don't get me wrong, Samuel L. Jackson is great in this movie (his interactions with a cat are a highlight of the MCU), but he's had ample films to flesh out his character, and it's not his film.

I wasn't all together disappointed by this film.  There were still great action pieces and sequences to keep me entertained.  I just wished Marvel allowed these filmmakers to push the boundaries more, rather than giving us a bland, safe origin story for the studio's first female-led movie.  It's also unfortunate that so much negativity has surrounded this film from the onslaught of negative reviews that online trolls have tried to heap upon this film.  I wish it was a stronger middle-finger to those snowflakes.

Captain Marvel is a good, but not great entry to the MCU.  There's a couple post-credit scenes to stick around for.  I hope this character is given more room to shine in Avengers: End Game.  2 out of 4 stars.

The Lego Movie 2 Is Less Awesome Than The First One... But Still A Lot Of Fun

The Lego Movie was an out of nowhere hit that has gone on to spawn two spin-offs (Lego Batman and Ninjago).  I didn't see that one in the theater, but have since come to love its irreverent charm and self-reflexive nature.  It was directed by Phil Lord and Christopher Miller and featured their distinct style and charm (See:  21 and 22 Jump Street).  They are only around as writers this time around and you can slightly feel their lack of presence with The Lego Movie 2.

It picks up 5 years after the events of the first film.  The alien invaders from the Sistar (this movie essentially shows how fun it is to play with your siblings, hence the "sis" in Sistar) system have rendered the "Everything Is Awesome" world of the first film to an apocalyptic wasteland.  Emmitt, the hero of the first film (voiced by Chris Pratt), seems to be the only one having a good time anymore.  Everyone else has become a brooding shell of themselves, including Emmitt's girlfriend Wyldstyle (voiced by the always likable Elizabeth Banks).  As far as plot goes, that's really all I can go into detail about because, like the first one, this film is all over the place.  It essentially boils down to this.  Queen Whatevra Wannabe (a delightful Tiffany Hadish) must marry Batman to join the two universes before they're locked away in the Bin of Storage (mom's going to take away the toys if you kids can't get along!).  If this all sounds silly to you, that's the point.  The film is essentially a series of vignettes showcasing the various voice talents.  It knows the audience is largely in on the joke and that's a big part of the fun. 

Like I said in my title, The Lego Movie 2 isn't quite as fun as the original.  There's a lot of fun parts to it, but the pieces don't quite come together cohesively enough for me to rate it as high as the original.  However, it's a great family movie that audiences, both young and old, can enjoy together.  I'm giving it 2.75 stars out of 4.  There's some fun songs and amusing moments with Batman (the true star of the series) that will have you laughing long after the (enjoyable) credits roll.

Speaking of family... My favorite part of this movie was that I got to take my son to it for his first theater experience.  I was worried he wouldn't sit through the entire movie, but I'm proud to say that he did.  Movie going has been such a passion of mine that I'm really happy to add my son to it.  He did ask how much longer we had about an hour and twenty minutes into it, but didn't get too antsy.  It does drag a little at the end as it tries to put everything together, but at no point was I bored.  I've dreamed of taking my son to the movies since before I had him and now I can't wait to see more movies with my new movie buddy.  He already wants to go see the How To Train Your Dragon sequel next weekend.

The 6th Annual Oscar-Pick-A-Palooza With Adam Howard

Film blogger extraordinaire Adam Howard are back at it with our sixth annual Oscar-Pick-A-Palooza.  I can't believe another year has passed, but here we are.  We've been emailing back and forth for the past month and have our picks for all the top Oscar categories.

Adam:  I'm kind of bleh -- like 50% happy 50% mad, 200% like this is what I expected. It's so fascinating to me how there's just these narratives that everyone accepts and like therefore Ethan Hawke doesn't get one for the BEST performance of his career. 

Brian:  I'm actually floored by these nominations.  Sure, the Golden Globes always seem to nominate films and actors to get "stars" into the room on event night.  Look at Johnny Depp being nominated for Mordecai.  I always take their winners with a grain of salt because, while an enjoying show, the Globes are never really a metric to rely on.  However, I'm seeing a weird trend this year.  Like you've said, for whatever reason (and I'm searching for answers), these are the films that have been settled upon.  We've got Vice (63% Rotten Tomatoes & 61 Metacritic score) , Bohemian Rhapsody (62% RT & 49% MC), and Green Book (82% & 70% MC) lurking all over these nominations.  Are they front runners?  Are we headed for a Best Picture winner that's worse than the infamous Crash debacle?  I can't recall a weirder year for movies than 2018, but here we are.    Like I said, #OscarsSoWTF.  Anything can happen. The Oscars have no host.  Major cinematic achievements are getting the cold shoulder and a superhero movie has cracked the list for Best Picture (even though the stars and director got left out in the cold)  Speaking of snubs... For the first time I can remember, I can honestly say that it feels like there's legitimate and baffling snubs in each category... and not just because of an odd person out type situation.  Hollywood has a chance to nominate some fresh and exciting performances that, in a banner year for films, wouldn't get recognized.  Instead, they played it safe again.  We'll get to those during the picks, as well as who we think will and should win.  Both of our best of 2018 lists are out and for the most part we enjoyed the same crop of movies.  As always, you've seen way more of these than I have, but our lists are pretty close.  Welcome back to the 6th (!) edition of our Oscar Pick-A-Palooza.  Let's get after it.

Our first category is Best Supporting Actor.  I feel like there's a giant sized Black Panther hole here, which will be a recurring theme throughout this back and forth.  Sam Rockwell was another surprise to me.  Dubya was portrayed better and more sincerely by Josh Brolin in Oliver Stone's movie.  I believe you called it a above average in your Daily Beast article.  I'm glad to see Sam Elliott finally break through with a nomination for his emotional "brother of an addict on his last straw" performance in A Star Is Born.  It was weird to see Mahershala Ali in as a supporting actor in what was essentially a co-lead performance in Green Book.  Adam Driver was great in BlacKkKlansman, but it hurts to see the heart and soul of that movie, John David Washington, left out.  

Here are the nominees:

Mahershala Ali, Green Book

Adam Driver, "BlackKKlansman"

Sam Elliott, "A Star Is Born"

Richard E. Grant, "Can You Ever Forgive Me"

Sam Rockwell, "Vice"

Who Will Win: Honestly, I don't know.  I feel like Green Book will Crash (see what I did there?) its way into the winner's circle, so I'm going with Ali.

Who Should Win: Of the people nominated, I'm going to go with Sam Elliott.  He deserves it for the scene in which Bradley Cooper's character tells him that he admired Elliott's character his hole life alone, but he was so good throughout.

Snub/Surprise:  The answer here is, of course, Michael B. Jordan in Black Panther.  There hasn't been a better, more developed superhero villain performance than Killmonger in Black Panther.  I'm also going to throw out anyone in First Man for this.  I'm still completely bewildered by the complete lack of Oscar love for First Man.  It has all the ingredients (Oscar favorite director?  Check.  Stellar cast?  Check.  Biopic?  Check.) to score a ton of nominations and yet it fell flat.

Who takes home your Supporting Actor statue?

Adam:  I don't disagree with your assessment at all. I think it's just that at this point I'm so used to being disappointed by Oscar nominees that I am almost more surprised when they get it right -- like with Moonlight a couple years ago. This year, it seemed like more than ever certain movies were crowned early, and several strongly reviewed releases (like First Man, which I also really loved) were just never given a chance to get any traction. 

I guess it'll be a more exciting year than most results-wise, since it doesn't feel like there is any definitive front-runner in a lot of the categories, including Best Picture. I was of course pleased to see my favorite movie of the year, Black Panther, got recognized, even if it wasn't as honored as I would have liked. And it's a pleasure to finally see Spike Lee honored as a Best Director nominee ever -- which is insane -- and marks the first time black directors were nominated for two years in a row. Unfortunately some strong work by several female directors like Lynne Ramsey (You Were Never Really Here) were completely ignored.

This year felt like one step forward (The Favourite) and two steps back (Vice and based on what I've heard, Bohemian Rhapsody). There are a handful of the big nominees I haven't seen like The Wife and Cold War, but I have a decent sense of how they'll fare. At the end of the day the two nominations I wanted to see the most -- Ryan Coogler for Best Director and Michael B. Jordan for Best Supporting Actor -- didn't happen. And so I'm left to root for mostly films and people who likely going to come up empty handed.

Of the folks who did make the cut -- I'm mostly fine with the choices with the exception of Rockwell, who is barely in Vice and who pushed out meatier, more compelling performances. 

Will win: Mahershala Ali.  He has managed to stay about the fray when it comes to the controversies and backlash surrounding Green Book (a film I've avoided). He's a fantastic actor, and I hear the best thing in the film. The one thing maybe working against him is that he just won two years ago, but that didn't stop a recent repeat winner like Christoph Waltz

Should win: Sam Elliott. Of these final contenders, I think his performance was the most effective and really elevated the movie he was in. I too quite liked Adam Driver's work in BlacKkKlansman, he's a great, underrated actor who will be a contender for years. And Richard E. Grant was very good in a role he was born to play, but this feels like the best part of Elliott's career. It'd be cool to see him win for it.

Snubs/Surprises: It mystifies me that Michael B. Jordan has still never been Oscar nominated. It's not like he has a bad reputation. This is the third unforgivable snub in a row after Fruitvale Station and Creed. Hopefully, someday soon he'll get his due. If Widows had hit bigger, it might have been possible for Daniel Kaluuya's bone-chilling villain from that movie to make it. And I know this isn't a widely held opinion, but I really thought Sylvester Stallone was just as moving in Creed II as he was in the first one.

Adam:  I'll get us started on the next category -- the one almost always seems like a foregone conclusion (ever noticed that?) -- Best Supporting Actress. As per usual, there were an embarrassment of riches in terms of great female supporting performances, although quite a few, also as per usual were overlooked.

Here are the nominees:

Amy Adams, “Vice”
Marina de Tavira, “Roma”
Regina King, “If Beale Street Could Talk”
Emma Stone, “The Favourite”
Rachel Weisz, “The Favourite”

I think the malaise I feel about this year's awards reflects just a lack of imagination on their part. Sure more unconventional movies like Black Panther and BlacKkKlansman are in the mix, but then there are a lot nominations that feel like gimmes -- like Amy Adams in Vice. Don't get me wrong -- I love Amy Adams and hope she wins one eventually, but this role isn't worthy of a nom, I'm sorry.

But, other than that one I don't have a lot of quibbles with this list. Marina de Tavira got in surprisingly for her very effecting performance in Roma, which squeezed out the anticipated nod for Claire Foy, who really was excellent in First Man -- totally upending the cliched astronaut wife role. And I was thrilled to see the double nom of stars from The Favourite -- one of my favorite movies of the year. I don't know how that movie is going to do overall -- it's way too dark and quirky to win any of the big ones. But I digress.

Who will win: Regina King, If Beale Street Can Talk

Everyone loves her, rightfully so. She's one of those people that everyone presumes MUST have won an Oscar by now. True story I once won a $50 bet with a boss of mine, years ago, over whether she had ever even been nominated (she hasn't). She's taken most precursor awards and is a warm and lovely presence in the movie -- probably the most grounded, accessible thing about it,

Who should win: Regina King If Beale Street Could Talk

This is a closer call for me that you might think. If Emma Stone hadn't just won for La La Land, I might be rooting for her in this category, because I think this is the performance of her career to date. I'd call it Gravity syndrome -- someone wins for a far inferior role (think Sandra Bullock in The Blind Side) and then lose for a much better performance years later that actually was worthy of a victory (think Sandra Bullock in Gravity). And Rachel Weisz is her equal in probably the least showy role of the three Favourite leads. But both actresses have trophies (Weisz won for The Constant Gardner, again, I think the Gravity syndrome applies there, too) and King is long overdo (she's the BEST thing in Jerry Maguire, seriously).

Snubs/Surprises: Rather a lot really. Claire Foy, for sure. I loved First Man, and like you and mystified as to why audiences and awards shows didn't. Foy was the one part no one seemed to have an issue with but alas no Foy. I also think that Nicole Kidman deserved consideration for her terrific work in Boy Erased (And Russell Crowe was great too, should have mentioned him in the supporting column). 

There was some talk of Emily Blunt getting in for A Quiet Place, but I figured she'd get in for Mary Poppins Returns, she got neither and I was bummed because she was stellar in both. Something tells me she will eventually get her Glenn Close consolation Oscar.

For all the -- well deserved -- hype around Michael B. Jordan in Black Panther, I was always mystified as to why there was never any talk of nominated Letitia Wright for her role as Shuri. Certainly, it was more of a comedic role, but she stole every scene she was in and ended up being a real iconic character, too.

Brian:  Ha!  I would have lost that bet with you because I, like your old boss, assumed that she had already been nominated.  I also forgot that she was in Jerry Maguire, but now I can't get her out of my mind from that one (in a good way!).  I do like your Gravity syndrome as it happens a lot (look at Martin Scorcese finally winning for The Departed.).  Hell, look at Leo DiCaprio winning for The Revenant.  I also agree that this category has historically felt like a foregone conclusion, with this year being no different.  

I'm also in agreement with you on how this category has 4 strong performances and a meh Amy Adams nomination that probably should have gone to someone more imaginative.  We're on the same page with this year being, for the most part, the "play it safe" Oscars.

Who Will Win:  Regina King.  She's cleaning up in the lead up to the Oscars and I have no reason to believe this one will be any different.

Who Should Win:  I haven't seen The Favourite, so I can't speak on that, so if it's not going to be King, I'd go with Marina De Tavira.  Maybe I have a soft spot for strong single mothers (since I came from one), but I was absolutely floored by her performance as a woman trying her best to keep a straight face in the middle of a marriage meltdown.

Snuts/Surprises:  While I really liked Letitia Wright in Black Panther, I'd go with Danai Gurira for her performance as the badass warrior, Okoye.  I'm seeing Boy Erased next week, and I can't wait to see Kidman's performance in it.

Up next, Best Actor...

Brian:  The Best Actor category is puzzling to me.  And this is where I base my #OscarsSoWTF hashtag.  How can an actor (Ethan Hawke) that's currently doing very well in the pre-Oscar run-up be completely left out?  His performance in First Reformed is not only one of the year's best... it's a career defining role!  I just don't get it.  I'm puzzled at the other nominations.  We've seen a body transforming performance from Christian Bale before Vice, so I'm not all that jazzed about this one.  Rami Malek is the presumptive front runner for his take on the late, great Freddie Mercury, and  yet, I can't help but wonder what that film (and performance) would have looked like had Sasha Baron Cohen not dropped out.  I'm glad that Bradley Cooper is getting some love for his performance (even though he got snubbed as a director).  I can't really speak on Willem Dafoe's performance, though I've heard good things.  

I feel like there is a laundry list of actors who have a genuine beef as to why they were left out.  Anyway, on to the nominations...

Christian Bale (Vice)
Bradley Cooper (A Star Is Born)
Willem Dafoe (At Eternity's Gate)
Rami Malek (Bohemian Rhapsody)
Viggo Mortensen (Green Book)  

Who Will Win:  Rami Malek.  The Oscars love a music biopic (see: Foxx, Jamie & Witherspoon, Reese), and Malek seems poised to take home this one.  I haven't seen the movie yet, but I heard he does a really good job portraying Mercury.  

Who Should Win:  Anyone but Viggo Mortensen!  Of the people nominated, I'd go with Bradley Cooper.  He's delivered a string of Oscar quality performances and I think he gave a genuinely moving performance in A Star Is Born.  I thought this film would clean up, but it seems to be more of an afterthought this year.  Speaking of afterthoughts... what the hell happened with First Man???  I thought Ryan Gosling was a lock for this category, but the voters seem to have passed this film by.  Robert Redford's (supposed) final acting role was overlooked as well.  Finally, John David Washington deserved a nomination for BlacKkKlansman.

Snubs/Surprises:  Hawke.  It's not even close.  

Who ya got?

Adam:  This was the category (and perhaps Best Picture, too) that I think most people were really frustrated with, and rightfully so. Besides Hawke, who I agree gave a career-best performance -- one of the most memorable of the year -- in the criminally under-appreciated First Reformed, there were several other performances I'd like to see here instead of the ones that are here.

I actually disagree with you the Rami Malek is the front-runner. I might have thought so two weeks ago, but the recently resurrected allegations against Bryan Singer, which were exhaustively explored in a recent article in The Atlantic. In the wake of this piece, which makes a compelling case that Singer has been sexually abusing young men and boys for decades -- there have been a lot of pointed questions about what did Malek know and when did he know it. He's claimed he was unaware of Singer's reputation when he took on the role of Freddie Mercury in Bohemian Rhapsody -- but a lot of folks are calling B.S. on that.

Aside from that, despite its blockbuster grosses, the movie has a mixed-to-bad reception and even though Malek is widely seen as the best part of the film (I haven't seen it yet, so I can't judge), I think the whole production has become to problematic to embrace in any way. But, I could be wrong.

I hear a lot of folks saying Bale is the lock to win, which seems even stranger to me. He's terrific in Vice, a movie that I have a lot of issues with. But he's already won for The Fighter and I can't remember someone winning Best Actor for a movie as critically divisive as that one, although the academy clearly liked it because they nominated it for a boatload of top honors, including Best Picture and Director. So maybe he's got a real shot.

No one has seen At Eternity's Gate, literally no one. I think it doesn't exist. We all love Willem Dafoe, it's a travesty that he doesn't have an Oscar. He should have won for The Florida Project, and hopefully he'll get one someday. But it ain't happening. I'm sure Viggo Mortenson is good in Green Book, and he's also due, but that movie also feels too toxic to reward, especially in this category featuring its white star.

Who will win: Bradley Cooper, A Star Is Born ... All of which leads me to the guy who for most of the year I was reading was a practical guarantee to win for Best Actor. He's been nominated a bunch of times and never won, and this is arguably the best performance of his career. I'm not sure how this movie and this performance sort of faded away for people... I don't know if the movie peaked too early. But since he was snubbed for Director and this was very much his (and Lady Gaga's) achievement -- I think they'll find a way to reward him and the movie here.

Who should win: Bradley Cooper, A Star Is Born - I say this with the caveat that many of the best leading man performances from this year were totally snubbed. I haven't seen Malek, Dafoe and Mortenson's work -- so I could be wrong -- but it feels like a worthy victory for Cooper.

Snubs/Surprises - Where to begin here. Again, Ethan Hawke in First Reformed is the most shocking one. I really would have loved to see Robert Redford get in for his career capping performance in The Old Man & The Gun, sadly it looks like he'll never get an acting Oscar in his career. I think Clint Eastwood gave a wonderful comic performance tinged with melancholy in The Mule. It would have been cool to recognize John David Washington's subtle work in BlacKkKlansman or Joaquin Phoenix's haunted performance in You Were Never Really Here.

Brian:  I'm sticking with my Malek front runner prediction... especially after he took home the SAG award last night.  I think the Singer accusations, while horrible, are too late to derail his momentum.  We'll see.

Speaking of front runners... we're on to the next category... Best Actress.  I think this category is practically a one person race, which I'll get to in my predictions.  I also think that the academy generally got it right  with this category.  A case could be made for Emily Blunt's joyous performance in Mary Poppins Returns, but was she that much better than the other women nominated?  I'm not so sure.  I'm really glad that Yalitza Aparicio got the nod for her quiet yet brilliant performance in Roma.  Before the pre-Oscar run-up,  I thought Lady Gaga was a shoo-in to win this one.  However, it looks like this one's a lock for Glenn Close.  Speaking of pre-Oscar run-up, these award shows steal all the fun and surprise from the Oscars.  We basically know who is going to win ahead of time.  I think it's a large reason why people are turning away from watching the Oscars.  I know I'm less interested in watching the ceremony than I was even a couple years ago.  Perhaps the Oscars should look into moving the ceremony ahead of the SAG, PGA, Golden Globes, etc.?

Here are the nominees:

Yalitza Aparicio (Roma)
Glenn Close (The Wife)
Olivia Colman (The Favourite)
Lady Gaga (A Star Is Born)
Melissa McCarthy (Can You Ever Forgive Me?)  

Who Will Win:  Glenn Close.  This category feels like a coronation for Close.  She's cleaning up so far and I see no reason that the Oscars will be any different.  It would be a nice topper to a brilliant career.

Who Should Win:  I haven't seen The Wife yet, so by all accounts Glenn Close deserves all the accolades coming her way.  However, I was absolutely blown away by Yalitza Aparicio in Roma.  She deserves it for the birthing scene (and I don't want to spoil it for anyone) alone, which was one of the most emotionally intense scenes I've seen in a movie in a long time.  Lady Gaga also gave a great performance in A Star Is Born, but I feel like Bradley Cooper had the meatier role.  Gaga tied with Close at the PGA awards, so there's a chance she could win the Oscar.

Snubs/Surprises:  I know the Academy generally stays away from "weird" sci-fi, but Annihilation was my favorite movie of the year and I'm upset at the lack of Oscar love it received.  I know her role wasn't as showy as some of her other previously nominated roles (Black Swan and Jackie), but I loved Natalie Portman in Annihilation and would have liked to have seen her name included.  

Are we in agreement with this one?

Adam:  This was a very solid group to be sure. I guess the only surprise was that Yalitza Aparicio got in -- and that wasn't too huge a surprise, since she is the heart and soul of Roma. I do think this is  -- probably -- the one forgone conclusion of the night in a year that is weirdly unpredictable. For instance, does last night's SAG win for Best Cast now make Black Panther the front-runner now? I don't know.

The precursor thing can be weird to be sure, and I guess SAG is a better indicator than most. For me, I don't usually watch the Oscars in suspense. I just like moving acceptance speeches -- they always get me and I think the winner of this category will deliver a doozy.

I do know that you're right that Glenn Close has emerged as the clear front-runner. Lady Gaga was really remarkable in A Star Is Born, a part -- forgive me -- she was 'born' to play. I think she'll probably have to prove herself again like Cher did in Moonstruck after her initial nomination for Silkwood before the academy fully embraces her. I also think her consolation prize will be the Best Song category -- and she will be well on her way to I'm sure will be an inevitable EGOT. Everyone else, though terrific, will have to wait their turn. 

Aparcio is a great discovery and will hopefully get more opportunities. Melissa McCarthy was very good in a movie I had some quibbles with and in a role that was hard to make even a little sympathetic. I haven't seen The Wife, but I've always been a Close fan, so I'm intrigued. But I am all about Olivia Coleman this year. More on that in a sec.

Who will win: Glenn Close, The Wife. Close has clearly been gunning for the Oscar for decades now. Her last attempt with 2012's Albert Nobbs came up short but this year feels different. She's been so great for so long -- that Golden Globes speech just sealed it. And I'm happy for her. She's so terrific in roles as wildly different as Fatal Attraction and The Natural. Looks like seventh time is the charm.

Who should win: Olivia Coleman, The Favourite. I don't know about 'should' -- all of these people are worthy (unlike Best Actor) -- I just have to go with the performance I enjoyed the most and that would be Coleman's tour-de-force work in The Favourite. She's alternately funny, pathetic, sad, tragic, manipulative and doomed. It's a really amazing piece of work and I hope she continues to get juicy parts like this.

Snubs/Surprises - This is a pretty stacked category but I'd be lying if I said I wouldn't have been thrilled if Toni Collette had made it in for Hereditary or if Viola Davis got in for Widows. For a while, it looked like Emily Blunt would be nominated for her luminous movie star performance in Mary Poppins Returns. But yeah, this is a hard group to find fault with. At least Meryl Streep isn't in there for the 100th time (and don't get me wrong, I love her).

Brian:  We're in the home stretch with only two categories to go.  Up next, we have Best Director, which is a category that's in a bit of an odd predicament.  They've expanded the Best Picture nominees to 10, but have kept the directors at 5 nominees.  This has lead to its fair share of snubs and surprises in recent years (most notably Ben Affleck missing a nomination for eventual Best Picture Argo).  I've also noticed a trend in split Best Picture/Director winners.  Whereas these two categories used to go hand in hand, we've seen a split in recent years.  After a discussion with my co-worker, I've changed my mind on this as well.  I used to lump the Best Picture and Director together because I felt that a Best Picture had to be the best directed film.  However, my coworker is a much more visual person and he likens directing to being able to tell a story without a script.  He places shot selection and imagery as a more important part of directing than the plot.  Honestly, I can see it both ways.  If you look at The Revenant, that was a beautifully directed movie, but not necessarily the best movie of the year.  Same with Gravity, The Life of Pi, etc.

I could see a split scenario occurring this year, especially if Black Panther uses its SAG momentum to catapult it to a Best Picture win.  The only directing nod that I could see ending up with Best Picture is Roma, so this is a very interesting category... with a few glaring snubs.

Here are the nominees:  

Alfonso Cuaron (Roma)
Yorgos Lanthimos (The Favourite)
Spike Lee (BlacKkKlansman)
Adam McKay (Vice)
Pawel Pawlikowski (Cold War)  

Who Will Win:  I'm torn on this.  I think that Alfonso Cuaron will win for his epic-in-scale, yet personal in story film, Roma.  However, he's already won for Gravity, and I don't see Roma with a ton of momentum going in to these Oscars.  It could be the film that ends up cleaning up in the "lesser" categories, but fails to notch any of the big awards.  I think that Spike Lee might just pull this one off for his long overdue nomination for BlacKkKlansman.  Is it his best film?  No.  However, I would liken this to Scorcese finally winning for The Departed.  Maybe it's just the time for Spike Lee.

Who Should Win:  Again, it's between Cuaron and Lee for me.  I wouldn't be disappointed if either won.  Same with Yorgos Lanthimos for The Favourite.  

Snubs/Surprises:  My two biggest snubs are Ryan Coogler for Black Panther and Alex Garland for Annihilation.  Coogler basically turns everything he touches in to gold and I'm really upset he was left out here.  Would he have been included if they had expanded the directing field?  Probably.  That Adam McKay nomination really chaps my ass because there were much more deserving people left out.  Alex Garland may be the most underrated director working today.  He's Denis Villeneuve without the critical acclaim.  Yeah, he makes "weird" sci-fi movies, something the Academy has never really warmed up to, but he's a hell of a director and someone I hope people come around to more as his career progresses.

Who takes home your top directing award?

Adam:  I thought this was perhaps the most underwhelming category besides Best Actor. I guess the biggest surprise was Pawel Pawilkowski for Cold War, which I haven't seen, but is supposed to be terrific. The lack of female nominees is glaring as is the lack of recognition for directors whose films have made it into the Best Picture race. I agree there are a lot of glaring snubs, although of course as a longtime Spike Lee fan, it is nice to see him finally recognized after all these years. I am not someone who gets hung up on whether someone wins for the best movie or best performance. I love The Departed, so I'm fine with Scorsese winning for that and I thought BlacKkKlansman was a great comeback movie for Lee, even though he should have been nominated and won for Do the Right Thing 30 years ago.

Who will win: Alfonso Cuaron. That being said I think with some major would-be contenders like Bradley Cooper on the sidelines, I think Cuaron has this locked up. He seems to be cleaning up in the precursor awards, and his semi-autobiographical film is very much his personal vision. He has already won once -- deservedly -- for Gravity, and this epic film further demonstrates his skill and range. I always like to see the wealth spread around at the Oscars (I was bummed when Inarritu won two years in a row), but I think few will quibble with this result.

Who should win: This is tough one for me too. I have immense respect for Cuaron and I'd love to see Spike Lee win, but my favorite film represented in this category is ironically The Favourite, so I'm gonna go with Yorgos Lanthimos, a filmmaker I have not totally embraced until now. His bleak, darkly comic style grated on me in the past but I thought this film got the balance of darkness and light just right and I think his film is the best directed of this bunch.

Snubs/Surprises: For me its gotta be Ryan Coogler. Black Panther would have been just another superhero movie without him and he imbued that movie with so much style and sophistication, it's just a travesty that he was never a real contender here. I actually think Bradley Cooper deserved to get in for A Star Is Born, a wonderful and moving re-interpretation of a classic showbiz tale. I haven't been singing First Man's praises as much as I've meant to but for me Damian Chazelle demonstrated with that movie that he is too good to ignore. Lynne Ramsey did excellent work on You Were Never Really Here. The Coens did more effortlessly great work with The Ballad of Buster Scuggs. But, I'm just glad Peter Farrelly and Bryan Singer didn't get in for fairly obvious reasons.

Brian:  I, too, am glad that Peter Farrelly and Bryan Singer didn't get nominated.  Singer's fall from grace is a real disappointment to me because 1) his alleged actions are so despicable and 2) I've really enjoyed his films.  I get separating the art from the artist, but it's really hard to watch his films anymore.  The Usual Suspects, which is one of my favorite movies of all-time, now has the added Singer stink on top of it in addition to Kevin Spacey.  Yeah, there were rumblings about Singer before, but they were never really this loud.

OK, moving on to our final category: Best Picture.  This ties in to my previous statement because we have a Singer directed (but not finished) film in Bohemian Rhapsody.  A film that I said in my initial email that's a in the 50s as far as critical praise, and yet might actually win this thing.  That, coupled with Vice and its 60% rating, could lead us to the worst critically praised Best Picture winner of all-time.  I'm not sure it happens, but there's a chance and that is totally weird to me.  This category is another WTF category with some major snubs and surprises.  On the good side, we're living in year 10-11 of The Dark Knight rule and we finally have our first superhero movie nominated for Best Picture (Black Panther).  We've got a Spike Lee movie getting love (BlacKkKlansman) in a way that we haven't seen with one of his films in years.  We've also got another signature Alfonso Cuaron masterpiece (Roma), which signaled Netflix's emergence as a legitimate awards season player.  However, I can't get past all the stinkers in this category (Vice, Bohemian Rhapsody and Green Book) that are here at the expense of other, better films.  This category is allowed to go up to ten films, and yet we don't have a full slate of nominees.  I honestly don't understand this rule and its criteria for getting films nominated.

Here are the nominees:

Black Panther 
BlacKkKlansman 
Bohemian Rhapsody 
The Favourite 
Roma 
Green Book
A Star Is Born 
Vice

Who Will Win:  Honestly, it's anyone's guess.  We saw Black Panther jump up the list after its SAG upset.  I also can't shake this feeling that Bohemian Rhapsody has a chance, warts and all.  If I had to guess, I would go with Roma or A Star Is Born.  Roma is a note perfect film that shows you don't need a "big" story to make a sprawling epic.  A Star Is Born is a great film that I thought would make a bigger splash than it has.

Who Should Win:  Black Panther was an epic film with rich and complex characters and a great story to boot.  If we're ever going to see a superhero movie win Best Picture, this is the year.

Snubs/Surprises:  Where do I begin?  First Man and Hereditary have legitimate claims for those final two spots.  Both were critical darlings that somehow just didn't connect with audiences at the Box Office.  I feel like we'll be talking about Hereditary the same way we do other classic horror films in 10-15 years.  Eighth Grade somehow didn't get the Lady Bird quirky comedy slot like last year.  First Reformed was another major snub that was inexplicably overlooked in this and other categories.  For me, the biggest snub was Annihilation, my favorite movie of 2018.  I've seen it a few times and each time I get something more out of it.  I know the Academy typically overlooks "weird" sci-fi system, but I really wish it wouldn't.  I was hooked from the moment I saw this film, and I really wish it received more recognition for the masterpiece I believe it to be.

So there you have it.  Who takes home your top prize?

Finally, thanks again for doing this with me.  I really enjoy it and I can't believe we're already in year 6 of this.  

Adam:  Yeah I am still a fan of The Usual Suspects,  but there's no doubt that its legacy has taken a beating. And oddly enough, despite the widely reported, credible allegations against him, he's somehow managed to be signed on to direct a remark of the Schwarzenegger cult film Red Sonja. I'll never understand why people like him and Mel Gibson keep getting second, third and fourth chances while others are rightfully pushed off-stage for good.

On a more positive note, I think last year was a great year for films and I saw a lot of work that really inspired me and moved me -- for instance, Spider-Man Into the Spider-Verse was such a euphoric cinematic experience for me that it truly lifted my spirits and restored my faith in the future of movies.  That'd being said I don't feel a lot of 2018's best were represented in the Best Picture category. I agree that Vice and Bohemian Rhapsody are two of the worst reviewed nominees since they expanded the category (I think the worst rated ever was the forgettable Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close). I disagree, however, with your belief that either of them can win. I could see four maybe even five of these movies winning the big prize.

I think Black Panther has a lot of momentum off the SAG win but perhaps the academy will say a nomination is enough of a reward for a superhero film. I think BlackKklansman could be a sentimental favorite -- its weirdly very topical thanks to Virginia's blackface scandal -- and if Spike Lee were to pull off an upset, it could maybe take the top prize. A Star is Born could be this year's Argo, like you suggested before, since a lot of people think Bradley Cooper was snubbed for Best Director, Green Book -- while polarizing as hell -- has been the safe choice for some time now -- and then there's Roma, which is widely being hailed as a cinematic achievement, but perhaps will suffer from its Netflix tie-in. Could it be the first Best Picture winner with virtually no theatrical grosses?

Who will win: Roma, It's really really close. I feel like this could have been A Star is Born's award to lose but it peaked too early. I think Black Panther would be amazing but I just think it'll suffer from not enough acting branch support. I think BlackKklansman has always been an also-ran in this competition. I love The Favourite to death but its too quirky to win. And I think neither Vice nor Bohemian Rhapsody is loved enough to win (remember the new system is tiered and preferential voting, so basically the movie the most people don't hate usually wins this). That leaves Green Book and Roma, and I find it hard to believe with all the controversy over its alleged whitewashing of history and cultural tonedeafness, I just don't see Hollywood endorsing it with their top prize. And I think Roma, as unconventional a picture as it is, has virtually no detractors. It's not my personal favorite of the year, but it is an unassailably worthy winner.

Who should win: Black Panther. This has always been very personal for me. As an African-American cinephile, this was the kind of movie I've always been waiting for. A sophisticated epic that had both the wit and world building of Star Wars but also the moral complexity of the Blade Runner films. Regardless of who wins, I believe this was THE movie of last year and certainly the one that has had the greatest cultural impact of any of the movies released in 2018. Wakanda forever!

Snubs/surprises: Again First Man has been criminally under-appreciated. Honestly, I wish Spider-Man Into the Spider-Verse were taken seriously enough to be included, but Black Panther clearly already took up that lane. Eighth Grade was a magical movie, hopefully it'll become the cult classic it deserves to be. And I'm totally with you on Hereditary, such a great advance of the horror genre. And yeah I'd be happy to see First Reformed, Mary Poppins Returns, Crazy Rich Asians, Annihilation, The Death of Stalin, You Were Never Really Here and A Quiet Place in place of Vice and Bohemian Rhapsody and/or Green Book, but that's just my two cents.

p.s. I neglected to mention it when we talked Best Actor, but I just want to give a shout out to Nicolas Cage and his performance in Mandy, as well as the movie itself. For obvious reasons, a movie as experimental, non-linear, gory and strange as that one never stood a chance of ever having any kind of awards consideration, but it was one of the most striking, unforgettable cinematic experiences i had all year, and I could see this one creeping into my top 10 when all is said and done.

p.p.s. Thanks for doing this too!