Jurassic World is the second best Jurassic film... but that's not saying much.

Jurassic World Movie Review

by Brian Wezowicz

When people ask me why I love movies so much, I point them to an exact moment in time:  the moment I first saw Jurassic Park in the theater.  Sure, Star Wars and countless Schwarzenegger films already had me hooked, but from the moment the credits rolled in Stephen Spielberg's epic Jurassic Park, I was blown away.  To see something so magnificent on a big screen forever changed the game for me.  I was felt the magic of the movies and I've been trying to get back that feeling ever since.  Jurassic Park isn't a perfect film, but it had the perfect blend of action/adventure and emotion depth to it.  That being said, Hollywood has been struggling to make a good Jurassic movie ever since.  The Lost World had some genuine excitement to it, but it was bogged down by a horrible third act where a T-Rex gets loose in San Diego.  And the less said about Jurassic Park III the better.  Each film earned less than the previous and were less in favor with the critics.  But like the tagline "life finds a way," so too does the Jurassic franchise.

I have to admit that I was less than enthused by the initial trailers for Jurassic World, but then the positive reviews started rolling in and the movie went on to THE BIGGEST OPENING IN THE HISTORY OF HUMANITY!?!?!?  And so I felt like I had to see what all the fuss was about.

As it turns out, my initial disgust was slightly overblown.  This is a mildly enjoyable monster movie that really struggles when you are forced to think about it.  There are dino-sized plot holes that are harder to avoid than a pack of wild raptors.

Jurassic World is set 20 years after the events of Jurassic Park.  John Hammond's (the creator of Jurassic Park) vision is now fully realized.  Jurassic World is now a fully functioning theme park destination with rides and attractions galore.  There are some nice throwbacks to the original film sprinkled throughout the opening of the film.  Two brothers are sent to the park while their parents secretly finalize their divorce.  This movie continues the Jurassic franchise's tradition of horrible child actors alive.  The two brothers make Sophia Coppola's performance in Godfather III seem Oscar worthy.  They have no emotional depth to them.  We're supposed to care about them, but I can't even remember their names.  They're sent to JW to be looked after by their aunt (played stiffly by Bryce Dallas Howard), a stereotypical "uptight" working woman.  Howard's character is too busy to watch after her nephews and leaves them alone to explore the park.  You see, business is slowing down at JW and she's in charge of the rollout of the new "attraction," a genetically modified super dinosaur, the Indominous Rex.  The park hopes it will turn around the downward trend in attendance.  Chris Pratt, who continues his Hollywood hot streak, serves as the game master.  He is the only voice of reason who challenges the company on the morality of genetic modification.  Pratt seems a little out of place in this film.  He doesn't ever seem comfortable delivering some of the more serious lines in this film.  I think he may have shattered the record for the most one-liners ever delivered in one film.  I can suspend disbelief with the best of them, but I had trouble getting into the notion of Chris Pratt: Raptor Whisperer.

Before long, the new monster breaks out and all hell breaks loose.  There's some genuinely thrilling action sequences, but third act gets bogged down with too many quick cuts and dino closeups.  There's also a baffling military subplot to this movie that will lead into the sequel.

I'm giving this movie 2.5 stars out of 4.  It works just fine as a mindless action romp, but struggles to live up to the T-Rex sized hype.  If you're a fan of the series, you'll welcome this chapter as a marked improvement over the third film, but not by much.  The search for a good Jurassic sequel is still on.

Max Max Fury Road - The Adrenaline Ride Of The Summer

Mad Max Fury Road Movie Review

by Brian Wezowicz

I'm a little late to the game with this review since it's been out for about three weeks already.  The reviews have been stellar, and people I highly respect have written about it better than I ever could.  However, it's about time I get back on the blogging horse and give my two cents on what I consider THE action movie of the summer (If Star Wars: The Force Awakens and Spectre weren't scheduled to come out this year, I would probably call it the action movie of the year).

Growing up, I was never a huge Mad Max fan.  I was too young for them when the originals were first released in theaters, and they just got lost in the shuffle as I got older.  I've recently re-watched the first one, and I'm beginning to get an appreciation for Max Rockatansky, the apocalypse's favorite wanderer.  However, coming into this movie I didn't know what to expect.  I've heard the gushing reviews, but I've also heard some of the negativity (lack of plot, no character development) creep in.  I went in to this movie hoping for the best, but expecting to not be blown away.  I was dead wrong.  This is as inventive of an action movie as I've seen in a long time.  The visuals are absolutely stunning (with most of them happening with minimal CGI) and the story and characters are rich with life (albeit a post-apocalyptic life).

The big question going into this movie was whether it was a reboot, a remake, a sequel, or a combo of all three.  To that question, I say who cares?  It's essentially a continuation of the Mad Max saga (in the mold of the James Bond films) with only a few references to Max's past.  You can see the original trilogy, but it's not required viewing.  Stepping into the Road Warrior boots this time around is the brilliant Tom Hardy.  I've been a big fan of his since I first saw Inception.  He has a way of creating emotion and depth to his characters  without being overly emotive.  Hardy shines here in the role that made a star out of Mel Gibson.

Fury Road picks up years after something wipes out most of humanity.  You heard bits and pieces of what sounds like news casts mixed with Mad Max voice over that gives you a basic understanding that something has gone wrong and that humanity's days are numbered.  You're also thrown right into the action.  Max has been taken prisoner by the War Boys, a group of creepers that are under the brutal rule of Immortan Joe (played by the same actor who portrayed Toe Cutter in the original Mad Max).  The War Boys are a thinly veiled reference to the religious extremists that exist in our world.  They believe that Joe will lead them to Valhalla and are not afraid to die for their cause.  The new society relies on gasoline from Gas Town, which is across the deadly Fury Road.  The brutal leader also forces the women to provide breast milk to his group of zealots.  I don't really want to go too far down the rabbit hole when it comes to describing the plot, but I will say that once they hit the Fury Road, all hell breaks loose and this movie doesn't let up on the gas pedal for the entire 2+ hour run time.

The world of Fury Road is unlike anything I've seen on screen in a long time.  This is all due to the visionary mastermind of director George Miller.  After going away from this post-apocalyptic world for more than 30 years, Miller is back with his signature brand of beautiful, but crazy action.  The stunts are spectacular, the cinematography is epic, and the editing and acting are top notch.  It's also very much a feminist film.  Charlize Theron is such an essential part of the cast that this movie could have been called Furiosa Road, Featuring Mad Max.  She is in charge of trying to escape Immortan Joe's wives out of his custody in search of the mythical Green Land.  She is very much the leader of this group, and the driving force for the entire movie.  Hell, Max barely speaks a word for the first twenty minutes of this film.  What I really enjoyed about this movie is that it's a feminist movie without being totally overt about it.  It's not a rah rah movie in its pro feminism message.  It's just a great movie with great women kicking major ass.


I can't recommend this movie enough.  The sad part about the summer deluge of blockbusters is that it pushes movies out of the theater sooner than they should be.  Movies can get lost in the relentless tide of superhero movies.  Go see Mad Max: Fury Road before it's gone.

3.5 stars out of 4.

The Annual Too Fat 4 The Oscars Pick-A-Palooza featuring Adam Howard

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

Greetings from Too Fat headquarters.  It's that time of year again.  The movie nerd Super Bowl otherwise known as The Academy Awards.  I've invited Adam Howard back to go toe to toe with me as we pick our Oscar winners.  It's not as crazy as last year's 6 million word magnum opus.  We'll be sticking to the 4 acting categories, directing, and best picture.

BW

Hi Adam,

Sorry it's taken me so long to put this together.  I've been lazy this year (and I haven't seen nearly enough movies).  I'm going to keep it short and hit up the big categories.  The time has finally come.  The movie nerd Super Bowl is here, so let's waste no more time and get right to it.

The rules are the same as last year.  We'll rifle through the (major) categories and give our picks for who we think will win, who should win, and any possible upsets.

Unlike the actual Oscar telecast, we'll keep this short and sweet.  We'll tackle the major categories (acting, directing, picture).  First up is Supporting Actor.  

And the nominees are: 

Robert Duvall - The Judge

Ethan Hawke - Boyhood

Edward Norton - Birdman

Mark Ruffalo - Foxcatcher

J.K. Simmons - Whiplash

Who Will Win:  JK Simmons.  This is about as big of a slam dunk as there has been in recent years.  Simmons brilliant portrayal of an intense music teacher has already earned him a boatload of awards including a SAG and Golden Globe.  He wins the big one this Sunday.

Who Should Win:  Simmons.  He's a great actor who is finally getting his due.  This was the role of a lifetime and he nailed it.

Darkhorse:  I don't think there will be any upsets, but if I had to pick one, my guess would be Edward Norton in Birdman.  Our boy Michael Keaton (deservedly) gets all the love for his brilliant performance, but Edward Norton also gives a hell of a performance.  Still, I think this is J.K. Simmons' category, and there's no stopping him.  Another performance that I really loved is Ethan Hawke in my favorite movie of the year, Boyhood.  He was so real and relate-able in that role.  I would like to see him get a little more love.

How about you?  Who takes home your supporting Oscar?

AH

Now I must apologize for the delayed response. I just moved yesterday so I am just getting my senses back as well as my Internet. I can't believe the Oscars are just a few days away so we should get cracking.

Looking at Best Supporting Actor, this is always one of my favorite categories and it's one of the few that you can with for playing a villain or comedic role or just generally chewing the scenery. And let's face it because the sexist Hollywood power structure always come up with meatier roles for men, these actors often have more screen time and better roles than their female peers in leading categories.

This year's crop is pretty strong save for Robert Duvall, a great actor who seems to be getting a nod for just staying in the game this long.

Who will win: JK Simmons

I think you're spot on in your assessment -- he's won every precursor ever out there, the movie had a strong showing at the nominations despite being a small movie that few people have seen

Who should win: JK Simmons
Simmons is the straw that stirs the drink in this film, he is just riveting and hilarious and scary ("Not my tempo.") I loved the performances of Hawke, Norton and Ruffalo a lot, but their time will come.

Dark Horse: Sometimes supporting races can take a shocking left turn and a surefire lock can get upset on Oscar night. I agree with you that if anyone can pull it off it's Norton, one our greatest actors who has never won, and his hilarious, self deprecating work in Birdman is a revelation.

BW

No worries.  Congrats on the big move.  I'm loving the pictures that are popping up online of the new place.

The next category up is for Supporting Actress. Can you agree with me that it hasn't been the strongest year for women in terms of roles?  Not that there haven't been strong performances this year by women, but rather these performances almost feel like an afterthought.  There isn't really a breakout performance by a woman this year.  I haven't seen Into The Woods, but it feels like Merryl Streep is nominated because they needed a 5th person in this category.  Not to mention the giant elephant in the room that there wasn't a single person of color nominated for acting this year.  I know many words have been written on the subject, but I can't get over the Selma snub.  My only hope is that we're living in a dream world and will wake up on Sunday to see Selma get its proper due.

With that being said, here are the nominees:

Patricia Arquette - Boyhood

Laura Dern - Wild

Keira Knightley - The Imitation Game

Emma Stone - Birdman

Meryl Streep - Obligatory Nomination (Kidding, It's for Into The Woods)

Who Will Win:  Patricia Arquette

I think this is another runaway victory.  Arquette gave a brilliant performance as the mother of two children in Boyhood.  I'm amazed that these actors were able to seamlessly jump into their characters and deliver such wonderful performances, while filming for one or two weekends a year over twelve years.  She was incredible as a mother trying to hold her family together while dealing with her own personal struggles and growth.  I absolutely loved this performance and I think she takes home the statue.  

Who Should Win:  Patricia Arquette

She is the back bone that holds this movie together, and should deservedly win the Oscar.

Dark Horse:  Emma Stone

This feels like a two person race.  I think there's a chance Emma Stone could make a late charge for her performance in Birdman.  The other three nominees should just be happy to be along for the ride.

Do you see Arquette taking home the gold, or do you smell an upset?

AH

Saying this year was weak year for women's roles is an understatement, it was a terrible year -- although I would argue there was one truly phenomenal breakout woman's performance for me -- and that was Scarlett Johansson in Under the Skin. It's not the kind of movie that gets Oscar nominations -- it;s just too weird, but the role was unlike anything I've ever seen, and this actress -- who is known more for tabloid fodder than talent, knocked it out of the park -- but again, I digress.

I too haven't seen Into the Woods, i heard Meryl Streep was incredible in it but when has anyone ever heard she was "ehh" in anything. I have enormous respect for her career and talent but it's getting to be absurd how often she's nominated.

To me, this is one of the biggest locks of the night, and it should be.

Will win: Patricia Arquette, Boyhood

Easily one of my favorite performances of the year, a moving, honest and incredibly sustained performance that spans over a decade. Arquette was the heart and soul of arguably the best film of the year. The movie may have been about a boy but in the end it was his mother that made me reassess my own life.

Should win: Patricia Arquette, Boyhood

Emma Stone did strong, funny work in Birdman but I just don't think it'll be enough for a win. Keira Knighley was good in Imitation Game, a film I was no bowled over by. I am a huge Laura Dern fan so I was excited to see her sneak in for Wild, a movie I missed but still intend to check out. But Arquette has won every award out there for her career best performance and I will be rooting for her on Sunday.

Dark horse: Laura Dern has been an outstanding character actress for decades and I could see Oscar rewarding her here in what would be one of the biggest upsets in years. I haven't seen Wild but I know for a fact it has its passionate defenders and Dern is riding a wave of appreciation for her and family's acting dynasty. Still, I am sure Arquette will emerge victorious.

BW

We're 2 for 2 so far.  Up next is Best Actor. We have a really strong group of performances and a major snub (*cough* *cough* Selma *cough*).  I am really excited for this category.  One of our favorite actors could finally get the recognition deserves after a career of amazing performances.  Yes, Michael Keaton is up for Best Actor for his brilliant, somewhat self-reflective, performance in Birdman.  Although, this IS the Oscars and we've seen actors get the shaft before (hello Bill Murray).  Here are the nominees:

Steve Carell - Foxcatcher

Bradley Cooper - Not Selma (American Sniper)

Benedict Cumberbatch - The Imitation Game

Michael Keaton - Birdman

Eddie Redmayne - The Theory Of Everything

Who Will Win:  Eddie Redmayne

I'm calling the first big upset of the night.  Redmayne came away with the SAG Award for his performance as Stephen Hawking, and the SAG winner has gone on to win the Oscar in the past 10 years or so.  He wins it here.

Who Should Win:  Michael Keaton

Come on Oscar!  Give one of the greatest actors of all time the award he rightfully deserves.

Dark Horse:  David Owyelowo for Selma

Kidding!  The Academy is a bunch of 70+ year old white guys.

Actual Dark Horse:  I think this is a two person race between Redmayne and Keaton.  If I had to pick anyone else I would have to go with Bradley Cooper for the overrated American Sniper.  Pretending that plastic baby is real deserves its own acting award.  I could also see Cumberbatch as a potential spoiler.  Hell, Carell was amazing, too.  Really strong group of actors this year.

Who takes your top actor Oscar?

AH

This is a pretty strong group but yes, there is just no excuse for the David Oyelowo snub, it's not about race it's about the performance and he easily gave one of the best of the year. In fact I would say alongside Keaton and Carell, those were my three favorite leading man roles this year. He "became" MLK, which is an incredible feat and he gave the character depth and nuance, not bad for a Brit playing such a quintessentially American role. I haven't seen The Theory of Everything and to be honest I'm not sure I want to. It felt like one of those movies where when you've seen the trailer you've seen the entire movie, and it just felt like A Beautiful Mind redux for me. I did see The Imitation Game and was kind of underwhelmed by it. I really like Benedict Cumberbatch as an actor, but he didn't do anything different for than he does on Sherlock and in several of his other roles. He's the charming jerk who eventually reveals his sensitive side. I'd love to see him stretch more, maybe do a comedy. Carell was magnificently creepy in Foxcatcher, Cooper was good in American Sniper but I don't think he deserves an Oscar for it, and although I'm biased because he's one of my favorite actors --  I think Keaton gave the performance of the year in Birdman.

Will win: Eddie Redmayne

I just have a bad feeling about this. Even though the Best Actor award normally skews older, the Academy always seems to be a sucker for physical transformation roles, personally I am a bigger fan of "the role of their lifetime" type of performances and to me that's why Keaton's fits like a glove, but to your point SAG wins are almost always the best predictor and Redmayne's victory there seems to suggest he is the favorite. I've heard he is terrific in the film and I don't doubt that but it seems like the kind of performance that won't be remembered decades from now.

Should win: Michael Keaton

Sure he's already won tons of accolades and acclaim for this performance but I don't think he gets enough props from the technical mastery of what he did. I just revisited Birdman last night and the acting chops you have to have to pull off the sustained 8 to 10 minute takes the film's unique style required is astronomical. Yes, the meta nature of the role is the hook but the emotional complexity and pathos of his performance make you forget all that stuff and view his character as a unique original creation instead of a riff on Keaton's career. His touching Globes speech was just a warm up act and I think more than any other race my heart is with him on this one.

Dark horse: Bradley Cooper

I feel like this film is too huge not to get rewarded somewhere and stranger things have happened. This year reminds me a bit of 2002 where everyone saw it as a race between Daniel Day Lewis (for Gangs of New York) and Jack Nicholson (for About Schmidt) and then Adrien Brody came out of nowhere and shocked the world (and Halle Berry, by giving her a long smooch at the podium). Even though American Sniper is divisive, Cooper is quickly become Hollywood's new golden boy and he has matured into a solid, likable leading man. I thought his work here was good but not exceptional, but he may have more momentum on his side than Keaton and Redmayne.

BW

That's 3 for 3 so far!  We both smell an upset for Best Actor.  I thought you were gonna call it for Keaton.  It'll definitely be interesting in the one (and maybe only) category with a chance for drama to unfold.

Next up is our last acting category of the evening:  Best Actress.  Again, there doesn't seem to be much confusion as to who will win this year.  It boils down to Julianne Moore and everybody else.  She's cleaning up on the circuit and I don't see anyone else stopping her.  

The nominees are:

Marion Cotillard - Two Days One Night

Felicity Jones - The Theory Of Everything

Julianne Moore - Still Alice

Rosamund Pike - Gone Girl

Reese Witherspoon - Wild

Who Will Win:  Julianne Moore

In a down year for women, The Academy rewards one one buzzed about performance.  For a short while I thought this was the year of the Reese Witherspoon renaissance.  I haven't seen Wild yet, but I've heard good things about her character's story of self-discovery and redemption... And then the awards season kicked into high gear, and it's been all Moore all the time.  She's won the SAG, the BAFTA, and the Golden Globe for her portrayal of a woman struggling with Alzheimers.  There's no stopping this runaway train.  Moore wins in a landslide.

Who Should Win:  Julianne Moore

I'm basing this solely on the fact that since she's won everything else, she deserves the Oscar.  Sadly, I haven't seen Still Alice yet, but I plan to when it comes out on home video.

Dark Horse:  Rosamund Pike

You liked the movie more than I did.  Pike does a formidable job of playing the titular gone girl.  I wasn't wild about the movie, but it did major box office and I could see her as a possible dark horse candidate.  Or do the voters give us a Theory Of Everything clean sweep with Felicity Jones?  Assuming Eddie Redmayne wins as we are both predicting he will.

Who takes home your Oscar?

AH

Yeah I mean I want Keaton to win desperately and won't surprised if he does, but I am used to Oscar disappointing me, particularly in this category. I still can't believe Jean Dujardin won for The Artist when George Clooney gave perhaps his best performance of all time for The Descendants. 

I am sad to say I have not seen most of the films featuring nominees for Best Actress -- that said, I don't think I'm far off when I say that this doesn't seem to be the strongest crop and the race seems anything but competitive. Perhaps if Reese Witherspoon hadn't already won (undeservedly in my opinion) she might have given frontrunner Julianne Moore a run for her money. But it seems like this is going to be the Julianne Moore lifetime achievement award. It doesn't seem like anyone else is even close to stealing her thunder.

Will Win: Julianne Moore

Moore has long been one of Hollywood's greatest actresses and she has been nominated several times and never won (even though she deserved the award when she made Far From Heaven and Boogie Nights). I have heard nothing but amazing things about her performance and she is certainly "due." And, gratefully, I've heard the performance is definitely worthy.

Should win: Julianne Moore

She seems to stand head and shoulders above the competition. I loved Rosamund Pike in Gone Girl, she gave a fun mainstream movie star type performance. I don't really know what Felicity Jones did that was all that special and both Witherspoon and Marianne Coiltiard have won fairly recently.

Dark Horse: Felicity Jones

Unlike Best Actor this category often honors up and coming ingenues, think Gwenyth Paltrow in Shakespeare in Love or Jennifer Lawrence in Silver Linings Playbook. I haven't heard anything exceptional about her performance but Hollywood loves to crown a new darling, seems like that's the spot she's filling here. Plus, to your earlier point, if there's a groundswell for Redmayne, she could ride in on his coattails.

BW

4 for 4 so far!  Maybe we can disagree on these final two categories, where the outcome doesn't seem nearly as set in stone as the acting categories.  First up is Best Director.  It seems to be a two horse race between Richard Linklater for his time spanning opus, Boyhood, and Alejandro G. Inarritu for Birdman.  Both movies required a monumental directing effort, and I think the race could go either way.  I should also mention that I think we'll see a split between best picture and director this year.

Here are the nominees:

Alejandro G. Inarritu - Birdman

Richard Linklater - Boyhood

Bennett Miller - Foxcatcher

Wes Anderson - The Grand Budapest Hotel

Morten Tyldum - The Imitation Game

Will Win:  Richard Linklater

It's my favorite movie of the year, and Linklater gets the nod for his amazing ability to craft a story that took 12 years to film.  It's amazing that this movie even exists, let alone works so well.  He basically had to craft the story on the fly to account for the shifting tides of technology, politics, etc. over a twelve year span.  He gets the slight edge over Inarritu.

Should Win:  Linklater or Inniritu

I won't be upset if either director walks away with the statue.  Both did an amazing job.

Dark Horse:  Wes Anderson

While I wasn't a huge fan of Grand Budapest, is this the year that the Academy finally comes around to Wes Anderson?  If anyone could sneak in and upset the front runners, it's Anderson.  The movie made a ton of money and has already done well on the awards circuit.  My guess is that Anderson walks away with the script writing Oscar and gets left out of directing.

Who do you got?

AH

I don't think it's quite as close as you do -- but more on that in a second. This was the most heartbreaking category to me because of the omission of Ava DuVernay. The Best Actor race is always hyper competitive, so while I still think Oyelowo deserved a spot more than Copper, it's not like the greatest snub of all time. But the diss of DuVernay might be.She could have made history as the first woman of color and just the fifth woman overall to be nominated for Best Director. Her achievement with Selma was astounding, and although it was nominated for Best Picture, it feels like an afterthought. The movie deserved better.

I also think Morten Tyldum unexceptional work on The Imitation Game is unworthy of a spot here. He did a solid, competent job, but I feel like this should be a category for auteurs. Hell, even if Clint Eastwood were here it would make more sense because he made a film that really reflected his vision. I think the other four are definitely worthy, great filmmakers. And although I would be surprised if he eeked out a win, I am personally thrilled to finally see Wes Anderson get recognized by the Academy. His slow but steady rise as a commercial force has been one of the most fascinating recent developments out of Hollywood. That said...

Will win: Richard Linklater

It would be a mistake to award Linklater just for his achievement of making a moving, coherent film over 12 years. He's not the first, or the last direct to try an experiment like this. It's simply the best film of the year, and impressive directorial vision that is epic in scope and feeling. He is picking up pretty much every precursor and his body of work makes him a shoo-in for the award.

Should win: Richard Linklater

For pretty much all the reasons stated above. He made a movie that was both uniquely personal and yet had universal appeal. It also just feels like the culmination of all this prior work. Directors sometimes don't win for their signature films, it would be a shame for that to happen here.

Dark Horse: Wes Anderson

The quirky filmmaker has a lot of devoted fans, and I count myself among them. I actually didn't think Grand Budapest was his strongest work, I liked it, but I think Moonrise Kingdom was superior for instance. But for whatever reason, this film was a real hit with audiences, and critics who usually are very polarized on Anderson. It's strong showing among the nominations suggests a lot of support for him and his film, so if there's going to be an upset, it could be here.

BW

Ah, yes.  I can't believe I forgot to mention the biggest Oscar snub.  DuVernay's omission from the directing category was the most glaring snub in this year's field.  Selma was a brilliantly directed film and the historical implications of her would be nomination make this snub hurt the most.  I agree that it deserved better.  I haven't seen The Imitation Game, but from all accounts it seems like a quality, but by the numbers, biopic.  I'll have to wait and see to pass final judgment.

It's time for the big award: Best Picture.  We have a crowded field, but to me, it feels like it could go one of two ways.  Birdman or Boyhood.  I feel like Boyhood is the premier film this year for all of the reasons you mentioned. 

I should also mention that I am not a fan of the "up to 10 movies for Best Picture" rule anymore.  I liked it when it was first implemented because it allowed films that might not have gotten into the category in years prior a chance to shine.  However, the more I look at it, it feels almost forced.  Is a movie like American Sniper (and it's 74% Rotten Tomatoes score) really a best picture nominee?  Or was it thrown in because Clint Eastwood make it and he automatically gets in.  These past few years, it's felt like there have been movies that have squeezed their way in almost as a token nomination.  What do you think... should we go back to the 5 movie rule, or do you like expanding the category to 10?

The nominees for Best Picture are:

American Sniper

Birdman

Boyhood

The Grand Budapest Hotel

The Imitation Game

Selma

The Theory Of Everything

Whiplash

Will Win:

Boyhood

This is my personal favorite film of the year.  I connected to this movie more than any movie I've seen in the past few years.  It's a monumental achievement in directing, acting, script writing, editing, etc.  It gets the nod this year.

Should Win:

Boyhood

For all the reasons I mentioned above, this is the one that should walk away with the big prize.  Although I could make a case for Birdman as well.

Dark Horse:

Selma

Does the perceived "snubbed" movie get the victory (like Argo two years ago)?  I could see this happening, but my guess is that it doesn't come anywhere close to knocking Boyhood off the pedestal.

That's it for me.  Who wins your Best Picture Oscar?

I'd also like to thank you for participating again this year.  I really enjoy these back and forth exchanges.  I'd also like to mention that I love reading your blog.  I don't get to go to the movies as much as I like these days and I live vicariously through your reviews.  You are really gifted with your commentary on all things Hollywood.  Keep up the good work.  Let's keep these exchanges going in the future.

AH

I too liked the expansion idea at first -- particularly after The Dark Knight was inexplicably snubbed in 2008 -- but it clearly deserved a spot in the final five, instead of the dreary The Reader. I think you're right, this experiment hasn't worked. Sure some quirkier gems have gotten best picture nominations but even year since 2009 there have been five clear favorites and a bunch of also-rans. Like I am still shaking my head over The Blind Side getting a best picture nomination. I didn't like American Sniper for a host of reasons, it was entertainment and interesting in its ineptitude, but I don't think it belongs here. I feel the same way about The Imitation Game, I haven't seen The Theory of Everything but I've heard -- frequently -- that movie is just ok, not great. Of this group I would narrow it down to: Selma, Birdman, Boyhood, Whiplash and The Grand Budapest Hotel.

And I think Foxcatcher should have made the cut instead of Whiplash. Whiplash is a terrific little movie, but I just thought Foxcatcher has more to offer in terms of an all-encompassing film going experience.

That said, the nominees are what they are...

Will Win:

Boyhood

This race is actually incredibly close for me, and I've been thinking more and more that Birdman might triumph, it's still buzzy and still in theaters, whereas Boyhood had its biggest impact last summer. I've also increasingly heard quibbles about the film from some people. That said, it was the most acclaimed American film of last year and it has enough momentum left to eek out a victory.

Should Win:

Boyhood

It's tough, my heart is with Selma but my head is with Boyhood. If Birdman won I wouldn't be appalled but those two were the films that really stayed with me emotionally long after I saw them. I think Boyhood is a stunning achievement and just a profoundly smart take on a whole generation. Selma is more modest in scope, but no less compelling. 

Dark Horse:

Birdman

It has a slew of precursors and nominations, it clearly resonates with the Hollywood community and it's innovative to boot. I am becoming more and more convinced that it could be a great night for this magic realism mishmash of a movie and maybe only because Boyhood peaked too soon. I think the Academy thinks it did its job for racial harmony last year by begrudgingly picking the phenomenal 12 Years a Slave to win best picture, I think American Sniper is too polarizing, The Theory of Everything and The Imitation Game are too slight and Whiplash is too small. Grand Budapest Hotel is kind of hanging around and could be a spoiler but I feel like its too whimsical a movie to be a best picture winner. Needless to say this is going to be a potentially surprising finale.

Thank you for the compliments, it means a lot!

BW

So there you have it folks.  We are in agreement on every category.  Tune in to the Oscars to see how we do.

Until next year...

Boyhood - The best movie of 2014

Boyhood - Richard Linklater's epic masterpiece.

I just had the pleasure of finally seeing Richard Linklater's masterpiece, Boyhood, and I'm still in awe.  This is a movie that really hit home with me.  Perhaps it's because I am looking back at my own journey from boy to man (my wife would joke that I still haven't reached adulthood), or perhaps because I'm looking at my son and his upcoming life, but I absolutely loved this film, and I highly recommend it.

Looking back at the past, what do we remember about life?  We don't remember the day to day minutae.  We remember the moments, snapshots, and events that helped shape us into the people we end up being.  That's what I liked so much about this film.  It almost felt like a scripted documentary.  We are along for the ride as Mason (played brilliantly by newcomer Ellar Coltrane)grows from a little boy to a young adult about to enter college.  We see the highs and lows as we skip from moment to moment in a 12 year window in Mason's formative years.  Linklater used the same cast over more than a decade of filming, and the dedication really pays off.  We don't have to suspend disbelief that a kid in the beginning of he movie is actually the same person at the end.

Even though my experiences weren't the same as Mason's, I could really relate to this story.  I came from a family of divorce and so did he.  Like Mason, it took me a long time to figure out what I wanted to do with my life.  Heck, I graduated college and STILL didn't know what I wanted to do.  That's what felt so real about this movie.  Instead of being told how to feel, we were left to bring our own experiences to the film and interpret each scene how we wanted to.  Boyhood opens up with a Coldplay song that always brings me back to college.  We are reminded of major national events (9/11, the Iraq war, Obama's election, etc.) and yet they happen organically in this film.  They are only brought up to further a character's story line.  We don't have to relive the horrific events of 9/11, and yet we know they exist.  I was also able to relate to Patricia Arquette's matriarchal character.  She's a strong, exhausted woman who is just trying to do the right thing for her children.  Arquette gives a hell of a performance without being too over the top.  I was very sympathetic to her character because I was raised by a strong woman who did everything to raise her children.

This movie doesn't have a traditional plot.  Like I said, it's a collection of snapshots as we watch Mason grow from a boy to the cusp of being a man.  It's a refreshing film because it doesn't fall into any Hollywood cliches.  It exists as we exist.  Moment to moment.  Snapshot to snapshot.

The fact that it exists at all is amazing..  Filmed over 12 years, so many things could have gone wrong.  Any number of actors could have quit the production.  The studio could have lost interest.  But, amazingly, nothing went wrong an we are left with a perfect movie.

I'm giving Boyhood 4 out of 4 stars.  It should be the front runner for best picture this year.  It's out on DVD and download now.  Please find a way to see it.

The Hobbit: The Battle Of The Five Armies - After nine hours, the Hobbit trilogy finally comes to a close.

The Hobbit: The Battle Of The Five Armies

Movie Review

by Brian Wezowicz

I am a huge fan of the Lord Of The Rings trilogy.  It may be my favorite trilogy in of all-time.  Each film in the trilogy has grown better with time, and the director's cut are actually BETTER than the theatrical versions (a cinematic anomaly for sure).  In a way, Peter Jackson is the anti George Lucas.  The more he adds to his movies, the better they are.  I own both the theatrical and the extended version of all three LOTR movies.  I've done multiple marathons where I've watched the trilogy in one sitting.  I can't get enough Middle Earth.

When it was announced that they were making not one but TWO Hobbit films, I remember being more than excited.  Then, when it was announced that they were making THREE Hobbit films, I nearly passed out like a teenage girl at a One Direction concert.  I've always said that a bad day in Middle Earth is still a pretty good day.  The first two movies have their highs and they definitely have their lows.  They do a great job of setting up this third and final film.  Whereas each Lord Of The Rings film could almost be considered a stand alone film that serve a larger story, The Hobbit trilogy is one long story that is broken into three parts.  Yes, the action lags at times, but when Peter Jackson gets it right, he really really gets it right.

The Hobbit: The Battle Of The Five Armies is not a perfect film by any means, but it's the best and most exciting film in the trilogy.  It suffers from the same shortcomings as the first two (parts drag at times), but amps up the action with an epic battle that only Peter Jackson can deliver.  The Five Armies picks up right where The Desolation Of Smaug left off... with Bilbo and his merry band of dwarves bearing witness to the seriously ornery dragon bearing down on the inhabitants of Lake Town after being dispatched from the mountain he inhabited for decades.  The dragon burns that mother down like the saucy little (er, huge) minx that he is.  I wouldn't want to tick off a thousand year old fire breathing dragon.  Smaug's destruction of Lake Town looks magnificent on screen.  It might contain some of the best (non Planet Of The Apges) CGI in a 2014 movie.  The downside to this scene is that it really should have occurred at the end of the previous film.  For such a big moment, it happens rather quickly.  Before you know it (spoiler alert) the dragon is dead and the fine folks of Lake Town are left to rebuild their lives.  They turn to the mountain and the piles (and piles) of gold inside of it for help.  The Dwarves inside it have holed themselves in their reclaimed homeland, and aren't exactly feeling charitable.  Thorin Oakenshield (the new dwarf king) has undergone a rather quick turn into crazy town.  In the span of, oh, five minutes, he's gone from courageous leader to Scrooge McDuck swimming in his bank vault full of gold coins.  He boards the dwarves in the mountain and closes them off from the outside world.  Before you know it, the elves and what's left of Lake Town have lined up outside looking for some help/cash.  This leads to a battle over control of the gold inside the mountain.  Also, the Orcs and Goblins  join in on the fun, and it's on.

This battle is the high point of the entire Hobbit franchise.  It makes you remember back to the epic battles of the LOTR films, while doing more than enough to stand on its own two feet.  I saw this movie in IMAX 3D and it was worth every penny of the extra cost.  There are few directors (if any) who can create this level of large scale battle sequences.  It was, by far, the highlight of the Hobbit trilogy.

The rest of the movie suffered from the same short comings as Hobbit 1&2.  It felt like they were stretching scenes out in order to justify the third film.  I'm always of the opinion that the more time I spend in Middle Earth is a good thing, but even I was checking my watch by the 9th Hobbit hour.  I don't think Peter Jackson could have fit everything into a single Hobbit film, but I definitely think there is enough pork to cut to have The Hobbit be a really good two film series as originally intended.

I'm giving this film 2.5 stars out of 4.  The actual battle of the five armies was spectacular, but the rest of the film was just fller between battles.  This film satisfied my Hobbit thirst nicely.  If you're a die hard Middle Earth fan you will probably enjoy this movie, but I would avoid it if  you aren't.

Until next time

Gone Girl Movie Review

Gone Girl Movie Review

by Brian Wezowicz

I'm going to keep this review short because it's been about two months since I've seen this movie and I don't even think it's in the theaters anymore.

I'm a huge fan of professional wrestling.  I've been hooked since I was in the third grade.  I mention this because I think there should be a championship belt for movie directors.  Yes, I'm aware that the Oscars happen every year, but the championship belt would be for a body of work, not just a single film.

I'm a huge fan of David Fincher.  I think The Social Network may be the best film of the 2000's, and I'm still bitter that we haven't seen a sequel to his brilliant adaptation of The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo.  I salivate at the mere mention of a future Fincher project.  So it was with great excitement that I went to see Gone Girl, Fincher's adaptation of the popular novel by Gillian Flynn.

It's the story of the search for the missing wife of Ben Affleck's character, who may or may not be sketchier than he seems.  He soon comes under the media microscope, because his story isn't completely believable.  Affleck is so believable in this role because he knows a thing or two about being under the media microscope from his time in the Bennifer days.  This was a great casting choice.  I can't go too deeply into the plot, because there is a pretty major reveal about halfway through the film, but if you've read the book, you know what that reveal is.  If not, definitely check this one out.

This film flows like clockwork.  Fincher has a real talent for delivering a top-notch thriller.  As the layers peel back, and the story goes deeper, we are delivered a thoroughly entertaining film.  It is edited perfectly, the score (again by frequent Fincher collaborator Trent Reznor) is eerie as hell, the directing is top notch, and all the perfomances are great.  However, I left the theater wanting a little more.  I knew I had just seen a great movie, but there was a sinking feeling in my stomach that I couldn't quite get over.  At first, I couldn't quite put my finger on the problem, but after having time to ponder, I have realized what is wrong with this movie: Everyone in this film is an asshole.  There isn't a single likable character in the entire film, and I think that it slightly takes away from the film.

I'm giving this movie 3 out of 4 stars.  I'm docking it one star for the asshole factor.  It's a good, but not great David Fincher movie.  It's not as strong as his last few outings, but you'll probably enjoy it.  

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1 Movie Review

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1 Movie Review

by Brian Wezowicz

There's a great scene in Mel Brooks' classic, Spaceballs, where Lonestar meets Yogurt.  After a brief introduction, Yogurt introduces Lonestar to the gift shop, where they've managed to put the movie on everything (Spaceballs: The Flamethrower!).  The scene served as both a satire on the commercialization of films and served as an eerily truthful prediction of things to come.

This is how I imagine the conversation between studio execs went the first time they mentioned splitting the final book in a popular series into two films.

Studio exec 1:  You know what would be better than one movie?

Studio exec 2:  No, what?

Studio exec 1:  TWO movies!

Studio exec 2:  OMG!  Let's do it for every movie series from here to eternity!!!

Then the two execs did a jumping high five.

What started as a great idea (Harry Potter, which fully deserved the dual movie treatment) has quickly blossomed to a shameless money grab.  From Twilight to The Avengers, every "final" movie is getting split in two.

Knowing that the story wouldn't end in this "final" chapter, I was still excited at the thought of going back to the rich world of Panem.  When we last left our heroine, Katniss Everdeen, she was being rescued from her second go-around in the Hunger Games by the leaders of the rebellion.  The twelve districts of Panem are in full scale mutiny against the capital, and Katniss is their symbol of freedom.  However, she does not accept her role in this rebellion.  She is reluctant to say the least.  It's not until she sees her destroyed home district (and the pile of bodies left by the Capital) that she agrees to become the Mockingjay, the one symbol that every district can rally to.

The Capital has their own symbol.  They have kidnapped Peeta, Katniss' love interest, and have forced him to film pro-Capital propaganda pieces.  There is a war coming, and the Capital is pulling out all the stops to stop it.  Katniss is heart broken at the sight of Peeta, and you can really feel her pain.  She believes that she is at fault for his distress, which only adds to her stress of being the Mockingjay.  All the acting in this film is top-notch.  Jennifer Lawrence keeps her hot streak going with her performance as Katniss.  Like the Harry Potter kids, I can't imagine anyone else playing this role.  The rest of the actors in this cast completely own their roles.  I should say something about the giant elephant in the room.  These Hunger Games movies are the great Philip Seymour Hoffman's last roles, and it's hard not to notice the pain he was feeling in his personal life seep into the role of Plutarch Heavensbee.  He looks tired and detached.  Maybe that's what he was going for in the performance, but it's not hard to notice art imitating life.

The problem I have with this film is that all of his could have and should have been covered in about an hour of film time.  Instead, the movie lasts over two hours and we don't really have any other scenes besides Katniss filming propaganda films aimed at stirring rebellion.  We never get the payoff.  I'm not completely against splitting a final story into two movies.  I just want there to be enough in the source material to merit this decision.  I just don't feel like there's enough here to do it.  The movie cuts to the credits as soon as the film picks up steam.  It does set up what is sure to be a balls to the wall part 2, that I'm already looking forward to.  I just wish that I didn't have to wait a year to see it.

I'm giving this movie 2.5 out of 4 stars.  It's a good movie, but it's incomplete and feels a little empty.  See it if you're a die-hard Hunger Games fan.