The Last Jedi is thrilling, dark, moving... and cute as hell

Whoa, baby!  Could a film as hyped as The Last Jedi actually live up to it?  We'll get into that.  But first, I want to throw out my spoiler free thoughts on the movie event of the year.  The Last Jedi picks up where The Force Awakens left off.  The Resistance is in retreat as The First Order has taken full control of the galaxy.  As its numbers dwindle, The Resistance is forced to flee for its survival.  General Leia Solo (a fantastically stoic Carrie Fisher, in her farewell performance), Poe Dameron and Finn lead the remains of The Resistance across our favorite far, far away galaxy - barely holding off Kylo Ren's First Order.  And that's essentially what a large part of this film is... a chase.  A race across the galaxy towards an uncertain future.

Whereas The Force Awakens was essentially a refresher course in what made us all fall in love with Star Wars (after its initial critical and commercial success, it's been unfairly labaled as a clone of A New Hope), The Last Jedi treads new water.  The new actors take center stage in this film - each further fleshing out their characters in new and exciting ways.  New actors are introduced here (the best being Kelly Marie Tran's Rose) in fun and creative ways.

That's not to say that the Star Wars universe is done with the old guard quite yet.  Mark Hamill delivers the performance of his career in his 4th performance as Luke Skywalker (well, 5th if you include his cameo at the end of Force).  Hamill plays Skywalker as a jaded Jedi, who is reluctant to train Rey in the ways of The Force.  He's been burned in the past by Kylo Ren, and wants The Jedi to come to an end.  I really this angry, older version of Luke.  Carrie Fisher seems emboldened at playing Leia once again.  She's wise, strong and motherly in a way we haven't seen out of her yet.

I absolutely loved this film.  For a film that's supposed to be this trilogy's Empire, it certainly lives up to that legendary film.  It launches the Star Wars universe towards a new future.  One that will be defined by this wonderful cast of characters in a way that the prequels completely failed.  It's filled with life, love and loss.  The color palatte of this film is an absolute joy to look at for 2.5 hours.  There's a bunch of unexpected twists and turns that I won't ruin here.  Director Rian Johnson delivered a fantastic film.

Now, back to the cute factor.  This film is full of wonderfully cute moments... but cute moments that don't totally distract from the moment at hand, and the depth of the story going on.  The porgs are a wondeful addition to the Star Wars canon.  They were cute in a way that didn't annoy me like Jar Jar Binks or the Ewoks.  There's also a lot of humor that reminds us that at the end the day, we're watching a space odyssey that's supposed to give us an escape and a sense of wonderment.

I'm giving Star Wars: The Last Jedi 3.9 stars out of 4.  There are a few things I could do without... the entire casino sequence for example... but these are so minute that they're hardly worth mentioning.

I can't wait to relive this wonderful film again and again.

Logan Lucky: Steven Soderbergh tries his best Coen Brothers impersonation... and fails.

I finally got around to seeing Logan Lucky, Steven Soderbergh's return to filmmaking after a self-imposed retirement, last night and boy was I underwhelmed.  I meant to see it to during its initial theatrical run, but having two kids doesn't allow me to get to the theater as much as I would like.  I tend to wait for Netflix on a lot of movies that I used to go see in the theater.  Going in, I have to admit that I was pretty psyched for this one.  It had a great cast.  An hilarious trailer.  And a fun premise.  Basically Ocean's Eleven with rednecks.  However, I have to admit that there wasn't much to this film.  It didn't add anything new to the heist genre, and it was a pretty disappointing return to filmmaking for Soderbergh. 

Logan Lucky tells the story of two brothers.  One is a former high school hero turned real life zero (played by Channing Tatum), and the other is a one-armed army vet who runs a local bar (Adam Driver).  Together, they concoct a scheme to rob the local NASCAR event so Tatum's character can provide for his estranged daughter.  Along the way, you get a lot of tomfoolery, a couple laughs, and a plot that seems like a (very) poor man's Ocean's Eleven.  I kept waiting for it to take off, and it never quite went anywhere.  The characters weren't zany enough to be considered a Coen Brothers homage, and the story wasn't interesting enough to add anything to heist genre that we haven't already seen before.

There were a couple bright spots to this film, namely Daniel Craig's goofy explosions expert, "Joe Bang," but they weren't enough to save this formulaic film.  I'm not sure why Soderbergh decided that this was the film he wanted to make after stepping away from the game, but it was a poorly executed mess from a master filmmaker.  Seth MacFarlane is in this film as an over the top NASCAR driver, but he seems like a bad SNL skit (with a bad wig and mustache nonetheless).  Like I said, there's a lot of poor choices in this film.

If you're looking for a better heist film, I highly recommend you check out Good Time, a much better film with top-notch directing and acting.  Save yourself some time and skip Logan Lucky.

Justice League is (wait for it)... just an average superhero movie

Going into Justice League, the new DC superhero mashup from Zack Snyder (and an uncredited directing effort by Joss Whedon), I had pretty low expectations.  After walking out, I can say that they were mostly met.  Like every other DC cinematic universe film (with the exception of the joyful Wonder Woman), it was marred with shoddy storytelling, not quite fleshed out characters, and tooooo much CGI.  It's a microcosm  of the entire DCCU, which has been trying to play catch up the larger, and more successful, Marvel Universe.  The fact that we're already at a team-up film after only 2 films (plus a prequel of sorts with WW) is all you need to know.  Whilst the Marvel Universe took its time to develop characters and stories before teaming all its heroes up, DC seems to think you won't care that they're essentially introducing three new characters during its first team-up effort.  Save for a couple brief cameos, we have never met or seen The Flash, Cyborg and Aquaman.  That's not to say that they weren't entertaining characters, but how can we fully care about any of them if we're just meeting them minutes before a big boss battle.

The story of Justice League essentially boils down to this... Superman is dead, bad guys are coming, and it's up to Batman to get a team strong enough to stop the evil Steppenwolf (no, not that Steppenwolf!) before he can destroy the world.  Each character is given roughly 10 minutes of introduction before they're banding together.  I barely had enough time to register the lackluster plot before we're engulfed in another Zack Snyder slow-motion fisticuffs.

There are some good things about Justice League.  The Flash (played by Ezra Miller) steals the show as the film's comic relief.  It's clear that DC was intended to liven things up, and The Flash reaps the main benefits of this tonal shift.  Jason Momoa actually makes the worst superhero in history, Aquaman, palatable.  He plays him as equal parts lone wolf and rockstar, and it totally works.  Gal Gadot is great, as always, as Wonder Woman.  DC has a real star here in Gadot.  And I feel bad for Ben Afleck because he is actually pretty good as Bruce Wayne/Batman.  I would like to see his now scrapped Batman solo film.  Too bad that it looks like he's leaving the franchise as soon as he can.

The bad does, sadly, outweigh the good.  The main villain, Steppenwolf, is as bad as his CGI.  There is minimal backstory to him, and I could not care less about this character.  I feel like the villain of this film should have been Zod, Doomsday, or even a convoluted Lex Luthor plot.  It's too bad they already wasted them in previous films.  Cyborg's character is about as inhuman as his robotic body.  He's supposed to be the glue that binds all the characters together, but he's not given enough to work with here.  And (spoiler alert) Superman's CGI mustache removal is a major distraction throughout the film.

I'm giving Justice League 1.75 stars out of 4.  It's a big step back for DC after the commercial and critical success of Wonder Woman.  I don't think this is the end for the DCCU, but they're going to have to develop these characters way more before they even think about Justice League 2.

Thor: Ragnarok... a new comedy duo is born!

Abbott and Costello. Gleason and Carney. Pryor and Wilder. Murphy and Hall.  Aykroyd and Belushi... and now Thor and The Hulk???  You read that right.  In the annals of comedy duos, we have seen the birth of the next great duo.  Thor: Ragnarok is the funniest Marvel film ever and Thor and The Hulk should have their own series of films.

Thor is a major part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and yet, his solo films have always felt like also-rans... filler used to advance a larger Avengers storyline.  The first Thor film seemed to exist solely to introduce us to Loki and the Tesseract (which would be the main foils of the first Avengers movie).  The second Thor film (The Dark World) is widely regarded as the worst of the MCU films.  In that film, we barely get a coherent story, and the sole purpose of it was to introduce the MCU to another infinity stone.  That's not to say that they were bad films.  In fact, I quite enjoyed them both.  However, they are the first examples you can point to to the assembly line nature that the MCU has sometimes been labeled with.  It's also not to say that Thor, himself, was a bland character.  He often brings levity to the films that he's in (the diner scene in the original Thor, and the late night test of strength in Age of Ultron).  It's refreshing to see Chris Hemsworth given so much more to work with in this film... the first full-blown comedy in the MCU.

Ragnarok picks up two years after the events of Ultron.  Loki is still up to mischief, and The Hulk has shown up on a mysterious planet where The Master (played hilariously by Jeff Goldblum... doing a great Jeff Goldblum impersonation) has staged gladiatorial style fights for leisure.  Thor ends up on this planet after being banished from Asgard by his long-lost sister Hela, the Goddess of Death (played by the agelss wonder Cate Blanchett).  You see, she was Thor's father's first child, and wants her throne back.  The fact that she's a complete psychopath and has been banished by her father and wiped from Asgardian history comes as a complete surprise to Thor and Loki.

This movie is all smiles from start to finish.

This film works because it strips Thor down (and, gasp, cuts his hair).  He loses his hammer and has to build himself back up from lowly gladiator to god (or Lord, as he's hilariously referred to, in this film) of thunder.  This film really picks up during the Thor/Hulk brouhaha.  From that point on, they are a comedy duo for the ages, delivering zingers that would make a Judd Apatow production jealous.  Thor realizes that he needs The Hulk to help in his quest for revenge.

There's a lot to like in this film.  The comedy is gold.  The acting (especially the supporting cast) is superb.  And the special effects are top notch.  That's not to say that it's a perfect film.  The storyline feels a little disjointed in places.  It's basically a mash-up of two comic book runs (Ragnarok and Planet Hulk).  There are parts in the film, where the comedy feels out of place or forced.  However, I'm not knocking it too much.  It's a genuinely delightful film.  Kudos to director Taika Waititi for pumping life into Marvel's stalest character.  Definitely go see Thor: Ragnarok. 3 out of 4 stars.

Stay through the credits for the standard MCU advancing scenes.

Blade Runner 2049 is a beautiful film... but it's not for everyone.

 The original Blade Runner is on the sci-fi films Mt. Rushmore.  It's bold, beautiful, and timeless.  However, it wasn't widely praised when it was originally released.  It was only after many years (and director's cuts) that Ridley Scott's original film was labeled a masterpiece.  It served as a cautionary tale about studio meddling, and was widely viewed as a flop.  I bring this up because its much anticipated sequel, Blade Runner 2049, is having its own trouble getting out the gates.  The film is already being labeled a "bomb" at the box office, which is a tad premature to say.  Despite the overwhelmingly positive reviews, 2049 didn't quite knock it out of the park during its first weekend at the box office.  It's sad to say that we live in a culture where a first weekend means everything to a film's financial success.  I hope that this new film can find its legs through word of mouth and repeated viewings, but I'm not too optimistic about that.

Blade Runner 2049 is a wonderful film.  It's beautiful, bold, and ambitious like the original classic.  It's set 35 years after the events of the first film.  The Tyrell corporation has gone bankrupt.   In its place is the Wallace Corporation (run in full method acting glory by the great Jared Leto).  The world has seen ecological devastation, and replicants (human androids) have only been brought back out of necessity.  The original batch of replicants (Nexus 8 models) are being hunted and "retired" by a new crop of Blade Runners.  You see, those original models can think for themselves, whereas the new crop are totally and completely loyal to their human masters.  We follow the story through the eyes of Ryan Gosling's "K," a newer model replicant (this isn't a spoiler... it's revealed in the first 5 minutes of the movie), who is tasked with retiring the Nexus 8s.  He soon finds out that there is more than meets the eye to the official company line, when he meets an older model (played in a brief but memorable manner by Dave Bautista).  It seems that a body is buried in his front yard that opens up a world of endless (and forbidden) possibilities for replicants.

What follows is a classic Hollywood film noir style story that happens to be set in the future.  It's Chinatown with flying cars.  It takes its time to build a case and doesn't take shortcuts in getting to the conclusion.  Some could argue that its too long and plodding... however, I felt that it was such a beautiful journey that I didn't mind sticking around for its almost 3 hour run time.  The great cinematographer Roger Deakins has crafted a film in which every frame is a piece of art.  So, although, the film tends to lag in parts (especially during the robot sex scene), it was still one of the most beautiful films I've ever seen.  I didn't mind the (very deliberate) pace of this film.  Like I said, it felt like Chinatown (one of my favorite movies) set in the future.  If you go in expecting Star Wars, you'll sadly be disappointed.

I can see why this film is not for everyone.  In fact, multiple people left the theater during its screening.  It's a blockbuster that has very little resemblance to today's modern shoot-em-ups.  It's deliberate almost to a fault.  It tries to be a little too philosophical at times.  But ultimately, I feel like this film delivers everything that I wanted from it.  Director Denis Villenueve further cements his status as one of the great modern film directors.

You don't even need to have seen the first one to enjoy this one.  It can stand on its own two feet.

I'm giving Blade Runner 2049 3 out of 4 stars.  It has its flaws, but ultimately, it's a rewarding film that warrants repeat viewings.  I think I'll get more out of it during each viewing.

Kingsman: The Golden Circle is a jolly good time, bruv.

 I'm a firm believer that the first Kingsman (The Secret Service) film is one of, if not THE most underrated mainstream action film of the last decade.  It's so underrated that when I was coming up with my top 10 of that year, I totally forgot it.  Not because it wasn't a great film (it was), but because it sort of just slipped through the cracks for me.  I look back at that film, and it felt like such a breath of fresh air.  In a time when the spy genre had taken a turn to the serious (Daniel Craig's run as Bond and the Bourne films), The Secret Service, went the complete opposite direction.  It felt like both an homage and a spoof of the spy genre without ever feeling cheesy or out of place.  I think it deserves its place near any list of action movies, and I'm sad to have omitted it from my list.

For those of you who are uninitiated with the Kingsman films, I'll give you a brief refresher.  Set in modern day England, the Kingsman are a modern day Knights Of The Round Table.  They are an independent agency tasked with saving the world on a regular basis.  Taron Egerton plays "Eggsy," the latest recruit to the Kingsman, and he is mentored by Colin Firth's Galahad.  In the first film, they were charged with saving the world from the evil mastermind (portrayed against his tough guy image by the wonderful Samuel L. Jackson).  Needless to say... the Kingsman prevailed.  I don't think that was ever in doubt.  BUT, the journey to the end was over the top fun and had at least two all-time great action sequences (the fight through a church in Kentucky & the final battle inside Jackson's evil layer).

The Golden Circle picks up one year after the events of The Secret Service, and wastes no time getting the audience right into the action.  After an entertaining opening salvo, we learn that another villain (this time played with absolute devilish delight by the always incredible Julianne Moore) is looking to take over the world.  She's developed a secret drug that will kill every millions if the United States government doesn't pay a ransom.  I should also mention that most of the Kingsman gets taken out by this group, leaving only Eggsy and Merlin to save the world.  They are drawn to Kentucky and their American counterparts, The Statesman (led by Jeff Bridges and an underused Channing Tatum), for help.  This group is as over the top "Merica" as you can imagine.  They were denim from head to toe, and drink whisky as martinis.  I got an absolute kick out of this.  Soon enough we realize that they have saved Firth's character from death (it's not a spoiler... he was all over the trailers), but with a twist.  He has amnesia.  The Kingsman and The Statesman must work quickly to try to find Poppy (Moore) and her hideout (which you have to see to believe).  Only she has the antidote for this deadly drug.

As we know from the James Bond movies (especially the Roger Moore series of films), sequels tend to go bigger.  But are they necessarily better?  I'd argue not necessarily.  There's something to behold about simplicity and a good story winning out over.  I wouldn't necessarily say that The Secret Service was simple, but it presented a much more coherent storyline.  The Golden Circle, while a hell of a lot of fun, tended to go bigger and more absurd, over character development.  It's a small complaint, but one that makes me rank this one slightly below the first one.  There was a scene on the ski slopes that screamed out "James Bond homage" at the top of its lungs.  I didn't mind it, but I'm trying to look at this movie from all angles and see the flaws.

Overall, Kingsman: The Golden Circle is a hell of a good time.  Is it better than the first one?  No... but that really doesn't matter.  It's a great escapist mainstream action movie that I would highly recommend.  The action sequences are fun, however none really can compete with the two aforementioned scenes from the first film.

I'm giving The Golden Circle 2.75 stars out of 4.  I had a blast.  It allowed me to escape from the crap going on in the world for a couple hours... and really, that's all I could ask for.  There's a really fun cameo that I won't ruin, but look out for Poppy's entertainment that she's kidnapped and brought to her lair.

IT is a genuinely thrilling movie... but I still miss Tim Curry

As a child, I was terrified by three films.  The first was The Exorcist, which is still one of the scariest movies ever made.  The second was the head-trippy Jacob's Ladder, a movie that I could barely sit through when I was younger.  The third, and perhaps most frightening to me, was the ABC miniseries event based on Stephen King's IT.  IT scared the hell out of me for a myriad of reasons, but most centrally, was the iconic performance of Pennywise The Clown by Tim Curry.  He forever instilled a fear of clowns in most children my age and beyond.  Looking back at the original IT, the film doesn't quite hold up in terms of quality and the performances are slightly (OK, not so slightly) campy.  However, the genuine chills still exist and I have to admit to being a little skeptical of this big screen remake.  However, after seeing the film tonight, I can say that my fears were mostly unnecessary.  IT is a top notch big budget thriller that improves upon the original in almost every way.

This version of IT focuses on the town of Derry, Maine during the summer of 1989 (different from the 1950s setting of the book and original movie).  A group of outcast children (known as the Loser's Club) discovers that children have gone missing at an alarming rate.  The Loser's realize that they have all been experiencing similar experiences involving a maniacal clown known as Pennywise (played by Bill Skarsgard), who terrorizes them by invoking the children's deepest, darkest fears against them.  The Loser's figure out that the town of Derry seems to go through a cycle of terror every 27 years, and Pennywise is always at the center of it.  He preys on children, while the adults of the town gloss over it (similar to Freddie Kruger in the Nightmare on Elm Street films).  It's soon up to the Loser's Club to try and rid Derry of the demon clown before it's too late.

I think this film does a great job of portraying adolescence (granted a really messed up one), and the troubles with growing up.  The group of children are the stars of this film.  They are equal parts hilarious and vulnerable.  They band together because of their similar home settings (all experience some form of physical or mental abuse by older members of their family or society).  The break out stars of this film is Finn Wolfhard (of Stranger Things fame) and Sophia Lillis.  Finn's character is the comedic center of this film and delivers his lines with perfect timing and impulse.  Lillis' character is the lone girl in the Loser's Club, and she has perhaps, the most emotionally troubling background of all the children.  The Loser's Club draw you in to the film in a relate able way and keep you interested throughout its slightly bloated run time.

On the other hand is Pennywise the Clown.  Skarsgard had a tough task in this film.  He had to take on such an iconic role while making it his own, and I think that he did an admirable job of it.  However, I think that Curry still owns this character and the follow-up will have to do a better job of making this Pennywise stand on his own.  He didn't get much of a chance to deliver lines of dialogue the way Curry did, and I was a little disappointed in that.

Make no mistake, this film is pure popcorn movie fun.  It delivers genuine thrills while keeping the story and characters grounded.  Yes, the villains are over the top at times, and it does tend to go the CGI route a little too much (though I was OK with that).  IT is a perfect escapist film and one I would highly recommend.

I much appreciated this film focusing on one-half of King's story.  However, I'm a little worried that the box office success of IT will make the producers drag the story out into as many films as possible.

If you're a fan of horror, go check it out.  3 out of 4 stars.

Dunkirk is Christopher Nolan's crowning achievement

There are few in Hollywood who can craft a visual marvel quite like Christopher Nolan.  He has re-defined the superhero movie with his Batman trilogy, and has also created the best mainstream action movie of the 2000's in Interstellar.  I look forward to his films more than any other director in Hollywood, except perhaps Quentin Tarantino.  His films aren't just run of the mill action fests... they're must-see events.  Needless to say, I was looking forward to this film more than any other this year (with the exception of the next Star Wars entry).  I can happily report that Dunkirk is an absolute masterpiece and it stands as the high water mark in Nolan's distinguished career.  There isn't a single wasted frame in the entire film.

The story of Dunkirk is one that I, sadly, was not really aware of.  The stakes are extremely high.  It takes place in 1940, well before America enters the foray of World War II.  The Brits and their allies are backed up to Dunkirk beach in France and are literally surrounded by the Germans on all sides.  No less than the fate of the free world is at stake.  These soldiers are literal sitting ducks, hoping to not be picked off by the mighty German war machine before they can be rescued across a short 26 mile stretch of ocean.  Large ships are mowed down by German U-Boats, so it's up to a fleet of civilian ships to head stright into a warzone and rescue their brethren.  Nolan throws you right into the action.  He wisely discards any and all back story and throws his audience right into the battle.  Like the opening to Saving Private Ryan (a personal favorite of mine), Dunkirk excels at bringing its audience to within a stones throw of the brutality of war.  It's an adrenaline rush from start to finish, and I found myself clenching my chair throughout its entirety.  The battle is told through three perspectives:  The land, air, and sea.  It's brilliantly edited out of sequence, leaving the audience to experience different levels of trauma throughout it.

At 106 minutes, Dunkirk is Nolan's shortest film.  However, you feel every single one of those 106 minutes.  Hans Zimmer delivers a brilliant score that only adds to the drama (I'll never hear a stopwatch the same way again).  It's largely a dialogue free film, however that's not a knock against it.  I'd argue that the score is more important than any piece of dialogue in the film.  It builds and builds as the tension mounts until you find yourself exhaling at the end of the film, having held your breath through most of it.

That's not to say that there aren't great performances in it.  Newcomer, Fionn Whitehead is how the audience experiences most of the film.  He is the representation of the 400,000 soldiers trapped on the beach.  His dread is their dread.  Tom Hardy plays an air force fighter pilot in charge of the aerial rescue.  Oscar winner Mark Rylance delivers a deeply personal performance as one of the civilian boat rescuers.  Kenneth Branagh and Harry Styles fill out the cast with superb performances.

This film deserves to be seen on the biggest screen possible.  Sadly, I did not get a chance to see it on an IMAX screen, which left me a little disappointed.  Nolan is the master of practical effects, and he filled his beaches with thousands of extras and as many real ships and planes as he could get his hands on.  I'm greatly anticipating the making of features on the Blu-Ray disc.

Dunkirk is the best movie I've seen this year.  It's a story about bravery, honor, and sacrifice.  4 out of 4 stars.  It delivers on every level and proves that Nolan is a master of suspense and emotion (a knock on him prior to this film).  Go see it!

War For The Planet Of The Apes is a fitting conclusion to the rebooted Apes trilogy

When people ask, "why are they constantly rebooting or remaking every piece of cinematic treasure?" you can point them to the recent reboot of the Planet Of The Apes as an example of getting it right.  There is so much dross and garbage trotted out before audiences every year, that it's easy to disregard anything with an "R" word before it as trash.  However, on the off chance that Hollywood actually gets it right (see the most recent Spider-Man reboot as another example), these stories can be worthy successor to their much beloved originals.

War For The Planet Of The Apes is the third (and reportedly final) entry to the Apes family of films.  The previous two (2011's Rise and 2014's Dawn) have been heralded both for their storytelling and their landmark special effects.  War is no different in this regard.  Once again, the team manages to deliver top notch motion capture work alongside real locations and human actors.  Andy Serkis again reprises his role as the simian leader, Caesar.  In this film, the war that was teased at the end of Dawn is in full swing.  The human resistance is in its final throes, and is attempting to find (and kill) Caesar and the rest of his ape compatriots.  The humans are led by the exceptional Woody Harrelson (in full Marlon Brando Apocalypse Now mode).  They believe the only way to victory is through complete annihilation of the apes.  Caesar is a much more conflicted leader.  He still seeks peace, while doing what it takes to protect his kind.  Unlike Harrelson's character, Caesar wears his emotion on his face.  He is a conflicted leader, who is haunted by his past actions and his love for humanity.

This is what I most enjoyed about War.  For a war film, there were many tender moments throughout it.  Large chunks of this film are silent as the apes mostly communicate through sign language.  The audience is along for the ride as Caesar and his friends try to end the war for good and bring peace to the world.  Since there is limited talking, a lot of the emotion is done through facial expressions and grunts.  I can't say enough about how good of a job Andy Serkis does.  I don't think he'll get an Oscar nomination for his work in these films, but his ability to act via motion capture is unparalleled.  His personality is felt throughout this film (and its predecessors), and he has done all he can do to bring validity to motion capture filmmaking.

While War does have some tremendous action set pieces, it does tend to drag in parts.  The third act felt a little long, and the Moses imagery was laid on a tad thick for my tastes.  I can't rate this one higher than Dawn (in my opinion, the high water mark to the series).  However, in an already strong year for mainstream blockbuster film making, War For The Planet Of The Apes delivers a highly satisfying and very entertaining conclusion to this trilogy.

Kudos to director, Matt Reeves, and his team.  3 out of 4 stars.

Life is such a blatant Alien rip-off that it's actually insulting.

Hollywood blockbusters in 2017 are basically a steady stream of reboots, remakes and sequels.  We've all come to accept that as the business model for the foreseeable future.  For better or worse, we're going to see comic book movies for the rest of our lives.  With that being said, there's a certain sense of excitement when an original blockbuster comes down the pike during the months of May and September.  If you look at the summer movies this year, there are less than a handful of big budget original movies.  I actually had high hopes for Life, the 2017 space thriller starring Jake Gyllenhaal, Ryan Reynolds and a host of others.  The trailer looked interesting, and it managed to turn Goodnight Moon into terrifying nightmare fuel.  By some turn of events, I was unable to get to the theaters to see this one during its original run.  I finally had a chance to watch it this past weekend, and the results were... not good.

While Life may claim to be an original film, it's basically a not-nearly-as-good remake of 1979's Alien.  There isn't a single original shot in this nearly two hour stink fest.  From the title card (nearly identical to Alien's title reveal) to the alien baddy, this movie tries to get away with creating something "new" out of completely used spare parts.  The fact that this tries to call itself an original idea is insulting to audiences, critics, and film fans everywhere.  I'm glad to see that it fizzled out at the box office and I'm doing my best to see that it doesn't gain an audience at home.

Stop me if you've heard this before... a crew or ragtag astronauts comes across an unknown foreign substance on their mission, and proceed to bring it on board as it grows and kills almost everyone on board.  I kept saying to myself, "I can't believe they're trying to get away with this" as the alien made its way through the ship.  The alien in this film even bears a striking resemblance to the face hugger from the Alien films.  I kept waiting for a climactic scene in an airlock to close this film out (hint: that's pretty close to what happened).

There's not much to like about this one.  The effects aren't ground breaking, the cast is average at best, and the story is so predictable it seemed like they took the original Alien script and just changed the names and locations.  Please steer clear of this sorry excuse for "original" content.  If this is the best that Hollywood has to offer in regards to original blockbusters, then sign me up for Transformers 38 (who am I kidding?  I'm already signed up for Transformers 38.  I can't quit Michael Bay!).

The Third Spider-Man's The Charm! Homecoming's Tom Holland Finally Delivers A Great Spider-Man Performance.

Spider-Man is on the Mount Rushmore of Superheroes (along with Batman, Superman,and superhero of your choice.  I choose Wolverine), but other than the great Spider-Man 2, he's really had a hard time coming to life on the big screen.  Toby Maguire's rendering of the web slinger kicked off the modern day Superhero craze (I know that X-Men started it, but the first Spider-Man movie took the craze nuclear), but his movies have not aged well (except for SM2, which is still a classic).  Andrew Garfield's turn in the spandex suit never really connected with audiences (although I prefer his origin story to Maguire's), and the studio was more concerned with universe building than storytelling... leading to the absolute clunker of a film (Amazing Spider-Man 2... one of the most disappointing Superhero movies of all-time), and a franchise in desperate need of an identity.  Enter Marvel... the juggernaut agreed with Sony to bring the character back into the fold of the Marvel Cinematic Universe.  Tom Holland's brief role in last year's Captain America: Civil War was arguably the best part of that film and turned a skeptic like me (I didn't think the franchise could be saved) into a full-on believer.

And here we are.  Spider-Man: Homecoming is the truest big screen rendition of the classic Marvel character to date, and Tom Holland is easily the best cinematic Spider-Man of all-time.

Since we were already introduced to the character in Civil War, Marvel wisely decided against another origin tale (great power = great responsibility was graciously spared of this one).  Homecoming picks up where Civil War left off.  Peter Parker is a high school sophomore who moonlights at night in the "Tony Stark Internship," a codename he uses to fight crime.  Holland nails the character with a perfect blend of youthful naivete and aww shucks humor.  His interactions with Jon Favreau's Happy Holland had me laughing out loud in the best of ways.  Since we're back in the MCU, Robert Downey Jr.'s Tony Stark appears sporadically (but definitely not overused) as Parker's mentor... to hilarious results.

The main villain is brilliantly portrayed by Michael Keaton (making his long awaited return to comic book movies).  He plays the down on his luck construction foreman turned winged vigilante, The Vulture.  Keaton is incredible in this role.  He brings to this film a blend of relate-able charmer and stone cold killer.  The Vulture blames Stark for his misfortune, which is very topical in today's age of the debate over wealth inequality.

The rest of the very diverse cast is great as well.  They felt (and looked) like an actual New York City school, which I think really helped this film's credibility come through.  Parker's best friend, Ned (played by Jacob Batalon), and the quirky Michelle (played with full piss and vinegar by Zendaya) were the two scene stealers of the movie.  They were the perfect sidekicks to Holland's character.  The best of this film part is that they didn't try to get a bunch of 30 year olds to play high school kids (which I always found distracting about the other films).  It felt like actual high school kids with age appropriate feelings and actions.  Kudos to the Marvel team.  My one complaint about the cast is that Marisa Tomei's, Aunt Mae, was totally underused.  She owned every scene that she was in, but there weren't enough for my liking.  She also delivers the best line of the movie.

Another thing that I loved about this film is that it didn't take itself too seriously.  It was having fun at every corner, without feeling silly.  It also featured an hilarious scene that answered one of my biggest questions about Spider-Man.  I always felt that if I was a villain in the Spider-Man universe, I would just do my criminal activities in the suburbs, which would prevent Spidey from swinging through the air.  I won't ruin it, but there's a great action sequence that deals with this directly.

I'm giving Spider-Man: Homecoming 3 out of 4 stars.  It's the best Spider-Man to date, and the best on-screen adaption of the actual Spider-Man character.  I am excited to see this version show up in other Marvel Cinematic Universe movies.  It's not a film without flaws, and it's hard to rate the third attempt at a reboot a perfect film, but it's definitely enjoyable.  It fits perfectly into the Marvel Cinematic Universe, but is a film that can also be enjoyed by people who aren't that familiar with other movies (though I feel you should watch Civil War to get a refresher on the storyline).

Stick around for the standard post-credit scenes featuring an hilarious cameo from another Marvel favorite after the credits.

Transformers: The Last Knight is bat shit crazy... and not in a good way

Before I start this review, I have to get one thing off my chest.  To plagiarize Office Space... I am a Michael Bay fan.  I celebrate (almost) his entire catalog.  I know that as a fan of cinema, I'm not supposed to admit this.  I just can't help it.  The man knows how to craft an action sequence better than most people on the planet, and the eternal teenage boy inside me will always line up for more Total Bayhem.  There are many reasons to dislike Bay.  His movies are stupid.  His plots are non-existent.  And the veiled racism in them are thinner than Kate Moss on a hunger strike.  However, there's something about seeing Sean Connery deliver lines like "winners go home and fuck the prom queen" that appeal to me.  For the past decade, Bay has been relegated to churning out these Transformers movies... with diminishing returns.  He occasionally steps away to make other films, but for better or worse (mostly the latter), he's been handed the keys to the Transformer Universe.

This is his fifth outing in the director's seat, and for the first time, it seems like every one involved in the production is doing it solely for the paycheck.  There's nothing new about this film, and the plot can be loosely described as Mark Wahlberg says some crazy shit followed by robot fighting.  Lather, rinse, repeat.  This is what was very disappointing about The Last Knight.  I'm not looking for the next Citizen Kane with these films.  I know what I'm getting myself in to.  BUT, I do expect a certain level of effort put into each film.  The first film worked because we were finally seeing a beloved 80s cartoon hit the big screen.  The second film was Bay's first attempt at using IMAX cameras.  The third film introduced the series to 3D and had some really cool scenes involving flying winged suits.  The fourth film introduced the Dinobots.  The Last Knight doesn't innovate or introduce us to anything new.  In fact, it seems to repeat bits and pieces from previous films without any regard to continuity.

I'm not going to go too in depth on the plot of this film because that would hurt my brain.  Here's a short short version.  Humanity is systematically eliminating the Transformers from the earth.  Cade Yaeger (Wahlberg) is the leader of the resistance.  Optimus Prime has gone back to Cybertron to confront his makers.  Anthony Hopkins (in full paycheck cashing mode) is a historian who discovers that the Transformers have been around since the Knights of the Roundtable and have hidden a device on earth that could be used to destroy the world.  At least I think this is the plot.  The story goes all over the place too many times to remember.  I remember dozing off for a bit, but having it not impact my understanding of the movie (never a good sign).  Wahlberg is all wrong in this leading role.  He never goes beyond "say hi to your mother for me" style acting.  At least Shia Laboef was able to muster up some emotion beyond screaming frantically.

As far as Total Bayhem goes, I think this is where I was most disappointed.  The action sequences played out like a bit of "been there, destroyed that."  You could at least count on one holy shit moment in these films, and The Last Knight didn't have a single scene on that level.

Overall, I'm giving this movie .5 stars out of 4, and a 4 out of 10 on the Total Bayhem scale. I know this won't be the last film in the series (and the post-credit scene almost guarantees that), but it's a disappointment to say the least... especially being billed as Bay's last go-around with the robots in disguise.

Wonder Woman is a much needed victory for DC

It's no secret that DC's attempt at building a cinematic universe similar to the Marvel-verse has been bumpy at best and dreadful at worst.  From Man Of Steel to Suicide Squad (maybe the worst superhero movie of all time), DC can't quite seem to figure itself out.  It has entrusted its franchises and tone to Zach "Sucker Punch" Snyder, and the results have been... meh.  From struggles with tone to sloppy storytelling, each outing seems like a preseason football contest.  You trot your stars out to get reps, but with an incomplete playbook.  The DC-verse has felt like its learning how to be a franchise without a coherent direction.  Critics have voiced their venomous displeasure while audiences have shown up in droves (however, I can't seem to find a single DC movie fan).

I tend to be less harsh than others when it comes to the DC movies.  I actually kind of love Man Of Steel more each time I see it.  Batman V Superman: Dawn Of Justice is a flawed movie, for sure, but one whose director's cut is a vast improvement over its theatrical release.  Like Darth Vader, there's still some good in that one.  The one DC film I just can't get behind is last summer's abortion of a film, Suicide Squad. My friend Adam put it best when he said "it looked like I think Four Loco tastes."  I don't know if there's ever been a better description of a shitty movie ever written.  Looking at these films, even I can admit that they are not even in the same league as Marvel's well-oiled cinematic machine.  I went into Wonder Woman last night realllly hoping that it would be the first step in the right direction... and I am happy to report that, for the first time, DC's cinematic brain trust finally got it right.

Wonder Woman is a movie in three distinct parts.  An original tale, a quirky comedy, and a superhero smash and bash ending.  The film opens with the story of Diana, the Amazon princess, desperate to learn the ways of her fighting, all-female, clan.  It's the first time in the DC-verse where the tones and colors on screen aren't flat and gray, but rather vibrant as hell.  This pays dividends as we see that this ain't your father's DC movie.  It's a good start, albeit one that uses a tried and true formula.  The movie picks up when Chris Pine's character literally crashes the party, turning a paint by numbers action epic into an almost romantic comedy style action film.

Gal Gadot, as Wonder Woman, lets her comedy chops shine during this middle section.  I felt that she struggled showing her more serious side, but absolutely knocked it out of the park with her interactions with Pine's character.  She explores London with an almost childlike wonderment, which leads to some definite LOL's.  I'm really glad that the film went in this direction. For one, it finally breaks the "no fun rule" which has been the go to direction of the DC-verse.  It's a much needed infusion of charm and laughs after a couple films of brooding silence.  I hope the films keep with this mix of humor and action going forward (and judging by the Justice League trailer that played before the film, it seems my hopes will be answered).

The final act of this film reverted back to a more standard CGI-infused superhero formula, but it was still exciting.  There's an incredible battle across a World War I battlefield through a Belgian town that is the action highlight of the film.

I absolutely enjoyed Wonder Woman.  It was the perfect summer movie escape.  I'm giving it 3 out of 4 stars.  It is not a perfect film, but it's definitely a step in the right direction.  I'm actually excited for Justice League.

It has its flaws, for sure.  The director tends to favor Zac Snyder slow motion style action sequences a little too much, and as my co-worker described to me, the score seems a little out of place at times.  The main villain is also completely under-developed.  The big reveal/spoiler fell a little flat, to me.  However, my complaints are minor.  It was a really fun introduction to one of the most classic characters of all-time.

Alien: Covenant is a mixed bag of been there done that

"Questions will be answered."  That was the big tagline for 2012's Prometheus, Ridley Scott's return to the genre and franchise that he created.  Who created the Xenomorphs?  Who were the engineers?  What was that space jockey thing in the abandoned ship at the beginning of Alien?  Going into that movie, I was very excited to dip into the mythology surrounding 1979's genre defining film.  I've always been a major fan of the Alien franchise.  The original film scared the hell out of me and is the high water mark for the entire series.  James Cameron's sequel, Aliens, set the gold standard for action movie sequels.  And I've always been a fan of the much-maligned (director David Fincher hates it) Alien 3.  However, from that film on, the franchise has grown stale.  Be it through a series of direct to DVD quality mashups with the Predator or a failed 4th entry that is better left unmentioned.  That's why I was so excited when papa Ridley returned home.  He was coming back to finish what he started (I've read that he always regretted not making another Alien film).  Unfortunately, Prometheus did not live up to the hype with fans and critics.  It left audiences with more questions than they had going in to it.

I, unlike most fans, actually adore Prometheus.  Like an onion, it reveals more layers each time I watch it, and I view it as a must watch for any Alien fan.  I can admit that it's a flawed film, but it fails in a good way.  It takes chances and doesn't fall into the familiar territory that ended up hurting the later Alien installments.  It introduced the world to Michael Fassbender's, David, the best android in the entire franchise.  It shot for more than just cheap thrills and chest bursting sequences.  And, while it didn't always hit the mark, I will will always defend Prometheus.

Prometheus also made enough money to warrant a sequel.  And here we are with Ridley Scott once again returning to the director's chair for this mixed bag of a film.

I'll start with the good... Alien: Covenant delivers much better action/horror sequences than Prometheus.  The aliens are better in every way (given that the actual Xenomorph didn't show up until the ending moments of Prometheus makes this a given).  They have a couple variations throughout the film, but once the classic Xenomorph shows up, the action really picks up.  The chest bursting scenes are bloody as hell, and there are some genuinely exciting action sequences.

Another improvement in this film is that the human characters have more to them than simply being alien-bate.  I will fully admit that Prometheus didn't always do a great job of injecting life into its characters.  Covenant's characters get more time to develop before the blood starts bursting.  Katherine Waterson, Billy Crudup and Danny McBride all shine in their roles aboard the spaceship tasked with re-populating the human race on a distant planet.  They're all given depth that was previously lacking and their actions have meaning.

My absolute favorite part of this film is Michael Fassbender's dual role.  He reprises his Peter O'Toole-esque, David, from the previous film as well as playing an upgraded cyborg, Walter.  David has gone off the deep end.  He reminds me of Marlon Brando in Apocalypse Now... a former company man that has gone off the deep end.  I don't want to ruin much about this character but will say that he is truly splendid in his madness.  Walter, on the other hand, serves as the polar opposite.  He's a cyborg that is fully committed to the cause of protecting humanity.  Fassbender plays him with a baby's sense of wonderment, as he is taught how to become more self-aware.

Now on to the bad... This film struggles to find a balance between Prometheus' mythology and Alien-esque action.  Whereas Prometheus shot for the stars, philosophically, Covenant never gets going in either direction.  It's also a highly predictable film.  Characters go off on their own to check on disturbances and (shockingly!) don't come back.  There's also a big twist towards the end that was about as predictable as a clock.  The final act is a mixed bag of "greatest hits," including air locks, empty hallways and bad decisions.

My biggest beef with this re-booted series is the lack of a strong female character.  Sigorney Weaver's Ripley is the blueprint for how to create a strong female protagonist.  Both Noomi Rapace and Katherine Waterson never quite develop into a top-notch lead character in either of these films, and that's why these recent Alien films have failed to take a hold with audiences.

I'm giving Alien: Covenant 2 out of 4 stars.  It's a perfectly capable entry into the franchise, but doesn't commit enough to the mythology and doesn't break any new ground in the scare department.  It still leaves the audience without answering the big questions.  We still don't know who the engineers are and, judging by this film's poor opening weekend, I fear we may never know.

Guardians 2 is a boatload of fun

The first Guardians Of The Galaxy should not have worked.  They are from the D list of the D list of Marvel Superheroes.  A talking raccoon?  A tree that only speaks one phrase?  Chris Pratt (the guy from Parks & Rec?!?) as a leading man?  None of that should have worked, and yet it did. And it worked in a BIG, refreshing way.  Guardians felt like lightning in a bottle.  There was no way they'd be able to duplicate that, right?  Well, Guardians Volume 2 came pretty damn close.  It's every bit as fun and delightful as the first installment.

Volume 2 picks up slightly after the first film.  The Guardians are protectors for hire (kind of like an interestallar A-Team), and are tasked with protecting a new race of aliens' power source.  Of course, in true misfit style, the Guardians end up pissing their new bosses off and proceed to get a death sentence placed on their heads.  They flee and escape certain death with the help of Ego (played with cocksure attitude by the always great Kurt Russell), a mysterious man who is revealed to be Star Lord's long lost father.  This isn't a spoiler as it was in every trailer for the film.  You also find this out quite early in the film.  Ego seems perfect to every one but Gamora (The great Zoe Saldana).  The shine quickly comes off of Ego's veneer as we delve deeper into his history.  I won't go further than that since I don't want to ruin the storyline beyond that.

Like the first film, the cast shines.  Pratt is as funny as ever, and Baby Groot is a delight (and a hell of a marketing tool!).  The real star of this film, however, is Dave Bautista's Drax The Destroyer.  While he had a lot of funny lines in the first, director James Gunn gives Bautista every opportunity to shine in this film.  He has some laugh out loud moments that had me in stitches.

Another reason why this film works is that while it's zany, dysfunctional and downright silly at times, it is a film that stays grounded.  In this case, it's about family and the things we do for our loved ones.  It's a film that's not afraid to get sappy.  However, it never veers into the cheesy territory as some of its compatriots (cough cough Batman v Superman) tend to do when displaying love and affection.

It's also a movie franchise that (to this point) seems to have little desire in tying itself to the larger Marvel Cinematic Universe.  Sure, there are breadcrumbs sprinkled about, but you could watch these movies without ever seeing another Marvel movie and be totally comfortable with the story.  I don't think there is another franchise in the MCU that can say that.

I'm giving Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol. 2 3 out of 4 stars.  While it doesn't quite reach the same level of overall awesome as the first one, it still holds its own as a fun Summer getaway.  The cast is superb and the new additions really add to the already strong core.  Definitely go see it and (as always) stay through the credits.  There are 5 (a new record) post credit scenes.

I keep waiting for the wheels to come off the Marvel train, but this machine just keeps on chugging.  Their next challenge might be their greatest... to reboot Spider-Man for the umpteenth time in July's Spider-Man: Homecoming.  Until next time... this has been a Too-Fat For The Movies review.

The Furious Franchise Is Starting To Show Its Age

If I were given the choice back in 2001 to buy stock in one property - either The Fast & The Furious or Limp Bizkit - I would have been all about that nookie 6 days a week and twice on Sunday.  I don't think anyone could have predicted that a rather run of the mill car racing meets thieves movie would turn into one of the most dominant franchises in recent cinematic history... a franchise that now bears almost zero resemblance to its initial incarnation.

For a few years, my stock of choice looked like it would have worked out.  Vin Diesel left after the first one, leaving Paul Walker to carry the franchise in 2003's forgettable 2 Fast 2 Furious.  A few years later, both stars were out as the franchise limped towards straight to DVD irrelevancy in The Fast & The Furious: Tokyo Drift.  But a funny thing happened on the way to Tokyo.  Vin Diesel's character appeared in a cameo at the very end of Drift, breathing fresh air (or is it NOs?) into the franchise.  Before you knew it, both stars were back and the franchise hasn't looked back.  Sprinkle in a little franchise Viagra (Dwayne Johnson) and you have the series high Fast Five.  The Fast franchise has gone to new heights as it has adapted its Ocean's Eleven with cars motif, and with F8, we are looking at the start of a new trilogy that is supposed to bring the franchise to a close (until the inevitable reboot sometime in 2030).

Creatively, I'm a little surprised that they're still going with these movies.  The seventh film tied everything up in a nice little bow, while also tastefully dealing with the premature death of Paul Walker.  But, alas, there's too much money to be made from these Furious fellas & ladies to put the series to bed.

And here we arrive at The Fate of the Furious.  Dom Torretto (Diesel) and Letty (Michele Rodriguez) are on their long overdue honeymoon in Cuba of all places.  It's not too long before street races are happening and Dom Torretto is drawn back into the life he thought he left behind by the mysterious Cipher (played by the ageless Charlize Theron and her white lady dreads).  From there the team is quickly assembled and they're off on another jet-setting adventure.  Only this time, the big surprise is that Dom goes to the dark side and turns on his team.  The how and the why are a big part of this film, so I won't ruin it by going any further.  The rest of the film plays out just as  you'd expect.  There are chases and fight sequences.  One-liners and explosions.  That's not to say that this is a bad film.  It's just a little bit too much of "been there, done that" for my liking.  The action sequences are still top-notch and the humor and comraderie between the characters is still ever-present.  My main problem is that this film felt like the first one that the actors were doing it strictly for the paycheck.  Perhaps the luster has started to come off slightly.

I'm giving The Fate of the Furious 2.5 stars out of 4.  It's a good, but not great entry into the Furious filmography.  If you're a fan, definitely see it.  The submarine chase is everything its advertised to be and more.  Too bad I didn't invest my money way back in 2001... For now, I'll go listen to my Limp Bizkit CD and think about what could have been...

Get Out is a nearly perfect film

I finally had the opportunity to see the breakout hit of 2017, Jordan Peele's horror comedy smash, Get Out.  I didn't really know what to expect going into this film, given it's nearly unanimous support, but I'm happy to report back that it's as good as the reviews say it is... and maybe better.

Get Out works on almost every level.  It's a horror film that has equal parts social satire and traditional thriller.  The comedic elements in it do not feel forced and the ending had me guessing almost up to the point of the big reveal.  It works as a social commentary in ways that haven't been explored before.  Essentially, it's meant to satire "well-intentioned" liberal white people, while bringing attention the sense of paranoia that most black people feel when being thrust into an all-white situation.  Peele expertly crafts this film together without it ever feeling preachy, or hitting the audience too hard on the head.  If I had to boil it down to a label, it's essentially The Stepford Wives meets Guess Who's Coming To Dinner for the modern era.  What I found most refreshing about this film was that, in an era of never ending blockbusters and sequels, Get Out is a fresh, original film that is both acted and directed superbly.  It tackles racism in a way that hasn't really been presented on film before, and a film that is both timely and relevant in this post 45 world we live in..  It definitely deserves all the accolades (bot critically and commercially) that is being heaped upon it.

For those of you who are not "Horror" people, I still think you can get immense enjoyment out of it.  To me, it reminded me of early seasons of Lost, where each episode would get you wanting to learn more.  This is how this movie played out to me.  Each scene built a sense of foreboding, leading to a climax that was both shocking and rewarding.  When the credits rolled on Get Out, I felt satisfied that the movie was over and wanted more a the same time.

The final thing to look out for on this film, is whether or not it will have the legs to last until awards season.  As my friend Adam pointed out, a February movie hasn't made the best picture list since Silence Of The Lambs.  History is not on Get Out's side, but I think it'll be an awards player.

I'm giving Get Out 3.75 stars out of 4.  I had a few bones to pick with it, but they were minor and discussing them would give away the ending.  If you haven't seen it yet, get out (see what I did there???) and see it!

Logan isn't afraid to take chances... and delivers a fantastic standalone film.

In the year 2000, for better or worse, Hollywood changed forever.  With the release of the critical and commercial successful X-Men film, Hollywood realized there was gold to mine in the comics that were once regarded as "kids stuff."  And mine the comics, they did!  It's been almost 20 years since the X-Men gave birth to the modern blockbuster blueprint, and finally, Hollywood is starting to take chances with the material again.

Logan, the graphically violent Wolverine solo story, delivers on all-fronts, and represents a (hopeful) change in the way that these films can and should be presented.  Director James Mangold (in his second time directing a Wolverine film) smartly delivers a film that is a part of a larger universe, but also feels fresh enough to stand on its own two legs.  Like his other western (the fantastic remake of 3:10 to Yuma), it's a story of the lengths heroes go to do what's right.

The year is 2029, and mutants are almost wiped out.  In fact, a new mutant has not been born in almost a quarter century.  Logsan (aka Wolverine) has grown old.  His healing abilities are greatly delayed.  It seems that his once indestructible body is finally starting to betray him.  He is left to take care of the once mighty Professor Charles Xavier (played with full piss and vinegar by the wonderful Patrick Stewart), whose own powers are betraying him.  It's by chance that a mysterious girl falls into his lap and he's tasked with taking her to Eden, a safe haven for mutant kind.  What follows is equal parts Mad Max: Fury Road, Children Of Men, and a blend of a the great Western Films of Hollywood's past.  Wolverine has always been a reluctant hero.  He's always struggled with his own demons, and this film is no different.  However, as Logan seemingly nears the end of his life, we finally get to see Logan come to terms with his centuries of life on this planet.  He is the aging gunslinger called back to duty for one final job.

This film is loosely based on the iconic Old Man Logan series of Marvel comics, and I have to say that it lives up to that series of stories quite well.  It's a political film (tackling the theme of Us vs. Them), but it doesn't wear it's politics on its sleeves.  It features a border wall and tackles racism (in this instance, mankind's attempts at wiping out the mutant race) in subtle ways.  It also deals with aging and death in a way that no comic book movie has ever tried to do.  

At the end of the day, this is Hugh Jackman showcasing his signature character in ways that have not been seen before.  It's one of his better acting performances, not just in X-Men films, but in his lengthy career.  It's the rare standalone film that comic book experts and notices can appreciate.  There are scant references to the X universe scattered throughout that serve as call outs that are fun to find, but not necessary to appreciate this story.  If this truly is Jackman's last run as Wolverine, he goes out on a high note.

Logan works because they've treated the material like it matters.  It's not meant to feed the larger shared cinematic universe in any way.  Both Mangold and Jackman are allowed to tell the story that they want to tell, and are able to concentrate on story and substance over dollars and cents.  Sure, this movie will make a boat load of movie, but it will do so because it's a genuinely thrilling story where the stakes matter and the characters have meaning and depth to them.

I'm giving Logan 3.5 out of 4 stars.  It definitely earns it's R-rating.  It takes chances to focus on telling a singular story, and those chances pay off.  I'd definitely see it whether it's your first X-Men viewing or your tenth.  It's not a perfect film, but it's definitely got a shot at the best comic book movie of 2017.  Hell, I'll bet good money it'll make my top 10 of the year.

My final (Pre-Oscars) Top 10 movies of 2016

With tonight's big show just hours away, I finally have time to revisit my top 10 movies of 2016.  since my last post, I've had some time to see a few more movies I feel deserve a spot in my top 10.  Sadly, I have not seen the prohibitive front runners for best picture, La La Land and Moonlight, yet.  Moonlight comes out on DVD this Tuesday, so I may just have to revisit this list once more.

Here's my updated top 10 for 2016.

Getting knocked out of my top 10 for no other reason than they were at the end of my previous list.

Captain America: Civil War, The Witch, & OJ:  Made In America.  These were all fantastic movies and I wish I had room for more.

10) Everybody Wants Some!! - Director Richard Linklater returns to his stoner comedy roots in this fantastic (and underrated) "spiritual sequel" to Dazed And Confused.  In a year needing of a good laugh, this film delivers on all cylinders.

9) Green Room - I loved this highly underrated thriller about a punk band being trapped inside a white supremacist compound.  Props to the phenomenal Patrick Stewart in an against-type performance for the ages.

8) The Birth Of A Nation - Another criminally underrated (and underseen) movie.  Director Nate Parker presents the story of the largest slave rebellion in US History in a deeply moving way.  Once thought to be an Oscar front-runner has sadly fallen by the wayside.

7) Hell Or High Water - A good old fashioned cops and robbers film that doesn't break any new ground, but feels fresh and invigorating at the same time.

6) 13th - A total gut punch documentary that presents how African-Americans have been treated and incarcerated (particularly males) since the passing of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution.  A must see!

5)  The Founder - Michael Keaton knocks it out of the park in this retelling of how Ray Croc "founded" the McDonalds empire.

4) Rogue One: A Star Wars Story - The Force is in good hands with the house of mouse.  This exhilarating standalone story perfectly sets up A New Hope.  I'm glad the rumors over its troubled production were just that.

3) Fences - The best acted movie of the year should be a major player this awards season.

2)  Manchester By The Sea - I was blown away by how much I loved this truly somber tale of coming to terms with one's grief.  This film was beautifully directed and the haunting performance of Casey Affleck warrants all the praise it has been given.

1) Arrival - An alien invasion movie where the aliens are almost secondary.  It's my favorite movie of the year by my favorite new director (Denis Villenueve).  I look forward to seeing what he can do with the Blade Runner sequel in 2017.

If you need a fun read before tonight's show, check out my preview article with Adam Howard.

The Fourth Annual Oscar Pick-A-Palooza featuring Adam Howard

The Fourth Annual Oscar Pick-A-Palooza!

BW:  Back by popular demand (mostly my mother and our spouses), it's time for our 4th(!) annual Oscar picks. Thanks for joining me once again.  I really look forward to it each year.  I am glad you're back in full swing with your blog after taking December off.  I am also really glad that we got to get together in person this year.  My son still misses you!

With the Academy Award nominations hot off the presses, it's time to jump right in.

2016 was a great year for us personally (the birth of my daughter/you getting married), but a trying year for just about everything else.  I don't mean to rehash the events of November (and the countless celebrity death), but I feel like the world needs the movies like never before.  It's always been my happy place, and I assume for you as well.

2016 was a great year for prestige films and a terrible year for blockbusters.  Audiences seem to have finally wised up the sequel/remake/reboot curse.  I can't remember a summer with so many flops before.  The DC Universe looks to be on rocky ground both critically and possibly commercially.  Can the DC Universe survive if Wonder Woman is a steaming pile of dog shit like Suicide Squad (I actually kinda enjoyed Batman V. Superman, but recognize its many flaws).  To me, there were only a handful of good blockbusters put out this year with the rest being relegated to the scrap heap of history.  At least we can confirm that the Star Wars Universe is in good hands!

On the other hand, prestige films had a great year.  From the masterpiece that was Moonlight, to the commercial and critical darlings La La Land and Arrival, it seemed like good, original ideas can thrive again.  This years Oscars looks to be a 2 horse race between the aforementioned Moonlight and La La Land with the later garnering an historic 14 nominations. Sadly, I have not seen either film yet.  I hope to before the broadcast, but I have a question for you?  Is La La Land really that good?  Or is this an instance of Hollywood stroking its own ego again?  I can't imagine it's 14 nominations good...

The other major bit of news is that #OscarsSoWhite looks to be a thing of the past, as this year's nominees appear to to at least be #OscarsNotSoWhite.  Hopefully as the Academy expands its membership, these conversations (and hashtags) will be a thing of the past. 

I also didn't see a lot of glaring snubs in this year's list of nominees.  With only 5 per category, there are always bound to be some snubs.  I just didn't see any glaring examples like Ben Affleck missing a director nomination for Argo.  Mel Gibson getting a directing nod was surely a surprise, but not a total shock given the comeback narrative surrounding the film.  Also, did anyone really believe that Deadpool was going to get a Best Picture nomination?

I'm still playing catch up with seeing a lot of these movies, but I hope to tackle more before the awards are handed out.

With that being said, it's time to move on to our first category... Best Supporting Actress.  Here are the nominees:

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Viola Davis, Fences
Naomie Harris, Moonlight
Nicole Kidman, Lion
Octavia Spencer, Hidden Figures
Michelle Williams, Manchester by the Sea

Will Win:  Viola Davis.  It's her year.  I absolutely adored her performance as a principled woman married to a flawed man in Fences.  It was heart-breakingly (is that a word?) raw and beautiful.

Should Win:  Davis.  She should and will win.  I don't think it's even a close contest.

Dark Horse:  Michelle Williams.  Casey Affleck looks like a lock for Manchester, but will The Academy make it 2/2 with a surprise Best Actress win for Williams?  I doubt it.

What are your thoughts?

AH:  Aww that's sweet -- and hey, I'll take any readers I can get. You're spot on about 2016 -- wonderful for me personally -- but in general kind of a letdown, but I actually thought this was a very strong year for the movies, definitely my favorite year since 2012 -- which was the last time I had such a hard time pairing down my favorites to just 10 films. I suppose you have a point about the blockbusters -- although we both did love the biggest hit of last year, Rogue One, but that really was more of an anomaly. I wasn't even bowled over by some of big hits that audiences and critics liked -- here's looking at you Deadpool. I have sort of begun to resign myself to the fact that by-and-large I have outgrown Summer movie season -- those films aren't intended for me anymore -- even though once and a while, a behemoth like Captain America: Civil War revives the kid in me.

I think what excites me most about this year is the surge of up-and-coming filmmakers doing great work. People like Ava DuVernay, Denis Villeneuve, Damien Chazelle, Barry Jenkins, and Jeremy Saulnier, did stellar work, and if they're not already household names they soon will be. Obviously I am a total fanboy of the Scorsese-Spielberg era filmmakers, but at some point the torch must be passed and this may be one of those years we look back on and say it happened, albeit without a ton of fanfare. Films like "Moonlight", "Green Room" and "La La Land" were unmistakably the vision of real filmmakers with distinct voices and perspectives -- even when steeped in a genre, they were oddly personal films. And that has me feeling very encouraged about the future of movies.

Also, unlike the last few years, I am mostly pleased with this year's nominees. Considering the slate of films under consideration it would have been an utter travesty to see #OscarsSoWhite for the third year in a row -- Hollywood insiders aren't dumb enough to let that happen -- and while one my personal favorites was -- I think -- unjustly shut out (20th Century Women), I can't quibble with most of the choices (although as per usual there are few films I've yet to see). There is no glaring Selma-type omission this year. And that's a relief.

To your point there were a couple of mild surprises -- but none of them disheartening. The Best Picture race doesn't have a Blind Side style embarrassment in it, and if anything they skew more art house than blockbuster. I too, raised an eyebrow at Mel Gibson's return to glory, although I haven't seen Hacksaw Ridge, I have never been sold on his being this brilliant director. Braveheart has never done it for me, although I appreciated the craftsmanship of Apocalypto. I have never seen The Passion of the Christ, and I am pretty sure I never will.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Viola Davis, Fences
Naomie Harris, Moonlight
Nicole Kidman, Lion
Octavia Spencer, Hidden Figures
Michelle Williams, Manchester by the Sea

Will Win:  Viola Davis.  I will say I consider this category fraud. I remember when the credits rolled on 'Fences' -- I said best female performance of the year hands down, give this woman the Oscar. Having seen 20th Century Women -- although it's a very different, less emotionally demanding role -- I thought Annette Bening warranted a shot at the trophy too. But I thought Davis gave if not the best performance of the year than one of the top two or three. Clearly the decision to run her in Supporting is a calculated one, and while that irks me -- because I don't think it does justice to the significance of her work here -- I think it will have proven to be the smart move.

Should Win: Viola Davis. The most emotionally raw and powerful performance in a film full of them, in a year full of them. I feel bad for Naomie Harris, before Viola Davis was moved to this category I feel like this was her award to lose. But now I think this is probably the safest acting race to predict this year. Viola Davis is one of those actors where it feels like a travesty that they don't have an Oscar. Like that dude from The Artist has an Oscar, but not Viola Davis? That's no bueno.

I also want to add that while I loved Octavia Spencer in Hidden Figures, I thought the real breakout star and scene stealing Supporting turn came from Janelle Monae. I would not have been upset if she got that slot over Spencer, especially since she already has an Oscar and it'd be cool to see someone new get 

Dark Horse:  Michelle Williams or Naomi Harris. I could go either way with this. If there is a huge surge for Moonlight, I could see it benefiting Harris, who gives one of the film's most complex and memorable performances. And Michelle WIlliams has just been so great for so long -- and is heartbreaking in her few short scenes in Manchester by the Sea -- if there is a huge groundswell for that movie (it is nominated in a lot of categories) I could see her pulling off an upset too.

BW: Awww, man.  I love Braveheart, but more so on a nostalgia level at this point.  I first saw it in the theater at a time when I was just getting in to "real" movies and away from my strict diet of popcorn flicks (the fact that it had blockbuster elements to it probably helped).  I remember staying up for the first time to see if it would win Best Picture.  It'll always hold a special place in my heart (even if it hasn't aged as well as I remember it).  Additionally, I've seen The Passion and can tell you that you're better off skipping it.

It looks like we're both in agreement in supporting actress, with Viola Davis being a lock.  I, too, was peeved that she fell into this category, but I've also stopped trying to figure out the lead/supporting dynamic in recent years.  I've always thought that if someone was the female or male lead in a film they would fall into that category (whether or not its technically their character's movie).  I guess that Fences is technically Denzel's character's story with Viola Davis providing support.  Who knows?

Let's move on to the next category before my head hurts, shall we?  Best Supporting Actor.  I'm ashamed to say that I have only seen one of these performances.  This might be my least knowledgeable category of the night.  It's good to see some great actors getting rewarded for their work, particularly Mahershala Ali for his excellent work in Moonlight.  It's great to see Jeff Bridges nominated again, but while I really enjoyed Hell or High Water, I feel like I've seen that performance before from Bridges.  Michael Shannon's nomination is interesting given that his co-star Aaron Taylor-Johnson pulled off the upset at the Golden Globes (and wasn't even nominated this time).

And the nominees are:

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Mahershala Ali, Moonlight
Jeff Bridges, Hell or High Water
Lucas Hedges, Manchester by the Sea
Dev Patel, Lion
Michael Shannon, Nocturnal Animals

Will Win:  Mahershala Ali.  With Casey Affleck being the heavy frontrunner for Best Actor, will the Academy award Ali in the supporting category?  My guess is, yes they will.

Should Win:  Ali.  Again, a great performance from the best reviewed movie of the year.  

Dark Horse:  Michael Shannon or Dev Patel.  I think this might be one of the more open categories of the night, without a surefire frontrunner.  Had Ali picked up the Golden Globe, I'd be a little more certain in my pick.  I can smell an upset in this category.

Who ya got?

AH:  Yeah I didn't see Braveheart until long after its first run -- and well, I had problems with it. But I digress. I think in Supporting we have a solid five although I am mystified that great, scary turns from Patrick Stewart in Green Room and John Goodman in 10 Cloverfield Lane were never even remotely in contention.I get that both films came out much earlier in the year, so perhaps the studios didn't think their performances would remain fresh in voters' minds -- but the politics of this stuff is always lost on me.

I have seen three of the performances that made the cut in this category: Jeff Bridges in Hell or High Water (which I loved and thought was a real standout in a terrific ensemble), Lucas Hedges (who provided some of the much-needed comic relief and pathos in Manchester by the Sea) and Mahershala Ali, who gave one of my favorite performances of the year in my favorite movie of the year -- Moonlight.

I guess I need to see Lion, I know very little about it or its reputation, but clearly its showing at the Oscars suggest its formidable. Reportedly Dev Patel may be another beneficiary of category fraud, since he is nominally the lead of Lion, although he shares his much of screentime with an actor who plays a younger version of his character. Michael Shannon is one of my favorite character actors working right now and I've heard he was the highlight of Nocturnal Animals, a movie I've heard is very divisive. Shannon is almost always excellent (see 99 Homes in particular) and I imagine he will win won of these trophies eventually, clearly he is an actor's actor.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Mahershala Ali, Moonlight
Jeff Bridges, Hell or High Water
Lucas Hedges, Manchester by the Sea
Dev Patel, Lion
Michael Shannon, Nocturnal Animals

Will win: Mahershala Ali. I hope to God he gets it. Not only because he is the most deserving, but I fear it may be the only major award this beautiful masterpiece gets, especially since La La land has become such a juggernaut and appears poised to swamp it in most of the other major categories (but more on that later). Although he's only (SPOILER ALERT) in about a third of this movie, his presence, his heart come across and his is the performance that sticks with you the longest from this haunting movie. He'd taken most of the precursor honors until the Globes decided to get all bonkers and award Aaron Taylor Johnson (who isn't even nominated here) but I suspect the Oscars will get this one right.

Should Win: Mahershala Ali. With Moonlight and Hidden Figures too, Ali is on a roll. He's also terrific as the villain on Netflix's Luke Cage. Hollywood has long been on a hunt for "the new Denzel" (essentially they have also been seeking a "new Tom Hanks" for years too, remember when that was going to be Shia LeBeouf?) -- now there are several contenders, Michael B. Jordan, Idris Elba, Chadwick Boseman and yes, Mahershala Ali. Even though his name may be a mouthful, I suspect it will become a household name soon enough.

Dark Horse: Lucas Hedges. Manchester By the Sea had a lot of very ardent, passionate fans (I appreciated the film a lot, but there were movies that moved me more this year) and I could see if there is enough of backlash to La La Land and Moonlight is too out there for some Oscar voters, I could see Manchester By the Sea becoming a fashionable choice to sweep the major awards, and Hedges, who is very good and naturalistic in this movie, could be the beneficiary of that.

BW:  Next up is Best Actress.  Some real strong performances here (plus Meryl Streep's Academy mandated nomination).  I think 2016 was a particularly strong year for women, so there were bound to be a few on the outside looking in.  This category does have a few notable snubs.  Amy Adams deserved a nomination for her moving performance in my favorite movie of the year, Arrival.  The other notable snub would have to be for Annette Bening's raw performance in 20th Century Women (one of your favorites of the year).

Of the women nominated, this appears to be a 3 person race between Natalie Portman, Emma Stone and Isabelle Huppert.  If I had to pick today, I would give this one to Emma Stone.  La La Land will win big, but I don't think that Ryan Gosling wins Best Actor since Casey Affleck looks to be a lock in that category.  

Here's the nominees:

BEST ACTRESS:

Isabelle Huppert, Elle

Ruth Negga, Loving

Natalie Portman, Jackie

Emma Stone, La La Land

Meryl Streep, Florence Foster Jenkins

Will Win:  Emma Stone.  She's a Hollywood darling in the most nominated movie of the year.  I think she pulls it off.

Should Win:  Ruth Negga.  I know she isn't a favorite, but I'd like to see The Academy think outside the box this year and her reward her.  Alas, she probably won't win it

Dark Horse:  Portman.  Will The Academy make the former Princess Amidala a two time Best Actress winner?  I'm not so sure, but her performance in Jackie is strong enough to warrant it.

AH:  I agree about this being a banner year for women's roles -- especially after the last few years where the male categories have been very competitive, the women's races tend to bog down to a single front-runner with perhaps one potential spoiler. I can't remember a real surprise Best Actress win since maybe Marion Coltiard back in 2007. All too often its the glamorous ingenue who is getting pit up against the wily veteran and the whole thing reeks of sexism. At the very least, the industry seems to have turned away from the trend of honoring women for 'getting ugly' for roles, and instead have opted for less gimmicky and more unique work.

As you mentioned, one of my favorite performances in one of my favorite movies of the past year -- Annette Bening in 20th Century Women -- was overlooked here. Which is a huge disappointment to me, God knows, Meryl Streep is a national treasure, but must we nominate EVERY performance she gives at this point? Bening gave one of the best, if not the best, performance of her career in this film. She has never won an Oscar despite many close, worthy calls. I haven't seen Florence Foster Jenkins, but my understanding is that its not Streep's most groundbreaking work. I get it, actors aren't always recognized for the best performance, it can often be about timing and who's due -- for instance, no one thinks Scent of a Woman, as charming as it is, is peak Pacino.

But that too should be argument enough for Bening being included. I would also like to give a shout out to Rebecca Hall's work in Christine, a tense, little seen drama which creates the real life story about a mentally deteriorating television newswoman in the 70s. It's a bleak, dark film, which will probably never find a wide audience, but Hall was phenomenal in it and really showed me something I've never seen before from her. And yes, I was surprised not to see Amy Adams, one of the best young actresses in Hollywood and the total anchor of Arrival get overlooked when the film itself and director did get nods.

Lead categories can break your hearts some years. I am still smarting over snubs for Robert Redford (All Is Lost), Tom Hanks (Captain Phillips) and Denzel Washington (American Gangster) from years past.

But enough griping, let me talk about the nominees. I think you may be right. I think that because La La Land is such a mammoth hit (and growing) and it provides Emma Stone with arguably the most tailor-made role of her career, she is probably the front-runner by a nose. Had Natalie Portman not already won an Oscar for Black Swan she might be a bigger threat but Jackie, although its terrific, has not caught on with audiences like that film did, even if I think her performance here might actually be more technically impressive. The real intriguing figure here is Isabelle Huppert, a very respected French actress who's been fantastic for decades and is finally getting the acknowledgment she deserves for a performance I hear is fantastic.

Will win:  Emma Stone, La La Land. Streep is too lightweight. Negga is too unknown, although she gives a lovely, quiet performance in Loving. I think Portman's previous win, and relatively recently will turn people away for picking her this time. Huppert is the wild card.

Should win: Natalie Portman. This was a tough one for me. I can't really find fault in Stone's performance. She was luminous, funny, and lovable in La La Land. And just like in Birdman, she showed just enough flashes of edge to avoid being grating. But there was something very Julia Roberts-y about her in this movie. It felt like a great movie star performance, more than a transformative acting experience. I have nothing but respect for her singing and dancing, and her apparently earnest appreciation for the Hollywood icons who inspired her. But for me Portman gave the most emotionally rich and affecting performance in this bunch although I must confess I still need to/want to see Elle, and that may change my feelings about this. But to me Portman has the harder role. Playing someone as iconic as Jackie Kennedy could have been a disaster but she ended up disappearing into the role in a way like she never has before.

Dark Horse: Isabelle Huppert. Sometimes the Oscars like to reward a veteran and even though its not always an accurate indicator, her win at the Golden Globes was eye opening. This could wind up being like the 2003 Best Actor race, when everyone thought it was either going to be Jack Nicholson (for About Schmidt) or Daniel Day-Lewis (for Gangs of New York) and then wacky Adrien Brody came out of nowhere and won for The Pianist and then creeped out a generation of Oscar viewers by assaulting Halle Berry on stage. In other words, I expect Emma Stone to win, but I wouldn't be shocked it Huppert does.

BW:  If 2016 was a great year for women's performances, I could make the exact opposite argument for men.  To me, it doesn't seem like we've had a ton of breakout performances by leading men this past year.  Looking at the nominations, the only glaring snub would have to be Michael Keaton getting shut out for his wonderful performance in The Founder.  I guess you could make a case for Ton Hanks in Sully (a movie I thought was overrated), or maybe Andrew Garfield should have been nominated for Silence instead of Hacksaw Ridge.  I can't really recall any other male lead performances that stood out to me.  If you look at the SAG award nominations, you'll see they mirror these.

With that being said, let's discuss the nominees for Best Actor.  Casey Affleck, and his incredibly moving performance in Manchester By The Sea, seems like an almost certain lock to take home the trophy.  His less-is-more performance is cleaning up left and right during this awards season, and while Affleck certainly shines in his role, I think giving him the Oscar is not the right play.  Denzel Washington gives the performance of his distinguished career in Fences as a deeply flawed husband and father, and I think he deserves it more than Affleck in this case.  I know winning it multiple times is almost impossible and winning 3 Oscars is almost unheard of, but Washington deserves it.  He's an American institution and this is his crowning achievement.  There is also the matter of the sexual harrassment allegations in Affleck's past, and while I'm one to separate art for the artist, it's just sad to note that he's escaped relatively scratch free.  Contrast that to how allegations of Nate Parker's past completely derailed the awards chances of the wonderful, The Birth Of A Nation, and I feel that criticism of Affleck in this case is warranted.

Here are the nominees:  

Best Actor:

Casey Affleck, “Manchester by the Sea”
Andrew Garfield, “Hacksaw Ridge”
Ryan Gosling, “La La Land”
Viggo Mortensen, “Captain Fantastic”
Denzel Washington, “Fences”

Who Will Win:  Affleck.  He's cleaned up at every awards show, and it should be no different here.

Who Should Win:  Washington.  I haven't been as in awe of a performance in a long time as I was with Washington in Fences.  He absolutely deserves his second Best Actor trophy (and third overall).

Dark Horse:  Ryan Gosling.  He won at the Golden Globes and La La Land has a ton of momentum going in to the big show.  I feel like one of the leads will take home a trophy, but could it be both?  It'll be interesting to see how the SAG awards play out.

What do you think?

AH:  I guess you may be right. There were only a handful of really standout lead male performances for me this year. Denzel Washington did some his best work ever in Fences, and although I have more than a few problems with Casey Affleck's off-screen persona (and the double standard which has been applied to him, which you alluded to), I must admit that his work in Manchester By the Sea is terrific and powerful. I rooting for Washington because I think Fences represents a kind of culmination of all his previous work -- it was a role he was born to play and I don't know if he will ever reach a pinnacle like this again. The rest of the nominees for me are no real threat to win. Ryan Gosling is wonderful in La La Land, charming and self-effacing, I love his comic timing in this and a slew of his recent films. Who knew he had such a natural gift for comedy? I have a lot of respect for Viggo Mortensen, but I haven't seen Captain Fantastic, so I can't speak to its worthiness, the same goes for Andrew Garfield, who has shown a lot of promise in films like The Social Network, and has a kind of sweet, old fashioned Montgomery Clift type quality that I gravitate towards. But for my money, as you mentioned Michael Keaton should have been here for The Founder, one of his career best, and a film that really deserves more critical appreciation.

Will win: Casey Affleck. Unfortunately, this feels like a foregone conclusion. I can't really quibble with him winning -- he is that good in this film -- and he's a talented actor (see The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, it's fantastic), but I can't say I am thrilled about it. There is something smug about him, even without factoring past allegations of sexual harassment against him. I also just roll my eyes whenever one actor cleans up every precursor and its almost this self fulfilling prophesy that they will take home the Oscar.

Should Win: Denzel Washington. I just enjoyed and appreciated his performance more than Affleck's. I respected Affleck's, but I found Denzel's to be more emotionally fulfilling and compelling. This film deserves a wider audience too. Denzel and Viola Davis are the best acting duo on screen this year, elevating what could have been just a filmed play into something transcendent. 

Dark Horse: Ryan Gosling. If this night turns to be some kind of epic La La Land lovefest, which is entirely plausible, considering that its tied the record for most nominations ever, I could see Gosling getting swept in too. Its not the kind of performance that typically wins Oscars, he doesn't have a big Oscar scene per se. He is just fun and breezy throughout, but with a quiet backlash to Affleck brewing and Fences getting good but not great praise from critics (plus Denzel already has two Oscars and Gosling has none) I could see this being a bit of an upset.

Damn, we agree on pretty much everything.

BW:  Ha!  We agree so much because we're movie brothers from other mothers.  We have similar tastes in movies with a few obvious exceptions (cough cough, Anchorman 2, cough).  I highly respect your opinion on movies, and look forward to every one of your blog posts.

Let's move on to Best Director.  2016 was a really exciting year for up and coming directors.  This year's class featured strong with from young directors growing their already impressive resumes (Villenueve & Chazelle) or relatively first time directors (Longeran & Jenking).  And then there's Mel Gibson... Hollywood loves a comeback and it appears that Mel is back in the good graces of The Academy.  I have not seen Hacksaw Ridge, but it appears to deliver Mel's signature combination of violence and faith in an impressive way.  I can't really complain that he's nominated since I'm so excited about the rest of the nominees.  There are a few directors that could have slid into that 5th slot over Gibson.  I'm a little surprised that Martin Scorcese was overlooked for his (by all accounts) exceptional work on high passion project, Silence.  Denzel Washington certainly deserved a look for his work on Fences, but I'll take his acting nod as recognition of his work.  David Mackenzie certainly deserved a look for his work on Hell or High Water.  I'm also surprised that Clint Eastwood didn't get a token nomination for Sully in the same way that Meryl Streep seems to get nominated for every one of her acting roles.

That being said, I'm really happy with the way this category turned out.  In my opinion, it's also one of the more wide open categories that could go a number of ways.

Here are the nominees:

Best Director:

“Arrival,” Denis Villeneuve
“Hacksaw Ridge,” Mel Gibson
“La La Land,” Damien Chazelle
“Manchester by the Sea,” Kenneth Lonergan
“Moonlight,” Barry Jenkins

Will Win:  Chazelle.  Hollywood loves movies about itself and LA in particular.  I think La La Land's big night will lead to a Damien Chazelle win.  The question I have is do you think we'll see a split Director/Picture scenario?

Should Win:  Jenkins.  By all accounts, Moonlight is an absolute masterpiece.  Jenkins should win for putting this multi-year story together so seamlessly.

Dark horse:  Villenueve.   Denis Villenueve is (in my opinion) the best director working today.  He's put together a string of solid to spectacular movies, and Arrival is my favorite one yet.  I know you were not as high on it as I was, but there's no doubting Villenueve's talent.  I can't wait to see what he does with the Bladerunner sequel!

Who takes home your directing nod?

AH:  Thanks for the shout out my brother -- it's good to be back and blogging again. 

Probably of all the major categories I found this one -- Best Directpr -- to be the most refreshing, because as you've pointed out, instead of nominating the same ol' same ol' legends like Clint Eastwood and Martin Scorsese (who is admittedly my favorite director of all time), the Academy has chosen to elevate and celebrate some new blood.

Denis Vilenueve, Barry Jenkins, Damien Chazelle and Kenneth Lonergan are far from household names but they are all visionary, uniquely talented directors whose films reflect their personality and feel like the singular work of a filmmaker with a real voice.  

Chazelle's Whiplash conveyed a passion for music and performance which has now been born out in La La Land. Jenkins is a visual maestro, who elicits epically profound performances that are both quiet and realistic. Lonergan is also interested in humanity -- its fragility and beauty. Meanwhile, Villenueve is a thinking man's action director sort of operating on the same plane as Christopher Nolan but with a better facility with emotions.

The Mel Gibson phenomenon I can't quite pin down. I have never been as impressed as some people are with his talents as a director. He seems to stage effective orgies of violence, but little else. I, like you, haven't seen Hacksaw Ridge, but was intrigued by its premise -- about a non violent participant in war -- and perhaps it is so good it warrants his inclusion here. I have always subscribed to separating art from the artist, but Gibson has made that principle hard for me to stick to at times.

I think my main issue with him -- beyond what he's said and done -- is the failure to adequately express remorse or contrition for his actions. Roman Polanski has at least taken responsibility for his crimes (although I think he still should have gone to prison for them), whereas Gibson seems to think mea culpa are beneath him. And now, he's been rewarded with this recognition, but at what cost?

I'd have liked to see Denzel Washington here too in his place. I thought, while Fences is more of actor's picture, that he helped present the material expertly enough that it didn't feel like nothing more than a filmed play. I also think as a filmmaker Washington has really improved but clearly the academy didn't agree.

Will win: Damien Chazelle. My quibbles with La La Land are more thematic than literal. It's a wonderfully charming movie that I somehow doubt will stand the test of time -- it feels a touch too cute for the combative times in which we're living. That said, it is a technical marvel, beautifully shot and edited. And Chazelle has enough wit and sarcasm not to let his film devolve into sap. He'll likely win the big prize/

Should win: Barry Jenkins. Moonlight. He made my favorite movie of the year, so naturally I am going to get behind him for this. He'd done a few small projects before, and the one I'd seen, Medicine for Melancholy, I didn't particularly like -- so this film really took me by surprise and haunted me. He made a film about really tricky subject matter and managed not to give into cliches. Even if he doesn't win, he's got a really bright future.

Dark horse: This is a tricky one. I really feel like the race is between Chazelle and Jenkins. While I know Arrival has a lot of ardent admirers (yourself among them), I don't see them giving this award to Villenueve. And I think for Gibson just getting back in the game is reward within itself. So I think only potential spoiler could be Lonergan because Manchester By the Sea could emerge as a consensus pick if either La La Land or Moonlight prove too divisive.

BW:  It's time to make our picks for the big prize... Best Picture.  If you look at the list, you'll see a group of solid to spectacular films that represent just how good of a year (for films) that 2016 was.  In my opinion, there don't appear to be any notable snubs.  There was some grumbling about Deadpool being left off the list, but I think you and I both agree that it wasn't nearly as good of a film that people made it out to be.  Sure, it was funny and enjoyable, but it was done better by Ant-Man and doesn't deserve to be anywhere near this list.

Another surprise, in my opinion, was Hidden Figures.  When i first saw the trailer for this film, it seemed like it would be similar in tone to your typical Disney feel-good "based on a true story" film.  However, as you mentioned in your review, it managed to rise above the typical feel good story and stand on its own merits.

If you look at the rest of the list, you'll see a good mix of films that managed to (in most cases) be both critical and commercial hits.  With that being said, I think it boils down to a two horse race between the Los Angeles homage, La La Land, and the generational masterpiece, Moonlight.  If past Oscars are any implication, I think La La Land will take home the top prize.  Hollywood loves to pat itself on the back, and it will be no different this time. 

Here are the nominees:

Best Picture:

“Arrival”
“Fences”
“Hacksaw Ridge”
“Hell or High Water”
“Hidden Figures”
“La La Land”
“Lion”
“Manchester by the Sea”
“Moonlight” 

Will Win:  La La Land.  This film is both a huge commercial and critical hit.  Throw in the Hollywood-centric theme and it should be a slam dunk.  

Should Win:  Moonlight.  As you said in your review, Moonlight is a beautifully nuanced coming-of-age story.  It's a masterpiece that will stand the test of time.

Dark Horse:  I can't really see any of these other films competing, but if I had to make a guess, I would say Manchester By The Sea or Fences.  Two films that are masterfully crafted and deliver stunning acting showcases for their stars.

I want to take the time to thank you for joining me again.  I look forward to this exchange every year.  We should do something special for the 5th annual Oscar picks post next year!

What takes home your top prize?

AH:  I will never, ever understand the preoccupation with Deadpool. Every time I started to enjoy it I was put off by its pervasive smugness and self-satisfaction. To my mind, the only superhero film of the past several years that warranted Best Picture consideration was The Dark Knight. I think Best Picture nominees should be about something -- even if its abstract -- my favorite film of last year, the one I thought deserved to win it all -- Mad Max: Fury Road -- was ostensibly just a word class chase movie but it also had something to say about sexism, the scarcity of resources, the environment.

I am actually pretty happy with this group -- of course, I resent that Hollywood is scared of less obviously Oscar-ish fare like Green Room or The Witch. I will never stop singing the praises of 20th Century Women, a moving heartfelt movie that just touched me at the right time. Rogue One was a true epic, but if The Force Awakens didn't make it, I don't think this Star Wars side story would have.

I actually am thrilled to see Hidden Figures here. Yes, it's a crowd pleaser -- but for once, it's a worthy one. The movie was smart, slyly sophisticated and it tells a truly remarkable story that deserved a big screen homage. I'm actually not surprised it's here because it was one of the few critical hits to score commercially too. And had it earned more nominations, I could actually see it being one of the bigger threats to La La Land here, which has just buried its competition.

I've seen all the nominees except Lion (which I have heard mostly positive things about) and the Mel Gibson rehabilitation project Hacksaw Ridge. And my final answer is ... predictably, identical to yours.

Will win: La La Land. Like any big fat hit that eats up all the press and buzz, there has been an anti-La La Land storm brewing. The SNL sketch about cops interrogating a suspect for not loving it was a spot on early symptom of the backlash culture we live in now. The one criticism I agree with -- that the light as air movie feels out of step with the bitterly contentious times we are all experiencing -- doesn't feel big enough to torpedo it. And as entertainment, as a production, the movie is virtually peerless. Movies don't get 14 nominations and NOT win. If it doesn't it'll be the biggest upset since Avatar lost to The Hurt Locker.

Should win: Moonlight. I think there are several really great films here. Hell or High Water is a masterpiece. As is Fences. I admire the hell out of Arrival, La La Land and Manchester by the Sea. But the movie that just keeps sticking in my mind, that really felt like a glimpse into the future of filmmaking - it was Moonlight. I only saw it once. It's not an easy movie to explain or simplify (which is perhaps why it hasn't caught on at the box office), but it was simply the most rewarding movie-going experience I had all year.

Dark horse: I wanna say Hidden Figures, because there are no caveats to liking it. Moonlight has the LGBT element, which could turn off prejudiced, older Oscar voters (see Brokeback Mountain's snub in 2006), La La Land has the issues I mentioned above. But Manchester By Sea -- despite the issues Casey Affleck has -- enjoys a very big fanbase, and of all the other nominees not named Moonlight or La La Land, it's the one that I could see coming out of nowhere to win a lot of major awards, including this one.

BW:  Well, that's it folks.  Tune in to the big night to see how we do... Until next year!