Rogue One... The Force Is Strong With This Star Wars Spinoff

Going in to Rogue One: A Star Wars Story, I had a great amount of trepidation.  It was dogged by rumors or re-shoots and director/studio conflict... usually a death knell for a blockbuster of this magnitude.  Often times, a movie never recovers from those rumors (there are exceptions like World War Z).  I tried to avoid any and all reviews or articles about the film.  I wanted to go into this movie with as fresh a set of eyes as possible.  After viewing this thrilling Star Wars standalone film, I am happy to report that Rogue One is the Star Wars prequel we deserve.  It was full of all the life and emotion that made the original Star Wars movies so mesmerizing, and devoid of all of the pitfalls that ruined the Star Wars prequels.  It's gritty, thrilling, and humorous with some genuinely mesmerizing action sequences on par with any of the great moments in the Star Wars universe.

Rogue One started as an idea.  Director Gareth Edwards (Godzilla) and Lucasfilm took a question, "how did the rebels get the plans to the Death Star?" and turned it into 2+ hours of one of the best war movies of the last few years.  It catches the rebellion at probably its lowest point since the Emperor came into power.  Systems are falling.  Rebels are floundering, and there is no hope in the galaxy.  Couple that with the soon-to-be finished Death Star flexing its terrifying muscle and you have a galaxy devoid of human (or alien) spirit.  (It's also hard not to draw a parallel between what is happening in this film to where we could end up in the coming years in this country.)  Enter Jyn Erso, daughter of the chief Death Star engineer (played with full piss and vinegar by Felicity Jones), who is conscripted into the battle by the rebellion.  She was essentially orphaned by her father when he was forced back into the Empire to finish his work on the Death Star.  Her father, though working on a ship of great destruction, has purposely left it vulnerable (see Episode IV, A New Hope for full details), and it's up to his estranged daughter to convince the rebellion to go after the plans to destroy it.  This ultimately leads to a full scale assault on an Empire base (one of the best battle scenes in the last decade).

What separates this film from the other Star Wars films is it's brutality.  Lives are sacrificed, and not everything colored in the bright-eyed optimism of Luke Skywalker.  In order to gain an advantage, many must make the ultimate sacrifice.  Actions have consequences.  That's not to say that Rogue One is a completely lifeless movie.  It has some genuine humor sprinkled throughout to keep spirits lifted during times of trouble.  The real star of this film is the battle sequences.  The storming of the base by our rag tag group of rebels is a sight to be seen.

Rogue One is not a perfect film, either.  It (like a lot of big budget ensembles) struggles with character development at times.  For every strong character (Jyn Erso, the power hungry Director Krennic, and the humorous droid K-2SO), there are a few characters that don't get the same treatment.  I realize that there's only so much that can go into development in a two hour movie, but major characters need a little bit more development for me to get invest in (like Forest Whitaker's wasted character, Saw Gerrera).

Overall, I still really enjoyed this film and it will almost certainly make my top ten of the year list.  It was amazing to see Darth Vader on screen again (albeit in a limited role), and the fact that they were able to make a lifelike CG character of Grand Moff Tarkin from the first Star Wars film was amazing to see (the actor who originally played him died in 1994).  There are Easter Eggs to the original film sprinkled throughout this one, but they don't distract from this film in any shape or form.

This will also certainly be a stand alone film, as it leads directly to the events of A New Hope.  It also has me excited for future "A Star Wars Story" standalone films.  I hope they can fill in the blanks in the large, endless canvas that is the Star Wars universe.

I'm giving Rogue One 3.5 stars out of 4.  It has a great, multi-ethnic cast with a strong female lead.  It has something for everyone... Star Wars fans young and old.  Go see it!

Fantastic Beasts shows there's still some magic left in the Potter-verse

I'm not a fan of the growing trend where every film property needs to have a cinematic universe.  It feels contrived and the source material doesn't always warrant the expansion.  For instance, the recent Ghostbusters film was meant to be the opening of a larger universe, but it felt more of a retread of the original classic than a launching pad of a ghost busting world.  Every film that comes out now feels like it's trying to be the gateway to a larger series of interconnected films.  I get why studios are doing it.  Every executive around the world looks at Marvel and licks their chops.  BUT the one thing they fail to do is properly build their source material.  The Marvel Cinematic Universe because of its deep bench of superheroes and the fact that they can all appear together or separately depending on the film.  Not all franchises has this in their arsenals... which leads me to Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them.  When Harry & Co. finished their fantastic run with the 8th and final film, it was a crowning achievement... it also felt like a finishing point to a wonderful story.  I am a huge fan of of Harry Potter (both book & film form), and am glad that they are expanding the Potter-verse to more films while resisting the urge to reboot the franchise (for now).

The Potter-verse doesn't end with Harry.  There was an entire world of magic for thousands of years before the boy who lived began his journey.  JK Rowling (making her screen writing debut) sprinkled little bread crumbs throughout the books, as well as the films.  This is where Beasts starts.  Set 70 years before The Sorcerer's Stone, Beasts tells the story of a wayward wizard (played delightfully weird by the always reliable Eddie Redmayne), who brings a suitcase full of magical creatures to New York City and proceeds to let them loose by accident.

Beasts is not a perfect film.  In fact, the first act feels like a bad comedy.  Beast gets loose.  Hilarity ensues.  Rinse and repeat.  However, about a third of the way in, the film picks up.  There is a darker subplot that brings this film out of comedic doldrums and makes it into an appealing film.  There is a group of anti-magic people (called the New Salem group), who are hellbent on exposing (and destroying) the magical world.  Our heroes get caught up in trying to stop a dark power that's unleashed upon the city that is somehow tied to this group.  There are some genuinely exciting moments in this film, but it often feels like a franchise starter film first and a movie second.  The Fantastic Beasts themselves almost feel like an afterthought at times, and some plot lines are introduced that will be resolved in future installments.  However, the excellent cast (especially "non-Mag," the American term for Muggles, lead played by Dan Fogler & and a wicked Colin Farrell) and the closing action sequence keep this film entertaining enough that you can forgive some of the lesser fleshed out portions of it.

If you are a fan of the Potter films, I would definitely recommend it for you.  You'll enjoy being back in this world and will look forward to future installments.

2.5 stars out of 4.

Arrival is a beautiful film

A lot of people are comparing Denis Villenueva's latest gem, Arrival, with Stephen Spielberg's 80s "aliens have arrived" film Close Encounters Of The Third Kind.  A lot of people love that film.  I am not one of them.  I always found it to be a rather lackluster entry in the Spielberg film canon.  I can't quite put my finger on it, but the film never really resonated with me.

Going in to Arrival, I did not know what to expect.  It had been getting stellar reviews, but I couldn't quite shake the feeling that it would be Encounters 2.0.  After viewing the film, I can happily report that my fears were completely misguided.  Arrival is a fantastic film that fully cements Vellenueva's status atop the Hollywood directing totem pole.  Both his last two films (2013's Prisoners & last year's Sicario) made my top ten list of the year, and both were criminally under watched and underappreciated.  This film appears to already be doing decent at the box office, so I hope more and more people come to appreciate his talents.

It's hard to discuss this film without giving away some of its secrets, so I'll have to be as generic as possible.  The basic premise of the film is that aliens have arrived and are trying to communicate with us through 12 different space crafts.  The US government hires a world renowned linguist (played superbly by the always great Amy Adams) and a physicist (the always reliable Jeremy Renner) to decode their language as quickly as possible in an effort to decipher whether these new out-of-world beings are friend or foe.  That's about as much as I can go into the plot without spoiling the big reveal in the film.

I loved this film because it resonates so well in today's toxic world.  It's about hope.  About the toxicity of "Us vs Them."  About understanding and compassion.  And, most importantly, about the importance of not rushing to judge those that we deem "other."

The cast is phenomenal.  The directing is superb.  I can't say enough about Villenueva.  It's not a flashy guns and explosions alien movie, but the amount of tension that he's able to generate with camera movement and music is incredible.  It's a thinking person's movie, and a welcome respite from the flood of horrible news coming across our screens daily.  I can't recommend this movie enough.  Arrival is the best movie I've seen this year.

4 stars out of 4!  Go see it.

Doctor Strange is another win for Marvel.

The Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) gets knocked for being an assembly line whose only goal is to promote the next film down the line.  To a certain extent, I would agree with that statement.  However, the most recent entrees to the MCU (Guardians Of The Galaxy, Ant-Man, and now Doctor Strange) have all felt fresh and exciting.  I think it's perhaps because they are so far down the totem pole of superhero hierarchy, these movies can afford to experiment.  From the quirkiness of Guardians, to the humor of Ant-Man, each of the recent MCU films have a distinct voice while still fitting into the larger storyline.

Doctor Strange is no different.  Aside from a brief reference to The Avengers early in the film (and during the required post-credit scenes), you don't even think about the larger MCU during this film, which is quite refreshing.

Doctor Strange tells the story of how a brilliant surgeon (Strange) becomes the earth's mightiest sorcerer.  Stephen Strange is a surgeon without equal.  He's also a hot shot that believes his own hype, and picks and chooses his patients in order to keep his surgical record perfect.  Shortly after he rescues a patient from a bullet to the brain he loses the ability to use his hand in a car crash (don't text and drive kiddos!).  It is at this moment that Strange seeks a miracle cure that leads him to a far away land.  Here, he meets the Sorcerer Supreme (controversially played by Tilda Swinton) and learns the power of mysticism.  I highly enjoyed his training sequences, which were filled with humor stunning visuals.

Doctor Strange is at its strongest when it flexes its visual muscle.  That is not to say that the film only succeeds because of its visuals.  Quite the opposite, actually.  Benedict Cumberbatch is equal parts wit and (spiritual) muscle.  He shines with the most charisma this side of Tony Stark.  But, at the end of the day, this is a big blockbuster and the visuals do not disappoint.  By playing in different realms and spaces, Doctor Strange's visuals have to be seen to be believed.  I would describe parts of this movie as Inception meets Labyrinth.  It's like an M.C. Escher painting on steroids.  It does struggle with plot at times, but I was always glad that I was along for the ride.  Hopefully, future MCU films are allowed to have as much creative freedom as Doctor Strange... especially with these individual films.

There are some flaws in this movie.  The talented Rachel McAdams is pretty much cast to the side as a former flame of Stephen Strange, and the plot tends to get a little convoluted at times while the characters are talking about mysticism and alternate reality.  I do hope that McAdams gets more screen time in future Strange films because the chemistry between her character and Cumberbatch's was quite strong.  The few scenes they shared were some of the strongest in the film.  The final, and most controversial, flaw in this film was the decision to cast Tilda Swinton as the Sorcerer Supreme.  This isn't a knock on her performance, as it was quite strong, but rather it's Hollywood's umpteenth example of unnecessary whitewashing.  The director has lived up to it in recent statements, but it's still an unfortunate blemish on an otherwise superb entry into the MCU.

Overall, I would give Doctor Strange 3 out of 4 stars.  It's another excellent addition to the MCU, and opens the door for fun and exciting sequels.  Benedict Cumberbatch is excellent in the title role, and the supporting cast (whitewashing controversy aside) is excellent.

I watched the new Ghostbusters and lived to talk about it.

Before I start this post, I want to get this disclaimer out of the way.  The original Ghostbusters is my favorite movie of all-time.  It's perfect.  It stands the test of time. It should never be duplicated.  The fact that I love it so much clouded my vision and dampened my expectations for any reboot/remake that could possibly ever make.

That being said, I finally got around to seeing the new Ghostbusters (now subtitled Answer The Call) the other night and I have to tell you... I didn't hate it.  I found it to be a perfectly fine, but wholly unnecessary film.  It didn't crap on the legacy of the original film, but didn't really do anything exceptional to justify its existence.

I don't know if there was another film in 2016 that was as highly scrutinized as Ghostbusters:  Answer The Call, and that's really unfortunate.  Misogynists railed against this film because of its all female cast, and racists went on a deplorable tirade at Leslie Jones on Twitter.  The initial trailer to this film was the most disliked in YouTube history.  All of this negative backlash definitely had something to do with its underwhelming box office returns.  Looking back at it, I will say that people had a reason to dislike this film, they just did it for the wrong reasons.  We should be having a discussion on Hollywood's eternal chase for the next "cinematic universe," and why that is bad for business.  Ghostbusters is not a world that deserves a rich and expanded cinematic franchise.  I think the original Ghostbusters worked because it was a finite story.  I'm still not fully convinced that the 1989 sequel ever needed to happen.  My biggest issue with this new film is that it was about 80% remake and about 20% new.  Let's break down this film into its elements to see where it went wrong.

Cast

Much has been said and written about director Paul Feig's choice to have an all-female cast.  I'm not against this in any shape or form.  My biggest problem was that the cast seemed to be going through the motions for large chunks of this movie.  Melissa McCarthy and Kristen Wiig were basically playing themselves the entire time.  Leslie Jones wasn't given much to work with besides portraying the characters she does every week on Saturday Night Live.  There wasn't much beneath her character.  The only standout in the 4 female Ghostbusters was SNL superstar, Kate McKinnon.  Her character (whose blond hair was a shoutout to the 1980s Real Ghostbusters cartoon series) was the only one who had me consistently laughing.  The other stand out in this film was Chris (Thor) Hemsworth, who played a hilariously dumb receptionist (so dumb that he covered his eyes when something was too lout).  Hemsworth should explore his comedic side in future films.

Cameos

Every original Ghostbusters cast member had a cameo in this film (with the exception of Rick Moranis, who is effectively retired from acting).  These cameos were all a bit of a distraction to me.  They all spoke lines that were essentially a wink and a nod to the original films.  While I appreciated them, I didn't think they were needed.  I have said from the beginning that this should have been a movie where the original cast passed the torch to a new set of Ghostbusters, and this film failed to do that.

Plot

This film was essentially a remake of the original plot.  Scientists get kicked out of Columbia.  Scientists find ghosts.  Ghostbusters are formed.  New York City is in danger.  Ghostbusters (spoiler alert) save the day.  The ghosts and villains were "different", but not really.  They even teased a Zuel appearance in an after the credits scene.

Music

Fall Out Boy's re-imagining of Ray Parker Jr.'s classic theme song is terrible.  The less said about it, the better.  Moving on...

Overall, I did not hate this film.  I laughed sporadically throughout, and thought it was a decent little film.  However, I still don't think it should have been made.  Hopefully, there wasn't enough of a box office success to justify future Ghostbusters movies and we can all move on in life.

The Birth Of A Nation's message resonates in a politically toxic 2016

The Birth Of A Nation, the controversial new film from writer/director/star Nate Parker opened last weekend to a resounding box office thud.  While fresh on Rotten Tomatoes (77% fresh as of this writing), it hasn't received the predicted universal praise from critics that many thought after it soared at Sundance (and received the largest offer for a film in the history of the festival).  The resurfacing of rape allegations against Parker that came to the forefront a few months ago have certainly cast a long shadow over the film's release, and almost certainly had a part to do with the tepid box office returns.  Controversy aside, Nation is also a tough film to swallow and was released at a time when people, perhaps, want a getaway from the toxic political climate the nation is currently facing.  I went into the film wanting to separate the art from the real life story, and I can tell you that this is a powerful film that speaks volumes about where we are as a nation by looking to the past.

The Birth Of A Nation tells the "Based On A True Story" tale of Nat Turner, who led the largest (and bloodiest) slave rebellion in the history of the United States.  The film introduces us to Turner at a young age, where he learns to read and become a preacher.  As Turner grows up (and returns to the field), we learn that the slave masters use his religion to further enslave Turner's people.  The most effective scenes of this film happen as we follow Turner and his master (played excellently by Armie Hammer) go from plantation to plantation to spread the word of God to the slaves.  However, we soon find out that the slave masters only want to twist the words of the Bible as a way to preach black subservience.  Fears of insurrection are rising throughout the South and these deplorable slave owners are using any means necessary to keep their workers in line.

The horrors Turner witnesses during these visits push him to his own breaking point.  He begins to view the Bible with fresh eyes.  He finds comfort and salvation in his religion, and uses the Bible's message as a means to justify the attacks.  This is an interesting dichotomy in which both sides of the coin use the same religion to justify their actions.  This draws an interesting parallel to modern times, where the same thing is still happening.

Despite being billed as the story of Turner's rebellion, the actual rebellion doesn't happen until the final 20 minutes of the film.  I, for one, appreciated the slow burn approach to this story.  As the story progresses, you can feel the tension building to its snapping point.  Nation wisely strays away from the tendency to focus on the action instead of the people.  By telling the story this way, we as an audience, can feel Turner's pain.  We are there with him as he leads his fellow slaves into revolt.  There are many violent moments, for sure.  However, it's not a violent film.  At its core, this is a film about hope, about decency, and about the depths people will go to obtain freedom.

The Birth Of A Nation is an important film whose message is as important today as it was 200+ years ago.  It speaks to us about how we must never forget America's greatest sin, or let our country succumb to its darkest desires..  It shows us why it's important to fight for what's right. It shows us that any religion can be corrupted to the desires of the wicked.  And, most importantly, it shows us why it's important to say that Black Lives Matter.  There's an especially poignant moment where Turner laments that his brethren are killed "for no reason at all but being black."  This line, above all else, has stayed with me since walking out of the theater.

I'm giving this film 3 out of 4 stars.  It's not quite the home run that early buzz led me to think it would be, but it's still a must see.  Parker is a talented director, but he often indulged in over the top symbolism that I felt detracted from the film.  I would definitely see it in the theater if you can.  Though, judging by its box office returns, I fear this will be a footnote in the 2016 Oscar race.

Is Suicide Squad As Bad As They Say?

Yes, yes it is. In fact, it's much worse...

Imagine if The Avengers was the first movie in the Marvel Cinematic Universe.  And then imagine that version of The Avengers started at the battle of Manhattan.  That's, essentially, what Suicide Squad is.  It's a 2 hour third act of a movie without any character set up or development.  It's a movie so bad and disjointed that it should join Catwoman, Green Lantern, and The Fantastic Four (2015) on the Comic Book Mount Rushmore Hall Of Shame.  It's not even bad in a so-good it's bad kind of way... it's just bad, and if it's not the nail on the coffin of the DC Cinematic Universe, it's definitely the lid.

I had high hopes for this movie.  It delivered another spectacular trailer (I'm starting to realize that DC should be in the trailer business and not the movie business), but once the (nasty) reviews started rolling in, I began to gasp.  I started to believe that maybe there was credence to the "Is Rotten Tomatoes conspiring against DC and Warner Bros.?" rumors circulating the interwebs.  The reviews seemed almost personal in a way that would never befall Marvel.  They were the same for Batman v. Superman: Dawn Of Justice and I actually enjoyed that movie (especially the better but not perfect R-rated director's cut).  I talked myself into that being the same for Suicide Squad.  On-set turbulance and reshoot rumors be damned... I was going to enjoy this one.

It was clear from an early stage in this "film" that I was wayyyy wrong.  There is almost no character development, and each Suicide Squad member gets a (really cool) few minute introduction.  Before you know it, the squad is assembled and they're off to "save the world (said in Will Smith's voice).  The trouble is, the main villain isn't even introduced until after they've started their mission.  Essentially, they (and the audience) don't know what their mission is about.  It just goes down hill from there.  They even introduce a Suicide Squad member and kill him off without him ever saying a line of dialogue.  Why should we care about this group when they're so expendable (man, I wish I was sitting through The Expendables 23 instead of this one)?  Jared Leto makes random cameos as The Joker, but his weirdness isn't enough to save this one.  His character seems forced and out of place.

I won't bore you with any more plot details since there isn't a plot.  I really hope DC can pull their stuff together in time for Wonder Woman (another great trailer, by the way).  Justice League is happening, but I doubt the universe survives post JL if Wonder Woman fails.

I'm giving this movie 1 out of 4 stars.  There's a couple bright points in this movie.  Margot Robbie does a great job as Harley Quinn and the graphics for the Squad character intros were really cool.

There's a post credit scene setting The Justice League with Ben Affleck (still the best part of the DC Cinematic Universe) and Viola Davis (who wastes her talents in this one).  In short, DC is working backwards.  They're introducing the cart before the horse and it's hurting their product.  I'm glad I had a gift card and didn't waste money on Suicide Squad.

Finally... Dear Hollywood... please stop trying to make Jai Courtney happen.  K, thanks!

Bourne Again: Jason Bourne

Welcome back to the final installment of Bourne Again.  This time, I'm taking you through the latest film in the Bourne series, Jason Bourne.

As I was watching this, I couldn't help but hearken back to summers at my grandmother's house.  Why's that, you ask?  Well, she did not have cable and got limited channels through her antenna in the room my sister and I stayed in.  We would spend all day watching infomercials on that television and then would run out and beg our mother to order whatever product they were schilling.  The Ronco Food Dehydrator?  Had to have it!  The hand mixer??  Please!  Please!  Please!  And so on and so forth... Why am I talking about infomercials when I should be reviewing Jason Bourne?  I'll tell you... You know that point in the infomercial when they've laid out their sales pitch?  "Get xxx product for three easy payments of $39.99!  We'll throw in this and that and this... all for the same low price!"  Great deal, right?  This is where they throw in  their world famous line... "But wait, there's more!"  No way!!!  I want more!  But it's usually nothing special and doesn't add to the value of the original product.

That's where Jason Bourne fits into the Bourne series of films.  It's the "More" in that world famous line.  We don't need it.  It doesn't add anything of value to the original product.  But it's still nice to be offered as an add-on.

To me, the original three films in this series tell a perfect story.  The Bourne Identity starts with a total amnesiac Jason Bourne floating in the water.  By the time The Bourne Ultimatum is finished, Jason Bourne has returned to the water... this time with all his memories in tact.  His journey is complete and he's fully at peace.  Or so we thought...

Jason Bourne picks up nine years after the last film and Damon's character is still struggling with PTSD flashbacks.  He's still piecing together bits from his past.  And, as it appears, he's living his life as a traveling street fighter.  Before you know it, the CIA is on his tail and we're off on another whirlwind adventure across multiple contents.

Much has been made about Matt Damon's limited dialogue in this film, but I was actually OK with it.  What I had a problem with was the rest of the cast (with the exception of an acerbic Tommy Lee Jones chewing scenery like a boss!).  To call them wooden would be an insult to trees.  It's almost as if they just recorded rehearsals and filled in the scenes with action.

Speaking of action, director Paul Greengrass stages some pretty exciting scenes (though the shakiness of the camerawork was almost unbearable to watch during certain chases).  A chase through a demonstration in Greece was quite fun (wooden performance from Julia Stiles aside), and the final sequence through Las Vegas was on par with previous films.  However, Greengrass isn't reinventing the wheel here, which is probably the film's biggest problem.  It doesn't take the series in any new directions, which in my opinion, it desprately needed to.

I hope in future installments (and the box office numbers justify them) they get rid of this amnesia storyline and allow Jason Bourne to go in new directions.

I'm giving this film 2 out of 4 stars.  It wasn't a bad movie... it wasn't a good movie.  It was just a movie.  I enjoyed it, but wasn't as riveted to the material as in the previous trilogy.

Play It Again, Sam: The Grand Budapest Hotel

Welcome back to my latest series: Play It Again, Sam.  For those of you not familiar with this series, I'll explain it for you... I'm revisiting popular films that I initially did not like,  to see if I'm able to come around upon second viewing.  After revisiting the Dino-sized dud, Jurassic World, it's time for me to revisit another move that I initially did not like... The Grand Budapest Hotel.

To say that I did not originally like this film would be an understatement.  Thanks to the magic of Facebook's "On this day" feature, I came across my original review.  Here it is in its entirity:  The Grand Budapest Hotel feels less like a Wes Anderson movie and more like a Saturday Night Live sketch lampooning a Wes Anderson movie.  Every scene, character, piece of music, set, etc. turns up the Wes Andersoning level to 11.  I can respect this movie for the effort, but sometimes it's ok to admit that there's such a thing as too much Wes Anderson."

Maybe I was a little too harsh in my initial reaction to this film?  There's only one way to find out.

I'll tell you the scene that really did it for me.  Early on in the film, an elder Moustafa (played by the great F. Murray Abraham) is retelling the story of the hotel over dinner to a reporter played by Jude Law.  In the far distance of that scene, Jason Schwartzman walks through the scene and turns to the camera to make a totally unnecessary grimace.  I was done after that.  Look, I love Wes Anderson.  The Royal Tenenbaums is one of my favorite movies of all-time, but this scene just chapped my ass.  I've dubbed Wes Anderson "The Kubrick of Quirk" for a reason.  He is as obsessive and meticulous about every scene of his film the way Stanley Kubrick legendarily was about his.  Every inch of celluloid has been intricately pained by Anderson.  I have no doubt that turn to the camera was an instruction, and not a piece of improvisation.  There was no reason for it other than to show off, and I just couldn't get in to this film.

Now, watching this movie again and knowing what I was in for, I was able to view it through a new lens and appreciate it for the great film that I couldn't see initially.  Upon further review, The Grand Budapest is a great (but far from Anderson's best) film.

All of Wes Anderson's calling cards are present in this film.  The poetic script, long dolly shots through intricately designed set pieces, and quirky characters are all there.  I also particularly enjoyed Anderson's use of different aspect ratios to delineate time periods this time around.  This is also a gorgeous film that is well-deserving of all the Academy Awards that it won.

The highlight of The Grand Budapest Hotel is how the two leads (brilliantly portrayed by Ralph Fiennes & Tony Revolori) both deal with growing up and growing old (another Anderson calling card).  They were both funny, charming, and self-deprecating in a way that I didn't appreciate before.  I'd say that the one theme central to all of Anderson's movies is how we deal with growing up, and that's certainly the highlight of this film.  We see Zero at the dawn of his career at the hotel, while we see Gustave (Fiennes) dealing with the twilight of his career, while teaching Zero the ropes.  All the shenanigans these two characters get in to are just icing on the cake to a story most of us can relate to.

I was definitely wrong about this one and I'm really glad that I revisited The Grand Budapest Hotel.

Until next time...

Star Trek Beyond Continues The Rebooted Series' Hot Streak

I should get this out of the way a the start... By no means am I a Trekkie (or is it Trekker?  See, I have no idea).  I have never watched the original series, and have only seen a handful of the original movies.  That being said, I LOVED 2009's rebooted Star Trek.  I found it exhilarating and refreshing (Sure, it was basically J.J. Abrams tryout for The Force Awakens, but who cares?).  I also loved that it created an alternate timeline, which allowed the original series to co-exist with this one.  And, finally, I really like how the previous two films gave the late, great Leonard Nimoy one last chance to shine in the role that came to define him.

Now, on to Star Trek Beyond.   I have to admit that I was more than a little worried by the first trailer of this film.  It seemed like director Justin Lin (Fast 5, 6, & 7) was turning this franchise into The Fast & The Trekious.  However, the more I read about this, the more my fears subsided.  Co-writer Simon Pegg (Exceptional as always as Scottie) penned this film as an homage to the original vision of the Trek creator, Gene Roddenberry (although his decision to make Sulu's character gay surprisingly riled George Takei in a bit of mild controversy).  This one feels the most true to that original vision of the 3 new Trek films.

Beyond picks up in year 3 of the Enterprises vaunted 5 year mission to explore new worlds and cultures.  Boredom has set in (I really enjoyed the film's opening montage, which hilariously points out this boredom), and captain Kirk is coming to terms with his age (he's now one year older than his late father ever was).  However, the boredom doesn't last and the Enterprise is called to a Federation outpost in deep space to investigate a distress signal in the middle of a nebula.  Not-so-shockingly, the distress signal is a trap by the major bad dude in the film, Krall (menacingly played by the always superb Idris Elba), and the Enterprise is up to its elbows in major trouble.  Unlike other films in this series, this film mostly takes place in this one location.  I found this quite refreshing as it allowed the cast to shine.

Speaking of cast, the star of this film is the great Karl Urban as Dr. "Bones" McCoy.  He's been great in the other two films, but his added screen time in this one allows him to explore his character's neurosis to an hilarious level.  His interactions with the dead-panned Spock are truly special.  Speaking of Spock, there is a tear inducing moment in the film honoring Nimoy, which also adds to the depth and humanity of this Spock's character.

The action in this film is also top-notch without overshadowing the performances.  Justin Lin adds some of his signature Fast & Furious action sequences seamlessly in to the Trek universe without overshadowing the overall feel of this universe.  The call back to the song Sabotage from the first trailer (and first film) was my favorite action sequence of the entire film.  That being said, Beyond didn't break any new ground the way the first two films did.

Overall, this was a highly enjoyable summer action flick, and another solid entry into the Trek franchise.  It did not boldly go where no film has gone before, but that's OK. With a 4th film in this franchise already announced, I am excited to get back in the Enterprise for another exciting trip through the cosmos.  Live long and prosper!

3 out of 4 stars.

Play It Again, Sam: Jurassic World

Welcome back to the second installment in my new series, Play It Again Sam,.  The concept of this series is that I will revisit movies that I originally didn't like (but most people do), and give it a second chance.

I was not a huge fan of Jurassic World during my initial viewing.  I found it to be a mildly entertaining sequel to one of my favorite blockbusters of all-time, Jurassic Park.  It didn't offer anything new to the series, and seemed to make all of its (dino-sized) profits based solely on nostalgia.  As my friend argued, the film is full of plot holes and unimaginative action sequences that we've already seen before.  The characters are completely one-dimensional, and there are some troubling sexist undertones to the script (basically, a woman can't be successful unless she can be a mother).  Going back in to this movie, I still had all these feelings bubbling close to the surface.  But I had to know if I was right in my assessment.  Could I be so wrong about such a colossal financial success?  After viewing the film again, I can answer yes and no.

Jurassic World still has a lot of faults and the plot holes are still readily apparent.  But I think I've finally found a way to (tepidly) appreciate this film.  Jurassic World works as a basic cable classic.  What's that, you ask?  A Basic Cable classic is a film that, no matter what point of the movie you enter, you'll sit and watch it if it's playing on cable TV.  It requires no effort and provides the viewer with an escapist getaway.  Jurassic World fits right in to the world of other Basic Cable classics like countless Van Damme & Segal 90's action "Thrillers."  If you watch this movie on a total superficial level and allow your mind to melt away, it's actually a decent time.  I probably won't go out of the way to seek this film out, but if it's playing at 2AM while I'm consoling a screaming child... I'll probably check it out.

That's it for today.  See you next time when I review a film that I initially despised:  The Grand Budapest Hotel.

Bourne Again: The Bourne Ultimatum

Bourne Again, Part 3 - The Bourne Ultimatum

Hello, and welcome to part 3 in my Jason Bourne series, Bourne Again.  Today, I'll be reviewing the third installment in the trilogy, The Bourne Ultimatum.

If The Bourne Supremacy was all set-up, Ultimatum is all delivery.  This film, tightly directed again by Paul Greengrass, fires on all cylinders.  It picks up moments after its predecessor, with Jason Bourne once again on the run from Treadstone agents in his search to reclaim his memory.  In this film, we find out that Treadstone has been given an upgrade and is now called Blackbriar.  It's also super secret and the CIA will kill anyone who threatens its existence.

Bourne comes out of hiding when a British journalist threatens to go public over his discovery of Blackbriar.  The resulting sequence of events through Britain's Waterloo train station may be my favorite sequence in all three films.  The delicate game of cat and mouse had me (even after multiple viewings) on the edge of my seat.  What I particularly love about this film is that the cat and mouse game doesn't just stop there, it builds throughout the film as Bourne seeks the truth.

We (spoiler alert!!) the truth about Bourne's past and his involvement in the Treadstone project.  We see how he transformed from David Webb into superior killing machine, Jason Bourne.  Albert Finney shines in his role as the architect of the Treadstone program.

Finney, alone with the other supporting cast, are the highpoint of this film.  Joan Allen returns as the ambiguous CIA agent, Pamela Landy.  She brilliantly toes the line between helping and hunting Bourne.  David Strathairn is excellent as crooked CIA agent (in a long line of Bourne bad guys), hellbent on capturning Bourne.

The final chase throughout New York City, and the rooftop chase scene in Tangier are two series high watermarks.  Both are expertly directed and are tightly edited to elicit a premium adrenaline rush from the audience.

I truly enjoyed revisiting this series, and I'm definitely pumped for next week's 4th installment, Jason Bourne (Although I don't love the title.).  Thanks for taking this trip down the Bourne rabbit hole with me.

Bourne Again: The Bourne Supremacy

Bourne Again Part 2: The Bourne Supremacy

Welcome back to part 2 of my Bourne Again series.  This time, I'm taking you through the second movie in this thrilling trilogy, The Bourne Supremacy.  This film picks up years after the events in The Bourne Identity.  Jason Bourne and his girlfriend, Marie, are living in seclusion in India.  Jason is still struggling to put together his life after his struggles with amnesia.  Bits and pieces are slowly coming back to him, most prominently an assassination in Germany.

This movie, tightly directed by Paul Greengrass, ups the action ante compared to its predecessor.  However, at a slim 1 hour, 48 minutes, it is the shortest film in the Bourne trilogy.  It is the most limited in terms of storytelling, centered around a single memory in Bourne's still-rebooting brain.  After re-watching this movie, it's clear that The Bourne Supremacy is, at its core, a filler movie bridging the first and third installments.  That's not to say its a bad movie, just an incomplete one.  The action sequence are top notch, the editing is fast-paced, and the directing is second-to-none in the spy world.  What I mean by filler is that, while it advance the overall story, there's not enough in this one for it to fall anywhere but third (in my opinion) in the Bourne hierarchy.

There is plenty to like in this film.  Brian Cox gives another devilish performance as a shadowy figure in charge of covering up the Treadstone supersoldier program.  Matt Damon is excellent (as always) as the titular hero, Jason Bourne.  He's a man of few words, but always seems one step ahead of the game.  He also shows an impressive amount of vulnerability after the (spoiler alert!!!) death of his girlfriend early in the film.  While that death is an important moment in terms of plot, I feel that it also slightly limits the film because Bourne no longer has a character to play off of.  I'm also a big fan of the addition of Joan Allen as CIA chief, Pamela Landy.  She gives a great performance, and toes the line between making us believe she's out to get Bourne, while potentially helping him along the way.

The story of this film ultimately comes down to a story of redemption.  Jason Bourne struggles to overcome his first kill and come to the terms of the damage it did to the offspring of his targets.

Ultimately, The Bourne Supremacy feels like a "Part 1" in a two part film.  It sets up the events in The Bourne Ultimatum, while not delivering enough to stand on its own two legs.  In my opinion, it's the weakest of the Bourne trilogy.  I don't want to you to believe that I mean bad when I say weakest.  It's like me saying that Return Of The Jedi is the weakest of the original Star Wars trilogy.  Still a great film, but one of them has to come in third place.

Up next:  The Bourne Ultimatum.

Bourne Again: The Bourne Identity

Bourne Again, Part 1: The Bourne Identity

In preparation for this month's Jason Bourne, I'm making my way through the first three (I don't include the Jeremy Renner stinker, The Bourne Legacy) Bourne movies.  The first film in the series was 2002's The Bourne Identity, directed by Doug Liman and starring Matt Damon as the amnesiac superspy, Jason Bourne.

If you can remember back to 2002, the film spy world was left for dead.  The world's most famous super spy, James Bond was on its last legs after a forgettable stretch of Pierce Brosnan stinkers.  And Tom Cruise's Mission Impossible series was a few years away from getting the J.J. Abrams makeover.  The world needed Jason Bourne, a no nonsense American spy, who lost his memory after a failed assassination attempt.

14 years later, this film still feels as fresh as the day it came out (save for some really outdated cellphone technology).  The character Damon plays is in direct contrast to other cinematic spies.  There are no exploding pens and cheeky one-liners, and no mask reveals or elaborate action set pieces.  The Bourne Identity is a straight forward, balls to the wall piece of cinematic storytelling.  I love that we, as an audience, get to experience the character of Jason Bourne come back to life.  Nothing is explained or spoon fed to us, we experience the movie as Bourne experiences his return to form.  It's almost as if he's a machine that has been given the factory reboot.  His abilities don't come back to him all at once, but only arrive as Bourne pieces his life back together.

Most refreshing about this film was its visual style.  It was cold and stark, again in direct contrast to the big budget 007, and Mission Impossible series.  The camerawork is handhald, and the camera itself is placed in up close and personal places, bring us closer than we have ever been to the action.  The editing is tight and frenetic at he same time.  The story never lags, or feels stale.  And the techno score (while it feels dated today) was a breath of fresh air.  I don't think Doug Liman gets enough credit for bringing this character to life.  He gets overshadowed by the flashier sequels and their director, Paul Greengrass.  However, I think The Bourne Identity is still my favorite in the series.

After watching this again, I am certain that we can thank it for both the Daniel Craig series of Bond films and for Mission Impossible coming back to reality (I really hated Mission Impossible II and all of its slow motion motorcycle chases).  Who knows where these franchises would be if not for Bourne.  Would we ever have gotten Daniel Craig's gritty, realistic take on cinemas longest running super spy?  I don't think so.

Up next:  The Bourne Supremacy

Play It Again, Sam: Interstellar

Greetings from Too Fat Headquarters.  I'm holed up here all weekend recovering from arthroscopic surgery to repair a torn meniscus in my left knee.  With ample amounts of DVD/couch time (doctor's orders), expect to see a couple blog posts.

Welcome to a new series here on Too Fat 4 Skinny Jeans.  I'm calling this "Play It Again, Sam," where I will revisit movies that I originally disliked (and people love) to see if my initial feelings were misguided.  First up, is the 2014 Christopher Nolan space adventure, Interestellar.  I was not a fan of this film (I think my initial review was a not-so witty Facebook post that said "Interstellar?  More like Inter-No-So-Stellar...")  I remember being extremely excited about this film when it was first announced and intrigued by its initial trailer.  Christopher Nolan has established himself as one of the premier action/adventure movie directors of his generation.  His films (like Tarantino & Fincher) are must-see events to me.  He's managed to exist in the modern Hollywood blockbuster universe, while maintaining an aura of independent film maker credit.  He makes superhero movies with heart and smarts, and his ventures outside the DC universe are some of the best received, both by audiences and critics alike, in modern movies.

Needless to say, my expectations were high for this film.  And after my initial viewing, I felt a little bit let down.  I thought this film was all over the place.  I thought it didn't know what type of film it wanted to be.  It tried to be smart, and action packed, and suspenseful, but (I thought) it didn't succeed.  I think my biggest problem was, that at the end of the day, you had Wooderson (You know what I like about high school girls?  I get older and they stay the same age) from Dazed & Confused spouting Quantum Theory.  It was a big distraction for me (and judging by the snickering of the theater crowd, them too).  I felt that the film fell off a cliff in its third act and never recovered.

Upon second viewing, I can say that I was wrong.  Interstellar is a wonderful (but far from perfect) film.  The science makes more sense when I gave it a chance, and the Wooderson effect is far less of a distraction.  It is a film that requires a second viewing.  When you know what happens at the end, it allows you the opportunity to pay attention to the nuance.  It's a smart film that works for us less-physics inclined mortals.  There's also some genuinely thrilling moments in this film. The first planet they land on, essentially a world made entirely of water, is a delight.  And the planet with a marooned (SPOILER ALERT!!!) Matt Damon, which is (to me) the peak of this film.  The aesthetics of each planet are gorgeous, and Hans Zimmer's score presents a driving yet ominous tone that paces the film appropriately.

This is still a film with faults (for example, how are they still drinking beer years after wheat is able to be grown?)  I still feel like the movie peaks 2/3rds of the way in.  The payoff with Matthew Mconaughey and his daughter seems a tad anti-climactic.  However, I think the beauty of the film outweighs the flaws and it is worth repeated viewings.  Christopher Nolan makes big movies with big ideas, and I'll take a flawed original idea over an endless series of pointless remakes and reboots (unless said reboots are directed by Christopher Nolan) any day.

Final verdict:  Interstellar is definitely worth checking out (multiple times), and it's a better film than I originally gave it credit for.


 Next up:  Jurassic World

Finding Dory breaks the summer sequel curse

Finding Dory Movie Review

by Brian Wezowicz

Hello faithful readers of this would-be movie and exercise blog (Hi Mom!)!  It's been awhile since I've posed something here, and I hope to rectify that.  I'm going to make a concerted effort to dust off the keyboard on a more regular basis with regular updates.  I do hope to get more exercise related content out there, since it has been a REALLY long time since I've done anything related to the original purpose of this blog... working out and getting in to shape.  I will say that having two kids makes it a lot harder to workout than I thought it would.  I also lost my gym membership when we switched the kids' daycare schools.  I also tore my meniscus and have surgery scheduled for next week (I hope to get a little content out of that ordeal), so it's been a tough stretch in Skinny Jeans Land.  With that being said, here goes the first of (I hope) more regular content on this site.

It's no secret that summer 2016 has been brutal for Hollywood sequels, remakes, and reboots.  From Turtles to X-Men, seemingly every sequel trotted out this summer has failed to live up to expectations.  Sure, Captain America: Civil War is a huge hit, but Marvel exists on a different plane than other franchises.  Would be can't miss hits (X-Men: Apocalypse, TMNT 2) are laying superhero sized turds weekend after weekend.  Should Hollywood be worried that its gravy train seems like it's drying up?  Probably.  Will it stop them from releasing an endless string of so-so sequels and reboots?  Sadly, no.  Looking at the trends out there in the weekly Box Office report, it seems like audiences are finally smartening up to the fact that you can't polish a turd and call it gold.  Audiences will get out there if the content is good... reboot, sequel, or original.  They just won't throw down hard earned cash for something that's not worth it.  That brings me to today's review.  A solid hit from my favorite animation studio:  Pixar's Finding Dory.

I have to admit that I was a little hesitant to take a trip back to the coral reef and swim with America's favorite memory challenged fish.  While I enjoyed Finding Nemo, it wasn't my favorite Pixar film.  I am of the opinion that, for the most part, animation works best when it's telling new and original stories.  Sequels are usually destined for the straight to video shelves, and for good reason, they almost always stink!  Even Pixar, Hollywood's gold standard for animation shied away from sequels.  With the exception of the Toy Story franchise, the only Pixar sequel was the forgettable Cars 2.  After viewing this sweet, tender film, I have to say that my fears were unwarranted.  Finding Dory is a highly enjoyable film with a heart of gold that will be the cure for your summer sequel blues.

We start the film a short period of time after the events of the original have passed.  Marlin, Nemo, and Dory are settling into their life as the cutest, most nontraditional family in the ocean.  Soon after, Dory starts getting flashes of her parents, and she's off to find them.  The trio sets off across the ocean on a whirlwind adventure that leads them to San Diego.  They encounter a few bumps in the road and meet some old friends (Crush!) along the way.  Ultimately, they end up split up and this is where the film shines.  Ed O'Neil steals the show playing a surly octopus that reluctantly agrees to help Dory navigate her way through a marine rescue compound, while dealing with his own insecurities.  There are some other great voice cameos in this movie, including Idris Elba as a seal and Sigorney Weaver as herself (trust me, it was great).

This movie is ultimately about family and the power of love and the comfort that can only come from being a part of one.  While it didn't move me the way last year's stellar Inside Out did, Dory had some genuinely moving parts and had me laughing out loud at more than a few points.  I was a little bit bummed that Marlin and Nemo were basically relegated to bit players in this movie, but I understand that it was Dory's time to shine.

I give this movie 3 out of 4 stars.  It's the second best animated movie I've seen this year (behind Zootopia).  If you're looking for a good time out of the house, definitely go see it.

Captain America: Civil War... Hey DC, THIS is how you do a Superhero battle movie!

Captain America: Civil War
Movie Review by Brian Wezowicz

Earlier this "summer"(It looks like summer movie season starts in March now) I sat through the much maligned Batman v Superman: Dawn Of Justice and came away with the opinion that it wasn't as bad as the critics made it out to be. And yet, it wasn't a particularly good movie either.  Sure,the action was top notch and the acting was fine, but it was lacking something. After further thought, the biggest problem with that film, and the entire DC Universe for that matter, is that it lacked heart.  The characters were empty vessels, purely designed to further a forced cinematic universe.  You didn't care for the people on screen because there was nothing to draw you in to their story.  In only the second film in DC's canon, they were already doing superhero mashups.  The only problem is that they forgot to develop any of the back stories.  We were supposed to care about them simply because Batman and Superman were on screen together for the first time.  On the other hand, after witnessing the latest entry in Marvel's cinematic juggernaut, I came away believing that they get everything right.  Every step up to this point has been meticulously planned out, and that is why Marvel will always be a step ahead of their cinematic (and comic book) brothers and sisters.

Captain America: Civil War  is essentially Avengers 2.5.  Nearly every superhero in Marvel's cinematic universe has a role in this film (Thor, The Hulk, and Nick Fury are the only absentee heroes), but all these heroes never overshadow the fact that this is Captain America's movie.  It is a continuation to the Steve Rogers story with a lot of supporting stars.  Civil War picks up two years after the events of Avengers: Age Of Ultron.  The Avengers find themselves in another sticky situation after another deadly mishap in a public area.  World leaders react in the only way they know how... by forcing the Avengers to register with the UN (and thus, fall under a strict set of guidelines and rules.).  They believe that The Winter Soldier is the cause for a bombing at a global summit, which results in the death of King T'Chaka of Wakanda (can I tell you how pumped I am for The Black Panther movie???).  Captain America is sure that his friend is not responsible for this bombing and is determined to seek out the truth.  He is also not willing to surrender his freedom to a group led by Tony Stark.  Tempers rise, trust breaks, and soon our heroes are picking sides.

The Russo brothers (who are also directing the 2 part Avengers finale) really do a great job with balancing all the spandex and masks, giving each superhero a chance to shine.  The mid-movie battle at an airport may be the best (and most humorous) superhero battle ever put to film.  Team Cap, on the trail of the truth, must fight their way through Team Iron Man, and the results had me smiling ear to ear.  I won't ruin anything here, but I will say this... Ant Man steals the show in this scene.  For a D level superhero, Ant Man (and the phenomenal Paul Rudd) is quickly establishing himself as an equal to his much more famous brethren.

This film also introduces two new characters, and they both shine.  The Black Panther (masterfuly played by the brilliant Chadwick Boseman) is particularly compelling in this film.  We know almost nothing about him, and by the end of the movie, you are begging for more (and we'll get it with Panther's solo film!).  We are also re-introduced to our friendly neighborhood Spider-Man (finally in the cinematic universe after the very public Andrew Garfield flameout).  I am very excited to see what Marvel can do with this character now that he's finally back in the family.  He steals every scene that he's in.

Civil War is getting very deserved positive reviews.  There will be detractors, for sure, that claim that Marvel is only concentrated on setting up the next film (and there is plenty of that her), but it is not a distraction.  We get a nice self-contained story that adds to the never-ending cinematic universe.  Marvel will always be the cinematic king because it's able to tell an individual story while enhancing the overall cinematic universe without the two being in conflict with each other.

I'm giving this movie 3.5 stars out of 4.  My only complaint (and it's a very small one) is that this movie takes shaky handheld camera work to an almost unbearable level.  I wonder if some of the fights would have been better served with more stable camerawork.

This will certainly be one of the biggest movies of the year and it definitely deserves to be so.  Go see it again and again.

Stay through the credits for the standard scenes.  (Sidenote:  how do people still not realized that there's scenes during the credits?  Half the theater walked out.  We're like 27 movies deep at this point... get with the program, people!)

In defense of a bad movie - Batman v Superman: Dawn Of Justice

Batman v Superman: Dawn Of Justice

Movie Review by Brian Wezowicz

"I'm here to talk to you about the Avengers initiative."  With those simple words, the Marvel cinematic universe was born.  In the years since Nick Fury first spoke to Tony Stark, the Marvel cinematic universe has spawned the most meticulously planned series of films in cinematic history.  Marvel knew what it wanted and it more than delivered.  In the same summer as Iron Man changed the cinematic landscape forever, DC Comics most popular superhero was in the middle of the most critically acclaimed, and commercially successful film trilogy of all-time (Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy).  At the time, nobody could imagine the billions and billions of dollars to come.  Flash forward to today, and it seems like every film studio is trying to spawn its own universe of films.  From Ghostbusters, to Transformers... trilogies are no longer good enough.  Every franchise is looking for ways to keep the gravy train going with a series of unending interconnected films.  However, it seems like the last company to get in on the action was DC comics.  The Dark Knight trilogy wouldn't wrap up until after the Avengers were already tearing up Manhatan.  DC knew they were already behind the eight ball in terms of a cinematic universe, and so after a relatively underwhelming Superman reboot (Man Of Steel, a film that I've grown to like the more times I watch it), the fast lane to The Justice League (DC's version of The Avengers) was laid.  I understand why they went with the fast track, I just don't agree with their method.  The problem is thus... In an effort to get The Justice League on the silver screen, DC (and Warner Brothers) forgot to develop any interesting characters.  They skipped what made The Avengers work (a series of individual films that laid the ground work for the super hero team up), and went straight to the end game, creating a film that should have been a crowning achievement, but feels like a giant missed opportunity.  Batman v Superman: Dawn Of Justice.

Going in to this film, I couldn't help but ask myself, has Zack Snyder become the new Michael Bay? The reviews of this film were brutal for sure, but the brutality of the reviews seemed almost personal.  Critics seemed to get off in their own sense of cleverness, the likes of which I had not seen since the architect of Total Bayhem released his last Transformers film.   I've always liked him.  300 is perhaps the best page to screen comic book adaptation, and I really enjoy his take on the unfilmable Watchmen.  However, I do not celebrate his entire catalog (Sucker Punch is one of my least favorite movies of all-time.).  He does have a tendency to showcase style over substance, but in my opinion, not to the length of Bay.  The bar was pretty low when I went in to the theater.  It couldn't be that bad, could it?  After sitting through nearly 2.5 hours of spandex induced destruction, I feel safe to say that this film is not the scourge on cinema as the reviews made it out to be.  It's not a good film, but it's not necessarily a bad film, either.

Dawn Of Justice picks up during the end sequence of Man Of Steel.  However, we view the destruction from Bruce Wayne's point of view as he rushes to save his employees a Wayne Enterprises.  The valiant effort that Gotham's most famous resident makes it a case of too little, too late.  Wayne Enterprises, and the people inside) are turned to dust in a scene almost too heavy with 9/11 style imagery.  After the opening scene, we flash forward to a later point in time.  Bruce Wayne (and his bat alter ego) are obsessed with stopping Krypton's last son.  The distrust of Superman is not limited to Wayne, either.  Congress is investigating an incident in the desert that paints Superman as a murderer, and public opinion is also split on whether Superman is a benefit or a menace to society.

We are also introduced to Lex Luthor (played with the Asperger's Syndrome turned up to 11 by Jesse Eisenberg), who is looking to weaponize Kryptonite as a way of defending Earth against other invading forces.  He, along with his company LexCorp, do not trust Superman, and believes that Kryptonite is the answer to Earth's inferior weapons systems.  Bruce Wayne senses that Luthor's noble intentions are not what they appear to be, and so he embarks upon a mission to get to the bottom of things.  For about half of the movie, Dawn Of Justice is a compelling tale of cat and mouse.  The only problem is that Snyder doesn't do a great job of setting up who is the cat and who is the mouse.  I could on more with plot, but the plot is almost secondary to getting the two superheroes together to fight.  It seems like when the film gets going on a solid path, it feels the need to change things up and jump around to a different story.

This film struggles with identity.  It doesn't know whether it's a Man Of Steel sequel, or a Batman origin film, or a Justice League prequel.  At 2.5 hours, this film should be long enough to answer that question, but I actually think it should have been longer.  It does not devote enough time to either Superman or Batman's story.  It seems like good parts of this film were left on the cutting room floor that should have been in the movie.  It jumps all over the place, and gets to the final fight without fully explaining the motivation of its two main characters.  They start using each others secret identity names without explaining how they figured them out.  It acts like it's the 5th or 6th movie in a cinematic universe, when in reality, it's just just the 2nd.  I would have liked to have seen a Batman solo film and a Wonder Woman (Wonder Woman appears out of nowhere) before jumping to the big show down.  Then DC (and director Zack Snyder) could have made a compelling film out of what should have been a no brainer cinematic triumph.  

That's not to say that Justice is a film without merit.  Affleck does a compelling job at showing an older, more vulnerable Batman.  Gal Gadot uses her limited screen time to do enough to make me want to see next year's Wonder Woman adaptation.  I enjoyed Eisenberg's over the top portrayal of Lex Luthor.  And Snyder does a solid job of showcasing his signature big time action sequences.  It has a lot of good parts that didn't add up to a great whole.  It is, at great lengths during the film, almost joyless (I counted two jokes in the entire movie).  It skips around at will and gets to conclusions without using logic.  I'm not mad that I saw the film, but I'm not in love with it, either.

I give Dawn Of Justice 2 stars out of 4.  It's worth a view and shouldn't be written off to the extent critics want it to be.  It could have been great, but just didn't live up to the hype.  My suggestion is to have some more fun.  Just because Christopher Nolan was successful without having any fun, doesn't mean every film has to be that way.  I also think it's time to move away from Zack Snyder.  He's had two successful films in spite of the critics, but how long can that last?  

Demo Day 2 - Take Down That Wall (well, part of it at least)!

Today was another fun-filled day of demo.  It was also the day I realized that I no longer want to be Chip Gaines.  I'm perfectly fine watching Fixer Upper from the comfort of my own home.  I'll leave the home remodeling business to the professionals.

Here's the video from today... Enjoy!

Demo Day

It's time to redo the kitchen here at Too Fat Headquarters.  Today was demo day, and it reminded me of my favorite show.  Chip & Joanna Gaines are the greatest human beings on earth.  I could watch Fixer Upper for days (and I have).  On that show, Chip's favorite part is demo day.  He always seem to genuinely love taking apart a house.  I wanted to see if I'd enjoy it as much as Chip (I didn't).

I hope you enjoy this video more than I enjoyed taking apart the kitchen!

The 3rd Annual Too Fat 4 Skinny Jeans Oscar Pick-A-Palooza featuring Adam Howard

The Second Annual Too Fat 4 The Oscars Pick-A-Palooza


BW

Hi Adam,

Welcome back!  I can't believe we're here again.  It seems like just yesterday that we were giving our picks for last year's Academy Awards. It's time once again for the greatest column in blog history... our 3rd Annual Oscar Pick-A-Palooza!

I really enjoy your incredible blog.  With my movie going activity limited with two kids, your reviews make me feel like I'm actually there.  Please keep it coming.

2015 was a great year for movies, but unfortunately, #OscarsSoWhite 2.0, is in full effect.  I won't go into great lengths here about the absolute white washing that happened in the acting categories, but with celebs like Spike Lee, Jada Pinkett-Smith and Michael Moore already boycotting the Oscars, the Academy has a big problem on its hands that is not going away.  Sadly, we won't get to discuss the Oscars that should be.  We'll focus on the Oscar nominations that we have.  That's not to diminish any of the accomplishments of the people nominated, but there does seem to be a giant elephant (not) in the room this year.

Again, we'll go through major acting categories, plus director and best picture.  We'll give our picks for who will win, who should win, and possible dark horses.

2015 seemed like the return of the high-quality blockbuster.  From the beauty of Mad Max: Fury Road, to the epic return of the Star Wars franchise, 2015 was a great year for blockbusters.  Creed showed that there's still a lot of life left in the Rocky franchise, and the box office tally of the (wildly disappointing) Jurassic World proved that audiences still enjoy a dino-sized scare.

2015 was also a great year for so-called "award" movies.  Leonardo DiCaprio might finally win his long overdue Oscar for his gritty, bear wrestling role in The Revenant.  And All The President's Men style procedural movies like The Big Short and Spotlight had a big impact on audiences and award voters.

With that being said, let's get to our first category:  Best Supporting actress:

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS

• Jennifer Jason Leigh The Hateful Eight
• Rooney Mara, Carol
• Rachel McAdams, Spotlight
• Alicia Vikander, The Danish Girl
• Kate Winslet, Steve Jobs

Who Will Win:  Kate Winslet.  She's won a few pre-Oscar awards and seems to be the only one with the momentum going into the big show.

Who Should Win:  Kate Winslet.  By all accounts, she does a phenomenal job in a shockingly overlooked Steve Jobs.  I'm still shocked that this movie didn't do better at the box office.

Dark Horse:  Jennifer Jason Leigh.  I don't see a Tarantino movie getting shut out.  Could an actor win an award from 3 straight Tarantino films?  

Who is your Best Supporting Actress?

AH

Thanks for the compliments -- I know you don't post as much as me -- but I, of course, enjoy your blog too. And I agree with you that this was a strong year for films both big and small. In fact, I was disappointed when looking next year's slate that there were fewer films that were sort of events for me on the level of a new James Bond or the return of Star Wars. Like you said, the blockbusters this year, by-and-large were excellent. Unlike you I despised Terminator: Genisys, and like you, I thought Jurassic World was a colossal disappointment. But so many films delivered that could have been disasters from Creed to Mad Max: Fury Road to even The Force Awakens. I was really pleasantly surprised by the creativity that infused a lot of big budget movies. I have also been impressed with the more conventional awards caliber films, although there has been no one film that has been so dominant or universally acclaimed that it towers over the contenders.

But to your earlier point, all of that feels kind of small now in the wake of #OscarsSoWhite take two. To me that's a bigger issue that one year, it's about the industry in general which is downright cowardly when it comes to colorblind casting (except for J.J. Abrams, apparently) and who only seem willing to recognize the excellence of minority performances when they are in a narrow kind of movie ("magical negroes" or "oppressed" fill in the blank) and usually only in supporting categories. Even when an African-American WINS they often don't see the requisite career bump white actors do. Of the recent black winners, only Jamie Foxx appears to have maintained an A-List level of fame. Monique hasn't even made a movie since she won for Precious back in 2010.

And yet, as you said, this is the slate of nominees we have, and despite the lack of diversity, they are all mostly worthy.

When I look at this year's Supporting Actress picks, I am neither bowled over or disappointed. I can't think of a performance I wanted to see there that didn't make the cut but none of these performances that I saw (I still haven't seen The Danish Girl) was very emotionally compelling to me. Although I did enjoy Kate Winslet in Steve Jobs. And I am sort of mystified by the critical adulation Jennifer Jason Leigh is getting for The Hateful Eight. It's definitely an impressive physical performance and she's a terrific actress, but she was far from the standout from that movie for me.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS

• Jennifer Jason Leigh, The Hateful Eight
• Rooney Mara, Carol
• Rachel McAdams, Spotlight
• Alicia Vikander, The Danish Girl
• Kate Winslet, Steve Jobs
• 
  

Will win: Alicia Vikander

Even though I haven't see The Danish Girl, and have heard mixed things about it, there is near universal acclaim for Vikander's performance. Vikander is having a breakout year for her role here and in Ex Machina. And her performance in The Danish Girl supposedly really belongs in lead (not unlike Rooney Mara's in Carol).

Should win: Kate Winslet

Having not seem The Danish Girl, I can't speak to Vikander's performance. I thought McAdams did fine, understated work in Spotlight, and I've said my piece on Jennifer Jason Leigh. I like Rooney Mara a lot but I feel like she was out-acted by Cate Blanchett in Carol, her performance felt very mannered, like she was playing dress up as a shy person. So by default I am going with Winslet who was likable and believable as Steve Jobs' long suffering assistant. 

Dark horse: Kate Winslet

I think if Carol has been better represented in the nominations I would have said Rooney Mara, but now it seems like she -- and that film -- are fading. If there is some unexpected Spotlight sweep that could help McAdams get in there. But I think Winslet has been stealthily staying relevant in the precursor awards and this category has a long history of upsets. I think Vikander will probably win but I wouldn't be shocked at all if Winslet does.

BW

That's insane that Monique hasn't made a movie since Precious!  I remember having a brief conversation about that last year and recall her saying that she's basically been blacklisted in Hollywood because she didn't play the game during the lead up to her Oscar victory.  I know that change takes a long time, but this year seems particularly disappointing.

With that being said, it's on to our second category.  Last year, you and I were basically in agreement on every category.  This year, we're off on the first category.  Let's see how we do with Supporting Actor.  In a year marred by controversy, there's perhaps no better feel good story than the nomination of Sylvester Stallone.  In a year with not a lot of front runners, he seems to be the one gaining the most amount of momentum going into the big show.  Here are the nominees:

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR

• Christian Bale, The Big Short
• Tom Hardy, The Revenant
• Mark Ruffalo, Spotlight
• Mark Rylance, Bridge of Spies
• Sylvester Stallone, Creed

Who will win:  Sylvester Stallone.  Nominated for bringing new life into an role he created 40 years ago.  Stallone has long been regarded as a muscle action movie actor, but he's shown the acting chops when given the chance.  From Cop Land to Rocky Balboa, he's always felt like a wannabe good actor trapped in a chemically enhanced body.  I'm going with the sentimental favorite here.

Who should win:  Stallone.  This year feels like the year of lifetime achievement winners for the men.  With Leo hopefully winning his long overdue award and Stallone's win, it feels like a career recognition kind of night.

Dark Horse:  Mark Rylance.  Bridge Of Spies came and went at the box office with almost no fanfare.  I'm not 100% sold on the notoriously snooty Academy giving an award to an action star.  It reminds me of Eddie Murphy being denied for Dream Girls because of his perceived status as a comedy actor. Rylance got some early buzz for his performance as the captured Cold War spy.  Plus, Spielberg movies usually take home something.

Who you got?

AH

This was definitely the hardest category to predict this year, with a number of terrific performances left on the outside -- chief among them Michael Keaton in Spotlight, Idris Elba in Beasts of No Nation, Bencio Del Toro in Sicario and a personal favorite of mine, Harrison Ford in The Force Awakens. I honestly think it's a travesty he's not here -- I get it, Star Wars is not typical Oscar fare, but the 1977 film was nominated for Best Picture and Alec Guiness was in the Supporting race that year for his iconic first turn as Obi Wan Kenobi. I think Ford may go down as one of the most underrated and under-appreciated actors of his era and that's a real shame.

That said, I am happy with pretty much all of these nominees, save for Christian Bale -- who gave me least favorite performance in The Big Short. His character was more smug than charming and he didn't real land with me until the film's last act. But I feel like he's rapidly filling that Leo DiCaprio bracket -- the respected actor who will be in the running every year and will eventually win because he's "due." On the other hand I was pleasantly surprised to see Tom Hardy here because despite all the raves and attention DiCaprio is getting for The Revenant (and it is well deserved) I think Hardy is the one who makes the movie work. He is a terrific antagonist, and the performance was a wonderful bookend to his brilliant brooding in my favorite movie of the year -- Mad Max: Fury Road.

And yet, this is all about Sylvester Stallone. Despite his occasional buffoonery and penchant for making inflated vanity projects I have always been a huge fan of his. With all due respect to Arnold Schwarzenegger and Bruce Willis, he is my favorite of the 80s-early 90s era action stars because I always felt he was the best actor. The Rocky movies will endure as his best work because they were always pretty straight-forward character studies with the ominous 'big fight" tying them together. People maybe thought they were going to an action movie, but it was really a compelling narrative about an uncommonly kind lead character whose defining characteristic was his big heart.

The essence of what made Stallone and those movies great was on complete display in Creed, a tremendous example of how to make a great audience-pleaser. And for me Stallone gave a really a breathtaking performance that I hope he builds on in the future. It's downright shocking to see not just Rocky, but Stallone the actor, look so vulnerable. He moved me in Creed to tears, and it would be incredibly disappointing to see the culmination of his career be overlooked.

It's interesting that you mentioned Eddie Murphy -- who of course has plenty of time to resuscitate his career, but after losing for Dreamgirls (which he shouldn't have) he retreated back to the safe mediocre comedies he was making before. Mickey Rourke, one of my favorite actors, has never taken on another awards caliber role after losing in 2009 for his fantastic comeback vehicle The Wrestler. I would hate to see Stallone -- at 70 -- go back to churning out B-movies after this. I think he can finally start to show some more range and have a fascinating late career trajectory,

Either way, no matter what happens, Stallone must be respected now as the great actor he always was, and won't be reduced to being a punchline.

Who will win:  Sylvester Stallone

Although there is a long history of soul-crushing surprises in this category (few people predicted Eddie Murphy would lose, for instance), the stars really seem to have aligned for Stallone. He has the most emotional support behind his performance and since the movie was inexplicably snubbed in so many other categories, this could also be a way of paying tribute to a great hit film.

Who should win: Sylvester Stallone

Again, I really admired all the performances here. Particularly Hardy's. I think Mark Ruffalo is really overdue and he did some terrific work in Spotlight (although my favorite performance in the film was Keaton's), and Bridge of Spies' Mark Rylance gave a very memorable turn albeit in a role that seems tailor-made to win the Oscar. But the performance that I'll never forget is Stallone's in Creed. Again, the word culmination comes to mind because we've all grown up with the Rocky Balboa character in its various iterations and it was if his acting has finally grown up to with this film. Hopefully, he doesn't forget to give Ryan Coogler the credit he deserves this time.

Dark Horse: Mark Ruffalo

Although Mark Rylance won several precursors, I'm not convinced that his film has stayed as fresh in voters' minds. I think Hardy could benefit if The Revenant just dominates the night. But I think Ruffalo has the strongest "he's due" narrative of the bunch, and although he has dipped a toe into commercial acting with the Avengers films, he's the kind of actor's actor that is made for awards like this. I think if anyone can eek out a victory over Stallone, it's him.

BW

And that is why I defer to you for top notch insight and analysis.  I've always assumed that Ruffalo already has an Oscar.  He's too good of an actor to not have one on his shelf.  Is it too late to change my dark horse pick?

On to our next category:  Best Actress.  To me, it seems like we have two front runners and a bunch of also-rans.  I think this category boils down to a two horse race between Cate Blanchett and Brie Larson.  The one here that looks like she was nominated based solely on reputation is Jennifer Lawrence for Joy.  It's her lowest rated David O. Russell collaboration, so I'm not sure why she's there.  I hate to admit that I haven't seen any of these movies this year.  I'm dying to see Room, and Carol really peaks my interest.  I've heard mixed things about Brooklyn.  A local radio show described it as almost a Lifetime movie on the big screen.

Here are the nominees:

BEST ACTRESS

• Cate Blanchett, Carol
• Brie Larson, Room
• Jennifer Lawrence, Joy
• Charlotte Rampling, 45 Years
• Saoirse Ronan, Brooklyn

Who Will Win:  Cate Blanchett.  I'm going with my gut on this one.  I'm not sure the Academy will give the award to the slight favorite in Brie Larson.  They aren't always on the cutting edge when it comes to younger, first time nominees.  We'll see.  I'm going with Blanchett here.

Who Should Win:  Brie Larson.  A stunning performance in one of your favorite movies of the year.  I desperately need to see this wonderful film.  Plus, wouldn't it be nice to have a fresh face holding the golden statue?

Dark Horse:  Larson. I think she has a really good opportunity to pull off the upset.

Who takes home your Best Actress Oscar?

AH

I think you assessment of this race is correct. Although I have heard much better things about Brooklyn than apparently you have. I am have tickets to a screening of that one for next week I believe, so I will reserve judgment. I think virtually no one outside industry insides has seen 45 Years (it hasn't even grossed $1 million yet) but I have seen nothing but critical adulation for Charlotte Rampling, who is a great character actress (see The Verdict or Stardust Memories). 

The other three performances I did see. Joy I actually just saw last night (blog TBD), and I enjoyed it a lot more than I expected to. I was starting to get a little cynical about Jennifer Lawrence. She to me has become something of a cross between Julia Roberts and Meryl Streep. She's both America's sweetheart and the actress who has her pick of any movie she wants right now AND she is an Oscar darling who will get nominated for virutally every performance she gives. That said, she is terrific in Joy and although that film has its detractors, I think she deserves to be in this race. That said, one of my favorite lead female performances of the year should have been here and was snubbed, that would be Lily Tomlin in Grandma. I thought both she and that film were incredibly underrated and deserved breakout status, but unfortunately they didn't catch on with audiences or Oscar voters.

But alas these are the nominees we have.

Who will win: Brie Larson

Although the subject matter of Room is challenging, I think she is so compelling and charismatic in the film that it won't matter. She has been steadily been building up a reputation as a strong dramatic actress and the Oscars have a huge preference for ingenues in this category (the fact that the 40-something Cate Blanchett is considered a 'veteran' speaks to the ersatz sexism still entrenched in this industry). Blanchett was terrific in Carol, but she also won just two years ago, and has a Supporting trophy in her pocket as well. She may win another one some day but I don't think this is her night.

Who should win: Brie Larson

She gave one of the most moving, emotional performances of the year. The surprise nominations for Room in not just the Best Picture but Best Director categories suggest that Oscar voters 'got' the film. And with the caveat that I haven't see the Rambling or Ronan movies, it feels like the least typically Oscar-baity of the low, which I love. Like sidebar -- it would have been such a cool, unconventional choice see Charlize Theron here for her deserving work in Mad Max: Fury Road, but as you've mentioned previously, the snooty-ness is strong with this voting body.

Dark horse: Cate Blanchett

I want to saw Jennifer Lawrence here but I just don't think they will give it to a film this polarizing, although Meryl Streep won for The Iron Lady, a film that was pretty god awful. I don't think Charlotte Rampling or Saorise Ronan's films are getting enough traction to overtake Larson or Blanchett, And Blanchett is an Oscars favorite. So although I think Larson is pretty close to a lock, I also believe Blanchett is her biggest competition.

P.S. Shortly after making my picks I read that Charlotte Rampling, in her infinite ignorance, argued that a boycott of the Oscars by black actors was "racist against whites," so yeah I don't think she has a prayer of winning.

BW

Uggghhhhhhh!  Ah, yes... the age old problem of racism against whites.  See you at the next Donald Trump rally Charlotte.  Yikes!  I wonder how she'll feel about today's emergency measures taken by the Academy to ensure diversity within the nominees.

I don't quite know how to segue from that to our next category, so I'll just go ahead and cut straight to the chase.  I feel like this is a strong group of directors.  From the big and bold world of the apocalypse (Miller) to perhaps the most innovative director working today (Inarritu), to a great director working out of his comfort zone (McKay), I feel like we have a dynamite group of directors.  I'm really torn here.  I love the fact that George Miller was nominated.  Besides Stallone, there isn't a more rewarding "comeback" story in this year's race than George Miller.  I wasn't the biggest Mad Max fan growing up, and so it took me awhile to see Fury Road in the theaters.  But my hesitation was completely without merit.  Without exaggeration, it may be one of the most beautiful films ever made, certainly one of the most exciting.  Throw in the fact that it may be one of the most feminist action movies ever made and you have the perfect recipe for an Oscar winner (plus, it was just so damn fun!).  However, I feel like the tide is swelling for The Revenant and it could be in for a big night.

Here are the nominees:

DIRECTING

• Adam McKay - The Big Short
• George Miller - Mad Max: Fury Road
• Alejandro G. Iñárritu - The Revenant
• Lenny Abrahamson - Room
• Tom McCarthy - Spotlight

Who Will Win:  Inarritu.  I don't think anything is slowing this one down.  The only thing that could keep him back is I don't believe there has ever been a back to back directing winner.  Hell, you can probably count the number of major category back to back winners on one hand.  Was Tom Hanks the last to do it?  I know that Christoph Waltz won two Oscars, but his movies weren't released in two straight years.

Who Should Win:  George Miller.  I honestly can't remember seeing a movie quite like Mad Max: Fury Road.  It's the best Max movie by a long shot.  The Academy loves big time event movies (Gladiator, Return Of The King, Braveheart, etc.), so I could see them going with Miller here.  I may have to go home and watch this movie tonight!

Dark Horse:  I really think that it's either one or the other, but If I had to pick one I would go with Adam McKay.  His first dip into drama was a surprising success.

Who you got?

AH

Are we going to come back to Best Actor? I think the so-called emergency measures are long overdue. I've always thought it was absurd that you had these ancient Oscar voters who reportedly don't even watch most of the films and who are so disconnected from what's happening in the movies that they aren't familiar with any actor under the age of 40 who isn't named Jennifer Lawrence. It's sad that it took the embarrassment of #OscarsSoWhite to do something dramatic, but hey it took a massacre in a church to bring down the Confederate flag in South Carolina, so what can you. This is a really hard category to predict. I think at least four of the five nominees have a legit chance to win.

I agree that George Miller has the best "comeback" narrative. After doing some kids movies, he got back to what he does best -- mind blowing action that is both gorgeous to look at and staged (mostly) for real. Inarritu is on a real hot streak with The Revenant coming right after his triumph with Birdman. McCarthy made one of the best journalism films of all time with Spotlight and Adam McKay showed he has real range, with his first serious film The Big Short. Room is terrific, but I think Lenny Abrahamson's nomination is his reward here.

Still smarting over the the snub of Ryan Coogler for his work on Creed, and quite frankly JJ Abrams, who did a miraculous job rejuvenating Star Wars, deserved some consideration too, but I digress.

Who will win: This is so hard but I am going to take a risk here and say George Miller. I think he will benefit from the entirety of the academy voting for this one, and arguably of all the nominees his film is the most distinctly a director's movie. At 70, I think voters understand that he's due and as well-received as The Revenant is I don't see Inarritu winning Best Director two years in a row. I also feel like McCarthy's film is just too small to win, but I could be wrong.

Who should win: George Miller. This is a no brainer for me because Mad Max: Fury Road was my favorite movie of the year. I thought the film was visionary and original and a win for him would be an acknowledgment of what an ambitious feat he pulled off.

Dark horse: Adam McKay. His film just won the PGA, which I think makes it a dark horse to win Best Picture, and while these two awards sometimes split, they usually don't. The Big Short is enough of a crowd pleaser and not particularly divisive with critics, so it might pull off an upset here.

BW

Ah yes, Best Actor!  I completely flaked on this one.  Chalk it up to sleep deprivation with the new kiddo.  Maybe it's because (in my mind) this category such a foregone conclusion, that I completely omitted it.  

To me, this is a one horse race.  It's Leo's year and anything else will completely shock me.  The Revenant is getting praised for it's harsh shooting conditions (using only natural light and facing the harsh wintry conditions), while Leo seems to be getting the same praise.  Is it his best role?  Probably not (to me, it's The Wolf Of Wallstreet), but The Academy definitely likes to make their stars wait their due course.  Like his mentor, Martin Scorcese, Leo probably should have won for his earlier, better work.  But here we are and one of America's greatest actors will finally be getting his name called.  There were other great performances (I especially enjoyed Matt Damon's role in The Martian), as well as a few obvious snubs (Michael B. Joran in Creed comes to mind), but none are strong enough to stop Leo's Titanic (see what I did there?) like momentum.

Here are the nominees:

BEST ACTOR

• Bryan Cranston, Trumbo
• Matt Damon, The Martian
• Leonardo DiCaprio, The Revenant
• Michael Fassbender, Steve Jobs
• Eddie Redmayne, The Danish Girl

Who Will Win:  Leonardo DiCaprio.  He finally gets his name called, and deservedly so.  

Who Should Win:  Leonardo Dicaprio.  While it may not be his best role to date, he still deserves to win.

Dark Horse:  Matt Damon.  He's already won the Golden Globe, but I don't think he's got enough momentum.  Redmayne won it last year, so he's out.  Cranston's reward is the nomination, and Fassbender was criminally overlooked in his refreshing take on Steve Jobs.  It's Leo's night.  Everyone else is along for the ride.

Who is your best actor?

AH

No worries. I'm sleep deprived, too, and I don't even have a good excuse. And yeah I totally agree with you. I am a Leonardo DiCaprio fan and I do think he give a terrific, committed performance in The Revenant. It's probably not his best, in fact my two favorite DiCaprio performances are films he wasn't even nominated for  -- The Departed and Django Unchained. He's been so good for so long and probably deserved to win a couple years where he didn't. In a year where the competition for Best Actor isn't as stiff as it usually is, it appears that this narrative has taken hold that he HAS to win, which is a little annoying to me. Although I have no problem with it. I would have to have seen Michael B. Jordan nominated here too. Creed and Stallone's supporting performance work because of Jordan, hopefully he'll get there soon. And I was a big fan of Johnny Depp's work in Black Mass, which I guess just faded away since it came out so early.

Who will win: Leonardo DiCaprio

He gives a memorable, visceral performance in The Revenant. It's not actually the type of role that usually wins Oscars (Robert Redford, for instance, was unjustly snubbed for his similarly rigorous performance in All Is Lost). It's got minimal dialogue (he has one big Oscar type speech) and he spends much of it incapacitated. But he is compelling to watch here and while in a perfect world the best acting should be all that matters, narratives usually matter more when it comes to this type of thing.

Should win: Leonardo DiCaprio. 

That being said -- I do think DiCaprio probably gave the best performance here. I haven't see Trumbo, but I've heard the Bryan Cranston film is merely OK. I really liked Michael Fassbender's performance in Steve Jobs and am happy to see it recognized, but I might but it one notch below. I wasn't as high on The Martian as you were. I though it was a very good mainstream piece of entertainment, and I thought Matt Damon did wonders with a well-crated movie star role, but I wasn't emotionally affected by it in the same way I was with say Gravity. I have not seen Redmayne's performance either, but I've heard very mixed things about the film and needless to say we're not going to have the third ever back-to-back Best Actor winner on Feb. 28. Spencer Tracy, Tom Hanks and Eddie Redymayne? I don't think so.

Dark Horse: Matt Damon

And I contradict myself within seconds again. I think Damon is also deserving of an Oscar. Even though some of my favorite performances of his -- namely in The Talented Mr. Ripley and also The Departed, were never nominated. He seems like a immensely good guy -- the whitesplanining diversity incident -- notwithstanding. And his movie was a big fat hit. I think he'll get one eventually, but I think if anyone can upset DiCaprio, it's him. But now that The Revenant has become a big hit in its own right, I don't think it's possible for that to happen.

BW

Leonardo wasn't nominated for Django???  Tragic.  I totally agree with your statement about Johnny Depp's work in Black Mass.  The Academy has a really bad short term memory, and unfortunately, September is light years away.

It's now time for the big award (unless I forgot another category)... Best Picture.  You and I are both on record as not liking the "up to 10" movie rule of this award.  I don't know what the cut off is, but there are a number of movies that could have fit into those final three spots.  Creed revitalized the Rocky franchise, while Star Wars was nothing short of breathtaking.  Personally, I would have enjoyed seeing Inside Out crack the top ten.  I think it's Pixar's best movie in years, and a stunning piece of film making.  I know it's a lock to win the best animated movie, but if there was ever a year in which an animated movie could stand a chance to win Best Picture, I think it's this one.  I enjoyed it that much.  Of the seven nominated, I think there's a frontrunner (The Revenant), a close second (Mad Max: Fury Road), and a bunch of others that have a decent chance.  Of the three years we've been doing this, I'm the least sure in my pick.

Here are the nominees:  

BEST PICTURE

• The Big Short
• Bridge of Spies
• Brooklyn
• Mad Max: Fury Road
• The Martian
• The Revenant
• Room
• Spotlight

Will Win:  The Revenant.  I could see a split director/best picture, where The Revenant wins best picture, and George Miller wins director and vice versa.  I think The Revenant has the most momentum going in to the big night.  I think it squeaks out a win.

Should Win:  Mad Max: Fury Road.  It's my #3 and your #1 movie of the year, and I could have easily placed it at #1.  It took a 30+ year old franchise and made it fresh and exciting.  There isn't an uninteresting frame in the entire film.  Plus, Hollywood loves big epic spectacles, and this certainly fits the bill.

Dark Horse:  The Big Short.  I can't quite put my finger on it, but I have a feeling about this movie.  It's funny, did well at the box office, and has a ton of stars in it.  I can't see it getting shut out.  I could also have gone with The Martian, but with Ridley Scott getting shut out in the directing category, I don't like its chances.

So that's it for me.  Who takes home your big prize?

In a side note... thanks for doing this again.  I really enjoy talking with movies, and I love your blog.  You have a great way of making your readers feel like they're in the theater with you.  I would like to try to do this more often.  I loved talking Ghostbusters with you (even though I'm still on the outs with it... Ha!

AH

Dude, this is hard. #That'sWhatSheSaid. This has got to be the most difficult to predict Oscar race I've seen in years. Now that I've caught up and seen all the films nominated, I do think there are a few you can scratch off right off the bat. I liked Bridge of Spies a lot but it didn't resonate quite enough to topple contenders that feel fresher. I was somewhat underwhelmed by Brooklyn, it's not a bad movie, but also not a great one. I think Room is too small a film to topple some of these others. That leaves The Revenant, The Martian, Mad Max Fury Road, Spotlight and The Big Short. I think you can eliminate The Martian next because its director, Ridley Scott, wasn't even nominated. Although in the past that benefitted Argo, I think that was a unique circumstance where Hollywood was devastated for poor multi-millionaire Ben Affleck, and wanted to a do mea culpa. Even though Scott is a living legend, and The Martian may be his biggest crossover success, I don't sense the same aggrieved feeling for him. Director and Best Picture may still split this year, but I doubt a film will win whose director isn't even in the mix.

Sidebar -- I hate to sound like broken record, but in such a wide field Creed, Straight Outta Compton and The Force Awakens should of and could have taken the spots occupied by Bridge of Spies, Brooklyn and maybe even Room, although that film made my top 10.

So I think this usually competitive Oscar race is actually down to four movies. There's Spotlight, which everyone loves but very few people are going to see, Mad Max which also enjoys universal acclaim but is, at the end of the day, an action film, The Revenant, which is really hot right now but also, technically, the nominee with the weakest reviews and The Big Short, which is sort of in the middle of the pack in terms of being an audience pleaser and a more traditional Oscar-baity movie.

Will win: Spotlight

Actors are the biggest branch of Oscar voters and I don't see them going for Mad Max, which despite its epic performances is viewed more as a technical achievement. And despite how hot The Revenant is, I see them rewarding that film with Best Actor instead. Between The Big Short and Spotlight I think it's really close, and the PGA win gives Adam McKay's film more momentum, but I am kind of convinced that the more polished film will win here. Although I could be totally off base.

Should win: Mad Max Fury Road

I've said it before and I'll say it again. My favorite film of the year by a pretty wide margin. I could watch it almost anytime. I am still in awe that they pulled it off and I'm thrilled that it's here. Should it win Best Picture it would go down as the COOLEST winner since perhaps No Country for Old Men or perhaps The Godfather Part II prior to that. But the coolest movies never win. Apocalypse Now lost. Pulp Fiction lost. Star Wars lost. I could on and on. 

Dark Horse: The Big Short

I think I opted for Spotlight over this one because I simply thought it was the better film. The Big Short was a little too pleased with own cleverness at times and I think it's overall premise was inherently problematic, whereas Spotlight, in the least showy way possible, presented heroes you could root for without reservations and told a sensitive story with refreshing restraint. But it's not been winning many of the big awards and seems.

BW

That's all she wrote, folks.  Thanks to Adam Howard for joining me again.  Until next year!