Mission Impossible Rogue Nation - After 20 Years, This Franchise Has A Lot Of Gas Left In The Tank

Mission Impossible:  Rogue Nation

Movie Review by Brian Wezowicz

Has it really been 20 years since IMF agent Ethan Hunt first graced the silver screen?  Looking at Tom Cruise's face, you would never know that his most iconic character is almost legally able to drink.  At 53 years young, Tom Cruise delivers another stellar performance as the head agent of the Impossible Missions Force, in the wildly entertaining Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation.

The American James Bond is back with a bang in my second favorite blockbuster of the summer (Mad Max: Fury Road still gets top billing), and this time he's taking down a secretive rogue nation (hey, that's the movie's title!) called the Syndicate.

I've always admired the Mission Impossible franchise.  Cruise brings in a different director for each chapter (admirably stepping into the director's chair this time is his Jack Reacher director, Christopher McQuarrie), and each film seems to have a different feel to it.  However, this one seemed the least independent of the bunch (which is not a bad thing at all).

From the get go, Ethan Hunt and shortly thereafter, the entire IMF is disavowed (side note:  my one gripe with the whole franchise is that Hunt is disavowed in EVERY film.  You'd think they would learn to trust him after all this time.  But I digress).  He learns that the rumored shadow group called the syndicate is very much real.  Hunt is the only one to believe this and soon goes it alone to try to bring it down.  He manages to bring the rest of his team (led by an always funny Simon Pegg, the steady Ving Rhames, and the always reliable Jeremy Renner) in to assist him.  They are in for a wild ride as they try to out wit the Bond villain-esque head of the Syndicate, Solomon Lane.  I love Lane's performance and overall look.  He has an incredible ability to talk without really moving his mouth. 

From the moment this film opens up (the much talked about scene with Tom Cruise hanging from an airplane) to the final moments, this movie never lets its foot off the gas.  Every scene delivers the perfect amount of action, humor and excitement.  The actors are top notch (I loved the female lead in this film, played with the right amount of feminist gusto by Rebecca Ferguson).

Back to Tom Cruise for a moment.  He'll always have his detractors because of his religious beliefs and kooky antics, but in my opinion there may not be a better action star in the world.  He steps into every role he takes and completely owns it.  He has the tendency to over-deliver his lines (There's plenty of that in this film), and there's a little bit of crazy behind those eyes, but when it comes time to step in front of the camera, he's the king for a reason.

Rogue Nation is right up there with the best of the Impossible franchise.  It delivers thrills and laughs equally from the opening frame.  I highly encourage you to see this movie, especially if a little bit of superhero fatigue has set in.  There's also an amusing Easter Egg with a rabbit's foot (MI:III shout out!)  You won't be disappointed.  3/4 stars.

Bonus Round:  My Mission Impossible rankings

5)  Mission Impossible II

As my friend wrote, this is the only one that doesn't stand the test of time.  It wasn't that great to begin with and it's almost unwatchable now.  It's over-reliance on slow motion action sequence and doves (so. many. doves) screams early 2000's action movie.  Pass on this one.

4)  Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation

I wish there were more movies so this one wouldn't be in second to last place.  If I were scoring the final 4 movies, they would only be separated by decimal points.

3)  Mission Impossible:  Ghost Protocol

Ethan Hunt is on his own after his IMF team is disavowed (shocker!).  The Kremlin scene alone would be worth the price of admission.  The climb up the tallest building in the world is icing on the cake.

2)  Mission Impossible

One of the best scenes in movie history!  This one is the most spy-like in the entire franchise.  I love the opening 20 minutes of the movie, which is as tense as anything Hitchcock ever did.  A great film that still holds up 20 years later.

1)  Mission Impossible III

JJ Abrams had the unenviable task of pumping life into a flat lining franchise.  This one gets top billing because of Philip Seymour Hoffman's superb performance as the villain that would put any Bond baddie to shame.  I also like that it tried to humanize Ethan Hunt by giving him a wife and a bit of a back story.

There you have it.  I went back and forth on this list.  You could switch out any of the top 4 and I'd still be OK with it.  I'll probably change this list 20 times in my life depending on my mood.

Ant-Man is a silly movie... and that's a good thing.

Ant-Man Movie Review

by Brian Wezowicz

After viewing Marvel's latest entry to its cinematic universe, I had one word come to mind.  Silly.  I don't mean that in a condescending or derogatory way.  I mean it in the most flattering way possible.  Ant-Man, Marvel's latest origin story delivers the laughs and thrills equally.  You don't have to think too hard about the plot, and really, the script doesn't try to hard to be "smart."

With the main Avengers (Iron Man, Thor, and Captain America) all nearing the end of their contractual runs, Marvel has the difficult task of keeping its cinematic universe chugging at full steam ahead, while introducing the lesser known heroes into the midst.  Ant-Man introduces us to two generations of Ant men, (both Hank Pym, played wonderfully by Michael Douglas & Paul Rudd as Scott Lang).  Back in the 80s, Pym developed a serum that could shrink a soldier down to the size of an ant, giving them enormous strength.  We learn that he didn't want the serum falling into the wrong hands and he abandoned the project before it could blow up in his face.

Flash forward to years later and Pym's protege (played with just the right amount of a-hole by House Of Cards Corey Stall) has almost re-created this ant-serum with the intentions of selling it to the highest bidder (i.e. Hydra).  With Pym being too old to don the suit, he must find a suitable replacement.  And that replacement is super-thief, Scott Lang.  I loved Paul Rudd's performance here.  He fills the role with a perfect blend of charm and charisma. 

The movie's one downfall is that it takes a long time for Rudd to find his ant legs.  I could have done without a couple of the training montages.  It's a small (pun intended) complaint, though. Once you get through an endless amount of training montages, this film really picks up steam.  There's more than one Marvel cameos sprinkled throughout the film to connect it to the larger Avengers storyline, and the action is top notch.  The fight aboard the Thomas train towards the end shows just how fun and silly this film can be.  Cutting between closeups of the train and wide shots had me rolling in the aisles.

The supporting cast is also a high note for this film.  Michael Pena shines as Scott Lang's dufus buddy.  The scenes where he had to tell a "simple" story to Lang are the true highlights of this film.  Paul Rudd and Adam McKay gave this script a polish after original director Edgar Wright (Shaun Of The Dead) departed the film mid-production.  With all the rumors of production rift, I'm surpised this film worked out so well.

Ant-Man is a light-hearted, completely entertaining origin story.  It's not as good as some of the other films, but it leaves the Avengers in good hands once Iron Man, Captain America and Thor ride off into the cinematic sunset.  I'm looking forward to more adventures with Ant-Man (and judging by the post-credit scene we won't have to wait long).

I'm giving this movie 2.5 out of 4 stars.  There's a lot to like in it and if you're looking for good night out... go see it.  Stay for the entire credits.  As per Marvel tradition, there are multiple scenes to look out for.

Pixar's Inside Out is a legitimate Best Picture contender.

Inside Out

Movie Review by Brian Wezowicz

It wouldn't be accurate to say that Pixar is back with Inside Out.  I don't think they ever really left.  Even some of their more disappointing films (and I use that term loosely), like Brave and Cars, were still wildly entertaining visual marvels.  They may not have been Pixar's best, but they were worth the price of admission.  I will say that Pixar has delivered its most emotionally satisfying (pun intended) movie in years.  Inside Out is a legitimate best picture nominee (if only people would get over their aversion to considering an animated film for best picture) filled with wonderful performances that will have you reaching for the tissues (in a good way).

Have you ever wondered what's going on in your mind?  Me too.  Thanks to Inside Out, you get a surprisingly accurate, albeit highly exaggerated explanation for why we react the way we do.  It also delves deeper into the importance of family, memories and friendship, and their impact on forming core memories.

The best part of this movie is the stellar voice cast. Amy Poehler shines as Joy, the leader of the team of emotions.  She is convinced that being happy all the time is the way to a perfect life.  Phyllis Smith (You know her as Phyllis Vance on The Office) steals the show as Sadness, the Eeyore of the bunch.  Her idea of a fun memory is "remember that movie where the dog died?".  She is the perfect counter point to Poehler's Joy.  Bill Hader, Mindy Kaling, and the always hilarious Lewis Black round out the cast as Fear, Disgust, and Anger.  Seeing them work together to show the entire spectrum of human emotion is truly a treat to behold.

This film teaches us of the importance of indulging in our emotions.  You can't just be happy all of the time.  It's important for us to feel sad and angry and fearful and disgusted.  These emotions make us who we are as people.  I don't want to spoil the plot too much because you should really stop reading this and head to your local theater.  I can't wait to buy this movie and watch it with my family over and over again.

I'm giving this movie 4 out of 4 stars.  It may be a cartoon, but you won't see a more human movie all year.

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.