Tag Archives: Oscarwatch 2015

Here Lie Brett the Wiese’s Confident Oscar Predictions. . .

February 25, 2016Editorial, Upcoming EventsAcademy awards, Awards season, Brett Wiesenauer, movies, Oscars, Oscarwatch 2015Joanne

This year is probably more straightforward in the big categories, but quite the troublesome hedgemaze in terms of technicals and short films and such. Here be my picks, complete witommentary, a confidence-inspired ranking system*, and binary Who Will Win/Who Should Win tags:

*The ranking system is based on confidence in each category. A score of 24 – since there are 24 categories – carries the most confidence, and therefore the highest point value. As the score lowers, start loading up on grains of salt. A perfect score will only make me look all the Wieser…

Documentary Short (2)

This is tough, as the offerings really run the gamut in terms of content. We have a Holocaust eulogy, an Ebola crisis piece, a piece on domestic violence in Pakistan, a Vietnam vet think piece, and a short on a Vietnamese teenage artist affected by Agent Orange. My gut tells me to go with Body Team 12, the Ebola one, though I feel A Girl in the River, the Pakistani film, deserves a look for the cultural horrors it produces on viewing.

Will Win: A Girl in the River // Should Win: A Girl in the River

Documentary Feature (20)

Amy is the one that will win. It’s inevitable, like other awards later on. Cartel Land and the Nina Simone piece were intriguing, but they lack the controlled manipulation that director Asif Kapadia holds in the tragic overview of the short starburst of a career that belonged to Amy Winehouse.

*The Hunting Ground was nominated for Song, and while I acknowledge some of its content is dubious and controversial, I feel the content and filmmaking should be acknowledged for its headway in dealing with collegiate sexual assault cases.

Will+Should Win: Amy

Should’ve Been Nominated: The Hunting Ground

Live Action Short (1)

I really have no opinion, having not seen any yet. But research is edging me towards Stutterer. Eh, might as well.

Will Win: Stutterer (??)

Animated Short (12)

History has taught me that if it has Disney plastered on the product (Sanjay’s Super Team), bet on it stealing the Oscar over usually much more interesting and rewarding things like Don Hertzfeldt’s jaw-dropping World of Tomorrow and the equally inspired Russian entry We Can’t Live Without Cosmos. They’ll listen to me eventually.

Will Win: Sanjay’s Super Team

Should Win: World of Tomorrow / We Can’t Live Without Cosmos

Animated Feature (22)

Pixar has had this one in the bag since the film made a splash back in June when it was released. It is sad, because it was a really extraordinary year for feature animation, between the Ghibli coming of age drama When Marnie was There, the mimed hijinks of Shaun the Sheep, and the intriguing headpiece Anomalisa. Still mad that Peanuts wasn’t nominated, by the by.

Will Win: Inside Out

Should’ve Been Nominated: The Peanuts Movie

Sound Editing (19) +Mixing (8)

Fury Road really should have this in the bag, but research tells me assorted experts expect The Revenant to steal one or both for some reason that is unfathomable by me. Thing is, I remember the hellish soundscapes of the furious roadway, but aside from the bear attack, I remember nothing remarkable from The Revenant. Ugh, you people are all crazy, Academy.

EDITING – Will+Should Win: Mad Max: Fury Road

MIXING – Will+Should Win: Mad Max: Fury Road

Film Editing (5)

A tough call to end all tough calls.

In one corner, we have Best Picture front-runners The Big Short, The Revenant, and Spotlight. In the other, we have wild-card options Fury Road and the latest in the legendary Star Wars series. What to choose, what to choose…?

Twist my arm and I’d say The Big Short. If not, I blame John Serba.

Will Win: The Big Short

Should Win: Mad Max: Fury Road

Makeup and Hairstyling (11)

Another one that I am proud to say Fury Road has in the proverbial bag. Just look at the level of creativity and imagination given to ol’ Immortan here.

Long Live Mad Max! Long Live The Wasteland! Sing, Brothers! Sing, SING!!

Will+Should Win: Mad Max: Fury Road

Best Original Song (4)

Please don’t let Fifty Shades of Grey get past Oscar-nominee status. Just give it to Gaga and spare us the pain of remembering. My heart can’t take the strain.

Will+Should Win: “Til It Happens to You”, from The Hunting Ground

Best Original Score (21)

Tarantino’s little outburst at the Globes, spouting that Morricone has never won an Oscar, (technically untrue, he won an Honorary Oscar at the 2007 ceremony) basically ensured that H8ful Eight will garner one, and only one, award over the course of the evening.

That being said, Carter Burwell’s score for Carol was an exquisite treat that deserves to be recognized above Maestro Morricone, sorry to say.

Will Win: Ennio Morricone, The H8ful Eight

Should Win: Carter Burwell, Carol

Best Visual Effects (10)

Fury Road vs Star Wars. Sometimes I despise that so many good genre films come out in one year, looking so technically flawless.

I really wish Ex Machina had gotten more love, but at least it also has a screenplay nomination.

Will+Should Win: Mad Max: Fury Road

Best Costume Design (3)

I am torn.

Carol was a truly gross oversight by the Academy on two of the big categories (Director and Picture) and deserves every nomination and more. But I really want Fury Road to walk away with the night.

Don’t Make Me Choose! -cries-

Will Win: Carol

Could Tie With: Mad Max: Fury Road

Best Production Design (17)

George Miller and his crew of lunatics crafted one of the craziest worlds ever in Fury Road. Frankly, nothing else comes close to its achievement in sheer world-building, even with its non-existent exposition.

Ex Machina and the under-seen Crimson Peak could also have benefited from some love here, but the Academy can’t help but shovel nominations out to lackluster things like The Danish Girl and Bridge of Spies. Heaven forbid we don’t give credit to the movies that will be remembered down the years as the best alternatives for sleep aids.

Will+Should Win: Mad Max: Fury Road

Should’ve Been Nominated: Crimson Peak

Photo Credit: Kimberley French - © 2015 Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation. All rights reserved. THE REVENANT Motion Picture © 2015 — Photo Credit: Kimberley French – © 2015 Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation. All rights reserved. THE REVENANT Motion Picture © 2015

Best Cinematography (13)

Ugh. Look, I like pretty pictures as much as anybody, but ‘Chivo’ has already won 2 consecutive Oscars, and his work on The Revenant proved more distracting than masterful. I much preferred the laid-back grain of Ed Lachman’s photography in Carol. Plus, lots of soft focus to increase the romantic tension.

Will Win: Emmanual Lubezki, The Revenant

Should Win: Ed Lachman, Carol

Foreign Language Film (18)

Son of Saul has been picking up a ridiculous amount of hype and awards buzz since mutterings of its power escaped the festival circuit early last year. Plus, it’s a Holocaust tale, and y’all should know how much the Academy loves that subject matter.

*Note that I haven’t seen any of the nominees yet, as foreign releases are negligible outside of the big, big cities (LA and NY), and Saul won’t see the silver screen in MI until March 4th. This is all gut instinct based on patterns in other award circuits. This is why there is no “should win” below. I feel I haven’t seen enough to make a confident choice.

Will Win: Son of Saul

Original (14) +Adapted Screenplay (15)

Another tough call. Typically, the Best Picture winner will pick up its assigned screenplay award, as with the case of the last few ceremonies. However, this is not always the case, as neither Million Dollar Baby nor The Artist picked up a screenplay award the night they won big.

In terms of original work, the Straight Outta Compton script could pick up the win as a peace-offering from the Academy for the #OscarsSoWhite debacle. But, Spotlight is the clear-cut victor of the bunch, seeing as it is neck and neck with The Revenant for the big prize. And Ex Machina gets a sympathy nomination knowing it won’t win anything. Cursed anti-science fiction Academy voters.

In the realm of Adapted work, critics and audiences have shown a lot of love for Brooklyn, the little movie that could, which could manifest into it’s only award of the evening. On the other hand, The Big Short had one of those scripts that was equally nutty and rage-inducing in all the right ways. Plus, Drew Goddard’s clever writing made The Martian the box office smash of the third quarter of 2015. This is a literal crapshoot, but with unbelievably high-quality pigeons.

Original, Will Win: Spotlight // Should Win: Ex Machina

^Should’ve Been Nominated: CREED

Adapted, Will Win: The Big Short // Should Win: Brooklyn

Best Supporting Actress (7)

Photo by Francois Duhamel - © 2015 Universal Pictures — Photo by Francois Duhamel – © 2015 Universal Pictures

Another one I am truly torn on for different reasons. As I explained in a previous editorial, Alicia Vikander is only nominated for The Danish Girl because she was the best part of the cursed flick. She played a much more interesting character and delivered a perfectly nuanced performance in Ex Machina, but alas the Academy voters are still wholly anti-genre films, so no dice there.

In addition, Kate Winslet has been picking up mucho praise for her work in Steve Jobs; she even picked up the Golden Globe and was honestly shocked. This category, along with Best Picture, could go either way.

Will Win: Kate Winslet, Steve Jobs

Should’ve Been Nominated: Alicia Vikander, Ex Machina

Best Supporting Actor (23)

For the longest time, it seemed like Mark Rylance’s quiet spy from Bridge of Spies was the easy choice, but Sly Stallone is another one of those inevitable picks that only became apparent to me once the Golden Globes hit. When Sly picked up the Globe, there was a standing ovation. If that’s not a guaranteed in for Sly, I don’t know if such a thing exists.

Add in the fact that his performance is one of his personal best up there with his work in the seminal Rocky as well as his turn in James Mangold’s Cop Land. His Rocky Balboa is aged, but not down and out quite yet. Stallone’s journey through Hollywood has been a fascinating one, and it’s time he was rewarded for sticking the landing in such a graceful way.

Will+Should Win: Sylvester Stallone, Creed

Should’ve Been Nominated: Jacob Tremblay, Room

^+Steve Carell, The Big Short

Best Actress (16)

Brie Larson is, along with Leo and Sly, a shoo-in for her award.

She brings a true gravitas that speaks of her patience in the Hollywood landscape so far, and her role as ‘Ma’ was a star-making performance like nothing else offered to the Academy this year.

Now, that is not to say I wouldn’t be disappointed to see Saorise Ronan grab something for her delightful turn in Brooklyn. Both are equally deserving.

Will Win: Brie Larson, Room

Should Win: Brie Larson or Saorise Ronan, Brooklyn

Should’ve Been Nominated: Charlize Theron, Mad Max: Fury Road

Best Actor (24, Guaranteed)

Leo has finally got his Oscar, all for scowling over 2-½ hours.

11 years too late, as well.

–

sigh-

Will Win: Leonardo DiCaprio, The Revenant

Should Win: I dunno. . .Fassbender?

Should Have Been Nominated: Michael Keaton, Spotlight

Best Director (9)

My dubious research into the depths of Oscar predictions gave me one significant bright spot/potential upset: George Miller will win Best Director.

At first I was in shocked denial, but then I thought on it more. The Academy loves to hand out career awards, and for once, this could work in ol’ Georgie’s favor. He’s been pulling his weight for nearly 40 years in the business after coming to it from being an emergency surgeon. And this career achievement award would coincide with his greatest, most impressive directorial work since Mad Max 2/The Road Warrior. Plus, AMPAS could see his effort as pulling off what Linklater did with Boyhood last year, with all his struggles, genius choices, and smart editing shining through his action-packed opus. Thank the Academy for that small relief.

Will+SHOULD Win: George Miller, Mad Max: Fury Road

Should’ve Been Nominated: Sir Ridley Scott, The Martian

+Alex Garland, Ex Machina

and finally:

~BEST PICTURE~ (6)

All right, let’s get this outta the way at the start:

My two favorites, Brooklyn and Fury Road, don’t have a chance at the top prize, unless the Big Three Choices split the vote, like what happened with Crash back in 2006. Frankly, that would delight me, but I’m gonna be safe and narrow it down from the Big Three: Spotlight, The Revenant, and The Big Short.

Of the three, The Big Short has been picking up the most momentum since it was a surprise Golden Globe nominee. It also won the Producer’s Guild Award, but that is it so far. It could be the surprise winner that takes the audience off-guard, having built up speed over the holiday and corresponding awards season.

The heavy hitter out of the gate is The Revenant, having won the BAFTA (British equivalent of the Oscar), the Director’s Guild Award, the Golden Globe for Best Drama, and numerous others. But, it has no script nomination, and no film has won Best Picture without a screenplay nomination since Titanic in 1998.

Spotlight is the tried-and-true pick of the trio, having won the SAG Award for Best Ensemble, the Gotham Award for Best Film, the Critic’s Choice Award, and the Satellite Award for Best Motion Picture. Its cast is legendary, its script has been lauded all over, and the direction was exceptional, considering the director previously made the universally-hated Adam Sandler vehicle, The Cobbler.

Taking all of this into account, here’s how I narrowed it down. Bridge of Spies leaves no noticeable impression upon viewing, it’s outta here! Room is out due to story structure problems I mentioned in my review. The Martian proved to be a crowd-pleasing box-office smash, but the Academy is still notoriously and inexplicably anti-science fiction. My beloved Fury Road is just too weird for the old fogies of the Academy, so I’m resting on it picking up six other awards. Brooklyn is the quiet innocent among the cutthroat Oscar race, so it’s doomed from the start. On top of all that hype, I’m knocking out The Revenant due to superstition over that phantom screenplay, and plus Alejandro already won big last year.

Between Spotlight and The Big Short, my gut tells me to go with Spotlight, seeing as the Academy could give it to make up for snubbing All the President’s Men way back in ’76 (which lost to Rocky, humorously enough). Though, my subconscious instinct tells me that The Big Short could be the troublemaker that flips the night on its head.

Who knows anyway? We shall see, Sunday evening. Until then, Witness Me!!

Will Win: Spotlight, I guess.

What I Want to Win: Brooklyn // Mad Max: Fury Road

Most Potential to Upset: The Big Short

Oscarwatch 2015: Bridge of Spies VS Carol

February 19, 2016Editorial, Movie ReviewAcademy awards, at the movies, Awards season, Brett Wiesenauer, Movie Review, Oscarwatch 2015, Spielberg, The Brothers CoenJoanne

Of all the Oscar nominees, Bridge of Spies is the one I’ve been dreading writing about the most. My feelings on the latest Spielberg drama are complicated, due to my internal struggles to classify it by that terrible, outdated binary distinction of it being a “good movie” or a “bad movie”. It’s almost as if my inner film snob is trying to strangle itself, Dr. Strangelove-style.

In terms of technical craft, it is fine.

But I don’t talk technicals in my reviews. I talk about emotions, characters, stories, images, concepts, and interesting and memorable events. And when the first thing that comes to mind after a STEVEN SPIELBERG MOVIE of all things is the technical craft, the alarms start to go off. This is a director whose whole of his image is based in his innate ability to play the audience like the orchestra, swelling emotions like string sections under the hand of maestro John Williams. And yet, here is a film that left me feeling… nothing.

I walked out of the movie acutely aware that a craftsman, whom I have respected as an artist for years, had tried to manipulate my feelings for the characters and story before me, and he failed hard. Like the far, far worse The Danish Girl, I find that the more I think about it, the less I appreciate it. And I just loathed The Danish Girl from frame one save for Alicia Vikander, while initially I did try to defend some of the more troubling aspects of Bridge of Spies as soon as I viewed it before Christmas.

The acting is just unimpressive on the whole. Tom Hanks played his role as you’d expect Tom Hanks to play any role outside of the realm of the Wachowski siblings, and I didn’t care. Amy Ryan as his wife makes no significant impression, whatsoever. Alan Alda makes his rounds as still relevant older actor, yawn. The kid playing Francis Gary Powers, of the U-2 Spy incident, doesn’t make any sort of impact that he’s supposed to. Character actors come and go portraying various degrees of hostility, strong-arming, and intolerance that you’d expect from any message movie.

Of the whole cast of characters, the only one who makes a substantial impression is Academy Award-nominee Mark Rylance as the incriminated spy Rudolf Abel. In a movie filled with stuffy and stale archetypes, he brings a quiet precision to his character, sighing at the complexities of American justice systems prejudiced against any semblance of equality for his petty actions. The direction is where this movie falls short in terms of audience sympathy for the American characters, or any characters actually.

Granted, a good portion of the screenplay was at one point in the hands of the Joel and Ethan, the Coen Brothers. They bring a fast-paced banter to the story that certainly lifts it above uninvolving period drama and upgrades it to a level of ambition that is still mildly entertaining, just not successful in winning me over. That being said, classy banter does not a good movie make. Take for example the 1992 remake of the classic, low-budget noir Detour; that movie had an excellent hard-boiled script, but the actors just couldn’t handle it and the movie completely fails as thriller and drama. The difference between Bridge of Spies and Hail, Caesar is there were characters and situations that intrigued me in the latter, while I was nearly bored to tears in Spies.

The direction is where I realized just how unhappy I was with the movie. Spielberg tries on multiple occasions to grab on to emotions that were nonexistent on my end throughout. At the big trial, Tom Hanks makes a grand old speech for liberty and justice for all, and it lands with a hollow thud. I wasn’t swayed to his side as I should have been because I was already there. I believe in liberty and justice for all, this isn’t that ethically dubious, spy or no spy. Later on, we view youths in East Germany being gunned down as they attempt to cross the Berlin Wall. And again, it felt hollow. I felt like I was getting reheated outtakes from Schindler’s List, in a lesser package. I felt Spielberg simply going through the motions rather than making an honest effort.

The reason I mentioned technicals above is that, on paper, this film works fine. The editing, camera work, sound, music all do their jobs, but they overshadowed the lacking sense of story and investment/stakes. That is the sign of a truly flawed script and directorial duties. Trying to get involved in the storytelling and coming up empty save for “it looked nice, and sounded nice” is not the reaction this movie needed.

~Now let’s change gears and talk about a truly excellent movie that was snubbed in categories Bridge of Spies picked up.~

Carol is a much smaller scale movie than the latest Spielberg project, being the tale of a unique relationship ignited between an amateur photographer/full-time department store clerk and a married housewife. The film stars Rooney Mara of Girl with the Dragon Tattoo and The Social Network fame, alongside screen demigoddess Cate Blanchett, two-time Oscar-winner and patron saint of screen actors, whom audiences may recognize from the Lord of the Rings saga and The Monuments Men.

The story does concern itself with certain subjects that are still in contention throughout much of the United States. The unique relationship of mention is a close friendship that does evolve into lesbianism. The first hour is foreplay and character buildup for the ingénue Therese (pronounced Teh-rezz) and the lovely titular Carol Aird. The film doesn’t jump headlong into the intimacies of the bedroom, rather it explores the intimacies of female relationships in the early 1960s.

The acting is utterly top-notch. Cate Blanchett and Rooney Mara are radiant whenever they get a chance to steal the focus from Ed Lachman’s gorgeous photography. Also along for the narrative are Kyle Chandler as Harge, Carol’s estranged husband and Sarah Paulson as Carol’s best friend and confidante, Abby. The characters transcend their performers and take on actual existence on the screen, which is the goal of all great film performances. Under careful, consolidated direction from Todd Haynes, the cast work alongside one another, moving the story along at a good pace, keeping the performances front and center in tandem with the imagery and Carter Burwell’s ingenious scoring.

Seriously, the music is incredible. As much as I loved the thrilling tones of Ennio Morricone’s soundtrack to The H8ful Eight, I feel the score to Carol is so much more moving and deserving of recognition. The score is most certainly Mr. Burwell’s most Burwellian score, since Fargo at the least. The best way to describe it is an Adagio for Love as influenced by Phillip Glass. The strings and piano combine to form a perfect ode of nostalgia and melodrama, like one’s memory of a first love.

Topping off my list of exquisite elements of Carol is the imagery, delivered through the lens of Oscar-nominated Ed Lachman. The film was shot on Super 16 millimeter film, exuding a sense of being shown a private stash of home movies. The generous amount of soft lighting and truly lush color adds to the dream-like quality of the pictures. I mentioned H8ful Eight previously, and I have to say, even with all of Tarantino’s grandstanding about his use of 70-mm film in that project, methinks this little film about love makes a better case for preservation of physical film elements than that film did in all of its bloated three hours.

Unlike Bridge of Spies, I was fully invested in the love story on-screen from the minute we are introduced to Carol and Therese. There wasn’t a single moment where I lost interest in what was unfolding between the lovers and struggled to reattach my attention to anything, be it a filmmaking or storytelling element. Through the emotional journey audiences are transported on, the romantic tension and surprising amount of dramatic involvement will catch audiences off guard.

See, Carol is going through a divorce over the course of the film, and her husband Harge does not approve of the relationship she initiates with young Therese. There is a single moment shortly past the halfway point where a betrayal takes place that truly puts the stakes of Carol’s marriage into focus. With such stakes present, the hardest of hearts will be hard-pressed to honestly say they can’t relate to Carol’s decisions, regardless of her lifestyle choices.

The Academy most ungraciously passed Carol over for Best Picture and Best Director. Initially, I felt
shocked and disturbed by the omissions. But then I thought about the Academy’s history with LGBTQ projects and then it hit me. The previous projects of queer intrigue recognized by AMPAS all contained a significant arc of tragedy. Brokeback Mountain, The Imitation Game, Midnight Cowboy, Dallas Buyers Club, and Milk were nominated for Best Picture, but only Midnight Cowboy took home the statuette, and all ended poorly for their characters. The sole exception to this pattern being 2010’s The Kids are All Right, but since that was a comedy, which the Academy has a terrible history of overlooking, it received nothing for its efforts.

Carol is not by any means a tragedy; it is a tad harrowing at times, but the tone of the film is not one of “woe is me, for I am queer”. And actually, the focus is not on the genders, but on the romance, something more queer movies should take note of. It’s an update on the Romeo and Juliet story with the tragic bits replaced with that of 1950s and 60s high melodrama, which director Todd Haynes mastered previously in the Best Director-nominated Far from Heaven.

The point of it all is that instead of gracing a daring and matter-of-fact presentation of queer romance with well-earned recognition, the Academy went with the lazy, easy choice of nominating the old-hat, typical choice that only points to how outdated and out-of-sync the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences are with increasingly progressive movie audiences. For an organization that previously gave big awards and recognition to the likes of 12 Years a Slave and Philadelphia, the Oscars seem to act more like they are filling thematic quotas rather than actively recognizing quality film efforts that just so happen to push boundaries.

Oscarwatch 2015: ROOM

February 16, 2016Citizen Journalism, Local Entertainment, Movie Reviewat the movies, Brett Wiesenauer, Brie Larson, In Theaters Now, Independent Film, Movie Review, Oscarwatch 2015Joanne

Of the Academy Award nominees out and about this season, Brooklyn and Room are the two that are fighting against the bigger tent-pole projects that the studios are hedging their bets on, solidified with big budgets, big names attached, and saucy subject matter that grabs attention easily. The smaller projects have more to prove with tighter stories, up-and-coming talent, and much less promotional material compared to studio powerhouses such as The Big Short and The Revenant. This is not to say “big studios are undeserving”, but indie movies have to struggle in order to earn their own awards and accolades.

room-exclusive-clip — Jacob Tremblay and Brie Larson, a boy and his “Ma”

Alongside Brooklyn, Room is seemingly the movie to beat when it comes to the Best Actress race. With Room, the film concerns Jack, played with hesitant wonder by the young Jacob Tremblay, and his “Ma” (Brie Larson), who live in “Room”, a very small enclosure somewhere on the property of their guardian “Old Nick”. Jack has just turned 5 and celebrates with exercise and a birthday cake. Unbeknownst to Jack, “Ma” is not a willing resident of Old Nick. She was kidnapped by Nick over 7 years before, who impregnated her with Jack. The only thing that keeps Ma, whose real name is Joy, around is her undying love for her child. Since Nick has fortified the garden shed where they are kept with a special pair of doors that only open when Nick is around, Joy comes clean to Jack about the world that lies outside the shed where they are trapped. Jack, who has only known the “Room” all his life, doesn’t believe her and “wants to hear a different story”.

[(SPOILERS AHEAD)] In a last-ditch effort to escape, Joy comes up with a dangerous plan to fake Jack’s death and when Nick takes the boy’s body out, Jack can find the authorities to help. By the luck of a careful pedestrian, the effort succeeds, and after a brief stint in the hospital, the two are deposited at Joy’s mother’s house where they are descended upon by journalists. The remainder of the film deals with Joy and Jack coming to terms with life outside of the “Room”, and how they both deal with the new outside forces that neither of them had any intention of attracting. [(SPOILERS END)]

Like plenty of the other nominees, the key strength of the movie is in the performances rather than Lenny Abrahamson’s direction or storyline. Frankly, the story is glorified Lifetime channel movie material, literally ripped-from-the-headlines, as Emma Donoghue’s seminal book that she adapted herself for the screen was based on a lurid case of kidnapping that’s actually even more disturbing than the novel and movie are.

The director’s previous film was the delightfully offbeat musical comedy Frank about a band led by the eccentric titular character, dressed in a paper-mâché mask/head. In jumping to hard-hitting drama, Mr. Abrahamson is most certainly attempting to broadcast a talent for handling all types of movies, comic and dramatic. Granted, this is his 5th feature film, according to Wikipedia.

Brie Larson is a pillar of resilience in Room. Having done her time in the romantic comedies and bit parts in Big Hollywood movies, she has been biding her time, waiting for something to grab and make her own. And with 2013’s indie darling Short Term 12 and Room, she has made her presence known to the Hollywood establishment at large. That being said, she has a genre-spanning career, having appeared alongside Amy Schumer last year in Trainwreck, as a smoldering ex in Scott Pilgrim vs The World, and with Ma Newsome under her belt, she’s made it clear her acting prowess is something to behold.

Ma is memorable because of her balance of strength and vulnerability. Every scene is a balancing act along the lines of her keeping her mind sharp and being there for little Jack. Her skin reflects the pallor of one who has had no view of the sun for years, her eyes water constantly, but she keeps a smile on to ensure her son’s safe rearing and both of their survivals. In her dulled eyes are the personality of a woman near the breaking point, risking it all on a last ditch attempt for survival. Like Hugh Glass in The Revenant, she has moments where she breaks, but it is brief and never the real focus of the story, since at the heart, this is Jack’s tale.

Jacob Tremblay is a marvel as Jack, the precocious, yet exploratory child that’s yet to experience the world and its grand offerings. Many critics have complained of the irritating shrillness given by Jack at times, and those people obviously have no idea how children actually act out. Children are not just packages of smiles and laughs, not properly brought up children anyway. There is variance in their moods and behaviors. much like adults, but their emotions have more extreme poles of expression. And Tremblay nails the portrayal of a boy who, while possibly stunted, is still learning about the world and willing to explore, with his Ma of course.

The film is not without detracting elements. The first half of the film is a closed off thriller, and the second half talky drama about feelings and experiences. These two halves don’t mesh very well as a whole product, and it’s not the fault of the director or the writer. It just feels off, and they tried to make it work. The best way I can explain it is you feel like you’re connected to these characters for the first half by umbilical, but after that passes, that connection is weakened due to the decrease in stakes. But on the bright side, Abrahamson has assembled a fine cast for support, including character actors Joan Allen and William H. Macy as Joy’s parents, worried beyond sick over the years of her imprisonment. Orphan Black cast member Tom McCamus adds solid support as Leo, Joan Allen’s new husband after separating from Joy’s father, finding moments to connect with young Jack over food and dogs.

To conclude, Room is a flawed film anchored by 2 stellar lead performances and a solid cast and script. While it won’t remain revered as a classic example of 2015 filmmaking, it is certainly worth a watch.

UICA Showcasing Oscar Shorts

February 12, 2016Citizen Journalism, Local Entertainment, Recreationanimation, Brett Wiesenauer, Oscarwatch 2015, short films, UICAJoanne

In coordination with my Oscarwatch series, I decided to throw some recognition towards that little theater in town that is taking part in Oscar season by showing the films that not everyone typically gets to see.

Today, the subject is short films, an often overlooked style of filmmaking too often dismissed by typical audiences as not worth their time unless the Disney logo is plastered on the front of it. That is a shame, since there are many talented people out there whose livelihoods thrive on the 45 minutes and under length of storytelling. Some stories just work better in bite size form, which many of Hollywood’s star producers and directors could take some lessons from.

The Urban Institute for Contemporary Art (UICA for short), located on Fulton and Division in downtown GR, is taking the time to showcase the Oscar nominated shorts this year, three categories split into four programming blocks. The programs consist of the animated, live action, and two sets of documentary short films deemed worth of recognition by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, along with the Shorts Channel (ShortsHD). The programming shows Tuesdays thru Sundays through March 3rd, with at least 2 showings per day, sometimes more.

we-cant-live-without-cosmos — The Russian nominee *WE CAN’T LIVE WITHOUT COSMOS*

I personally went to see the animation selections with a small group over the weekend and was not disappointed. The program included the 5 nominees as well as 3 honorable mentions, all of which were unique in their own right. I even thought one of the honorable mentions was better than a couple of the nominees. The program lasted about 90-95 minutes, and the best thing about the UICA is that like other theaters, they pad out the first five minutes with trailers and advertisements, so if you get caught in traffic, you won’t miss the important bits.

World_of_Tomorrow_(film)_POSTER — Poster for *WORLD OF TOMORROW*

Up for Animated Short this year are five shorts spread out across three continents and four countries, showcasing many different cultural perspectives. Bear Story, the submission from Chile, details a day in the life of a pauperish animal, who struggles to eke out living as a performer. The Russian entry, We Can’t Live Without Cosmos, is set during the glory days of the cosmonauts, exploring the relationship between two best friends who pass through Russia’s space program, hoping to make their country proud. The United Kingdom entry, Prologue, from the lauded animator behind the legendary unfinished project The Thief and the Cobbler/Arabian Knight and Who Framed Roger Rabbit, shows the anxiety and brutal chaos of a battle between two pairs of warriors in ancient Greece.

The PIXAR submission, Sanjay’s Super Team, deals in Hindu heritage and lore while giving nods, as evidenced in the title, to American superhero mythologies. The American independent darling, World of Tomorrow, narrates the inter-spatial meeting between a precocious young girl and her third-generation clone from over 200 years in the future, with a droll, goofy heart alongside morbid philosophizing on what the future holds in store for humanity.

All the shorts are certainly worth viewing, especially for the value of seeing them theatrically in downtown Grand Rapids of all places. Be warned, there is a viewer discretion break for young viewers after the fourth entry, as the fifth entry, Prologue, is a very violent and graphic depiction of an grisly battle scene. Luckily, the program does pad itself with 3 honorable mentions before that film. This goes to show that not all animation is kid-oriented, as most of the general public is due to find out.

Tickets are available at the UICA front desk, cost is $4 for UICA members, $8 for non-members. For showtime specifics, visit http://www.uica.org/movies

CREED: The Best Picture Not Recognized

February 5, 2016Movie Reviewat the movies, Brett Wiesenauer, CREED, Movie Review, Oscarwatch 2015, Rocky Balboa, Sylvester StalloneJoanne

Among the many films up for Academy Awards at the end of this month, there has been minor uproar over the lack of colored persons nominated for anything at all in the major categories. I briefly discussed my thoughts in my review of that hollowed out DiCaprio frontier vehicle. And again I iterate, this could have been easily resolved on two fronts: I- Giving Straight Outta Compton a Best Picture nomination for the sake of appeasing the crowds who flocked to it. II- Give Creed a Best Director and Best Actor nomination.

Now, to be fair, I had only read opinions at the time on the latest Rocky Balboa-verse installment. But, I had not yet seen the film to adequately surmise its merits.And I am here to stand by those words as I have now seen Creed, and I must say I did not expect to enjoy it nearly as much as I did. Not to say I expected to dislike it, not at all. But over the years of viewing the Rocky Balboa franchise, I never was truly struck with the story of the boxing worlds greatest underdog, aside from the classic first entry. The first two movies are considered classics in their own right, telling Rocky Balboa’s tale with care and tenderness, but quickly devolved into silly, showy camp once Stallone took over directing duties, starting with ROCKY III. True, he has been the one behind the writing and conception of the character, but sometimes creators need a bit of distance between their darlings and them.

The exception to the silliness was the seeming conclusion to the franchise, 2006’s Rocky Balboa, where the tone was much more morose and Lazarus-esque, with Rocky having lost his wife to cancer in between the last movie and had truly retired from the world of prize-fighting to be a restaurateur. The sixth entry had a tone much closer to the initial film, focusing on Balboa’s relationships to old friends and his family rather than the outlandish fight situations he manages to land himself in. True, there was a fight at the center of the picture, but the story was much more based in Rocky recognizing his paternal relations with his son and the one he has with his community at large. Seemingly, Stallone was content with retiring Balboa with that entry, ending it with a sense of grace not too common in today’s big and bombastic film community.

Ryan Coogler had other ideas, apparently. And with Creed, he injects fresh vitality into the weathered Rocky Balboa universe. Instead of remaking the original film as any other director or studio would have happily done, Coogler takes the risk of telling a side story, one taking place in the same shared universe and community of a franchise, but focusing on entirely new characters with connective appearances by key characters from the original franchise, in this case the only living in-universe lead, Rocky himself.

The new film focuses on young Adonis “Donnie” Johnson (Michael B. Jordan, Fant4stic, Fruitvale Station), illegitimate son of Rocky’s sparring partner Apollo Creed, who was killed in the ring during the events of Rocky IV. Johnson grew up in and out of foster care, until finally being discovered as a pre-teen by Creed’s wife, Mary Anne, and taken in to her home. As an adult, he nurtures a talent in the ring, and leaves for Philadelphia when L.A. refuses his services. He connects with Rocky Balboa at his restaurant over Creed’s memory and eventually Balboa comes to appreciate the fiery fighting man. Adonis starts romancing a local songstress and starts to train for small-time events to hone his skills. After his parentage is revealed in the aftermath of his first showcase, an opportunity comes to Johnson for a major headlining fight against world light heavyweight champion “Pretty” Ricky Conlan, where Adonis hopes to go the distance, as Balboa did in the initial Rocky.

Once upon a time, George Lucas infamously said of his Star Wars series, “it’s like poetry, they sort of rhyme” in reference to recurring plot developments and action set pieces. Now, The Force Awakens has received reasonable amounts of criticism for seemingly rehashing the storyline of much of the original STAR WARS for a multitude of its plot and structure. Arguably, Creed could be seen to suffer from the same problem, but here’s the thing that prevents me from calling both films lazy: differences in approach and the journey itself. In Episode VII, JJ Abrams had to keep the grounds familiar to fans of the franchise while taking baby steps in a different direction for the franchise, which he did.

Creed starts out a wholly different creature from the Rocky franchise as possible, a study of a young man struggling to make a name for himself doing what he enjoys and has a knack for. While Adonis does not quite have the ability to take punishment like Rocky could in his prime, he does have a constantly sensitive rage boiling underneath his seemingly zen demeanor. His is a story about finding and nurturing your talents with the right supervision, much like the original Rocky, with nods to Balboa in Creed acting as mentor to “Donnie” as Burgess Meredith’s Mickey did originally. As mentioned, there are parallels in this film, with the long shot chance to prove his worth being the most obvious, along with the rigorous training ol’ Rock puts Johnson through while Donnie simultaneously finds love with Bianca, a level-headed musician played with compassion by up-and-comer Tessa Thompson.

Most audiences and Academy patrons would write this film off as a Stallone comeback vehicle alone that just happens to continue with a black protagonist, but that is being unfair and cynical. Rocky has had comebacks before, and so has Stallone, proving his dramatic chops with choice titles such as Cop Land and First Blood. This movie does give Rocky a choice role, but he is not the focal point. If there is one, it’s shared by both Adonis and Balboa equally, as it is primarily Johnson’s story that happens to lead to Philadelphia, and Rocky by association. Coogler takes the existing material and takes what he wants freely from the mythos of the Balboa backstory, but fashions it into a lively and reborn sports drama that thrums with energy and skilled visual storytelling, one of my soft spots.

The prologue where we meet young Adonis in juvenile detention and learn of his parentage is shot not sappily, as Stallone may have, but honestly and it cuts to the title at the perfect moment. Immediately we are thrown into the seedy prize fights in Tijuana, where the now-grown Johnson seeks his sport. There are a couple of solid long takes during the fights that truly put audiences in the ring with the fighters almost as if participating as an unofficial referee, dodging hulking masses of muscle and spinning around the fighters without making viewers queasy.

Coogler crafts a magnificent picture more than worthy of awards attention, never stooping to the clichés that the Rocky franchise has set the stage for in previous years. There is never a sense that the writers insert conflict for the sake of scripting, the foils and foibles are organic to the characters and their faults. The camerawork is simply splendid. Michael B. Jordan was robbed of an awards nomination for no obvious reason. Eddie Redmayne has no standing for the Oscar this year compared to Jordan’s living, breathing sense of ferocious ingenious. He broods, lashes out at his loved ones, cries for recognition as his own man, not just living in his father’s immense shadow of legacy. And Stallone also has his moments of quiet understanding, watching Adonis as a sort of reflection of himself as a young fighter. Both are equally deserving of recognition is what I’m saying.

Are You Listening, Academy? You Goofed Again!

Creed is one of those near-perfect cinematic experiences that proves you can still instill life into an aged franchise provided the right point-of-view. I can only hope more filmmakers attempt to tell similar stories in other beloved franchises after Coogler’s success here. I look forward to his next work as well as the ongoing success of Mr. Jordan. Bravo, sirs.

BROOKLYN: The Oscarwatch Continues

January 28, 2016Citizen Journalism, Editorial, Movie Reviewah l'amour, at the movies, Brett Wiesenauer, In Theaters Now, Movie Review, Oscarwatch 2015, period dramaJoanne

*Methinks I’ll do pieces on each of the Big Oscar Contenders, seeing as I have already done pieces on Trumbo, FURY ROAD, The Martian, and The Revenant, as well as mentioned that little gem Spotlight. Expect a CREED review soon, as well as something on Room, The Big Short, and possibly Bridge of Spies. No promises on the latter.

As far as the Academy Awards go, one of the easiest ways to impress the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS) is to tell a unique, simple story really well, in a memorable way. Take as an example a movie about ambassadors trapped in a hostile country that have a fake film crew organized by the CIA to rescue them: Argo, the Best Picture winner from 3 years ago. A small-time boxer and low-rent enforcer overcomes his station in life to go the distance to spar with the heavyweight champion of the world of boxing, and finds romance along the way: 1976’s Best Picture and beloved franchise kick-starter ROCKY.

Now, I assume some readers presume the worst in me since I have been touting the praises of Mad Max: FURY ROAD since its release back in May of 2015, and could not be happier to see it as a big Academy Award contender. As an avid fan of genre films and the director’s work, I will chalk up a lot of my hype for the film as fan-boyish glee, knowing that one of my favorite things about film and fantasy is being recognized by the star-making industry event that is The Oscars(tm).

And while I hope it sweeps the technical categories (visual fx, sound, designs) instead of the STAR WARS juggernaut and possibly takes one of the Big 5 (Picture or Director) away from the clear favorite The Revenant, I don’t presume to call FURY ROAD the winner out of the gate, since I’ve been disappointed too often before by the powers that be.

And to those readers who curl their lips to my feelings on defending my post-apocalyptic ice-cream sundae of artistic chaos, I offer a concession: If the Oscar doesn’t go to FURY ROAD, I hope it goes to BROOKLYN.

BROOKLYN is a film I would refer to as the “little movie that could”. ‘Tis the dark horse of a most competitive Best Picture race. The small-scale romance movie tells the tale of Eilis (pronounced AY-lish) a young lady who moves to the United States in the early 1950s to escape the droll life she leads among the gossips and the matrons of Enniscorty, a small village in southeast Ireland. Leaving her mother and sister behind, after a slightly harrowing boat ride, she arrives in New York, passes through Ellis Island, and finds quarters at a boarding house in the titular borough, with some lively boarders including some shopgirls who help her get her start in the busy world of American life. She connects with a kindly Irish priest, who starts her in a night class to learn bookkeeping. At a community dance, she meets a handsome, slightly shy Italian boy named Tony, and the two quickly fall into love with each other.

We as an audience proceed to follow a delightful little treat of a romantic journey between two adorable people and the trials that come up between them when Eilis suddenly has to return to Ireland to deal with a bit of family drama. Once she arrives back to the land of her birth, she is courted by another young man and is expected to settle down in her old community for the sake of her little village standing. Eilis must make tough decisions that could decide her life’s journey for the better. And it is beautiful.

What most people don’t know about me, judging solely on what I present to the world, is that while I give off the air of a desperate, sardonic adrenaline junkie and hardcore action man, I am a hopeless romantic at heart. And I love a good romance movie. None of that rubbish that Nicholas Sparks sells in his recycled works, not the uncomfortably by-the-numbers that pass for romantic comedies these days, I mean a true blue story about human beings, not stereotypes, who fall in love, and the sometimes harrowing emotional journey that love takes them on.

004-sunrise-theredlist — A scene from the early Academy Award winner SUNRISE

Confession time: My favorite movie of all time is SUNRISE: A Song of Two Humans. The story concerns a farmer, tempted by a woman from the city, who becomes convinced he should murder his wife in order to move to the city with his mistress. It tells a low-key, low-stakes story with graceful storytelling, careful performances from its two leads, and gorgeous photography that influenced modern filmmaking all the way back in 1927.

Fun fact that few people know or remember: At the first Academy Awards in 1929, they gave out two Best Picture Awards. AMPAS gifted SUNRISE the second one, titled “Unique and Artistic Production”, but scrapped its legacy by retroactively declaring the other winner, the war drama Wings, to be the better picture that year. I have seen both films, and I have to say, like too many times, the Academy is Wrong.

BROOKLYN reminded me heavily of the romantic tale at the center of Sunrise. I, along with other audiences and critics worldwide, was caught up in the beautiful story of love that blossoms among the backdrop of the big city, and the youthful tenderness that accompanies early love. The performances by the whole cast is superb, from Julie Walters as the head of Eilis’ boarding house to accomplished character actor Jim Broadbent as the friendly priest that Eilis confides in. Even Actor of the Year Domhnall Gleeson is enjoyable to watch as the bashful suitor awaiting Eilis back in Ireland.

But undoubtedly the heart of the film is the two leads, Saorise Ronan, (pronounced SIR-shah) and Emory Cohen. Ronan is charming to boot as the feisty young lady determined to make her own way in life with or without the aid of others, though she continually receives it because she’s just so adorable and admirable to those around her. And as much as I applaud the awards buzz Ms. Ronan is receiving for her darling role, the Academy missed out not nominating Emory Cohen for Supporting Actor. As Tony, he obviously aches for Eilis whenever she isn’t around and exudes an old-fashioned chivalry that transcends his humble roots as a poor plumber’s apprentice. To add to that, Indiewire included him on their list of the 16 Best Characters of 2015, among the likes of Furiosa from FURY ROAD, and Jack, the little boy from Room, another approaching Oscarwatch subject.

I adored this little movie, and am most happy to have caught it while it was still humbling its way around the theatrical circuits. Catch it if you can while the Oscars are still promoting it, at the likes of Woodland mall, where you can see it for only $5! Peace and Love, y’all.

THE REVENANT review + An #OscarsSoWhite rebuttal

January 26, 2016Citizen Journalism, Editorial, Movie Review2016, Academy awards, at the movies, Brett Wiesenauer, In Theaters Now, Leo DiCaprio, Movie Review, Oscarwatch 2015, Tom HardyJoanne

All right, it’s your favorite time, it’s my favorite time: It’s Unpopular Opinion Time! -wow- ~awesome~

Today’s first topic is that infernal Oscars controversy and then I’ll get on with my thoughts on the latest Iñárritu. Sound good? Alright.

–ahem–

Y’all should know by now that the Oscars are run by a group of middle-aged white men who tend to hand off awards to a specific type of movie [vanilla, slightly trendy period drama or ham-handed message movie about the environment/war/poverty/racism/mental illness/cultural malaise] and are as willing to change their ways as the modern Republican party. Is it any surprise these people are nominating prominently Caucasians instead of more than worthy people of color?

In the previous 25 Oscar ceremonies, Best Picture has gone to a movie prominently featuring non-whites only 3.5 times*. I count Dances with Wolves as half, since it is still primarily this guy’s movie:

‘Murica
by Kevin Costner

In defense of the current nominations, I will say this. I’ve seen a fair majority of the nominees and can’t fault the choices for the most part. That is not to say there is not room for improvement. On the contrary, I spotted a few spaces where the Academy stooped to the lazy nomination choice, for example Eddie Redmayne for that abomination The Danish Girl took a place that could, And Should, have been occupied by Michael B. Jordan for CREED. In addition, Ryan Coogler should have gotten a director nod for said film in place of Iñárritu, who already won last year for a slightly better film, plus Benicio del Toro should have easily secured a Best Supporting Actor nomination for his devastating turn in SICARIO.

Other than that, a lot of the people of color performances just couldn’t top what was chosen. I love Idris Elba as much as the next person, and I appreciated his role in Netflix’s flagship title Beasts of No Nation, but I can’t say he’d have been a better choice than Benicio or Mark Ruffalo’s turn in Spotlight, or Tom Hardy. The only one Elba had a chance to overcome was Christian Bale, who I feel was put on a pedestal above Steve Carell’s equally, if not more, compelling performance in The Big Short. Other than that, Straight Outta Compton was exceptional, and had a surprisingly good cast, but it would not have been on my personal list for Best Picture, and no one from the cast truly stood out. That is not to say the acting was lacking, far from it. But the strength in the performances was in the sense of ensemble that came about whenever they were together on screen. At least I would have considered the movie, unlike what AMPAS did.

In conclusion, there are issues with both sides of the issue. If you want to read some additional rebuttals I feel are worth sharing, The Rebel did a fine piece examining the Academy voters and their vision. And the Academy recently announced a few changes they are making to their populace in order to save face…by 2020.

I am now stepping down from my soapbox; we now return to your regularly scheduled movie criticism.

Getting this here joke outta the way now.

The Revenant is a good movie. I will not dispute its worth as a piece of entertainment to be viewed au cinema. It is a frustrating, self-importance-touting, frontier art-house flick that, at the end of the day, I feel deserves to be nominated as one of the 10 (8 *cough*) Best Pictures of the Year. But, it does not deserve to win anything.

What’s it all about, you ask?

Hugh Glass and his half-breed son are tagging along with a crew of frontiersman transporting furs, when suddenly a troupe of renegade Arikawa tribesman attack the men and send them fleeing down the river with massive casualties. Fitzgerald, one of the brigands whose sole livelihood was the abandoned furs, takes out his frustrations on Glass, causing tension to fill the group. While hunting further in the wilderness, Glass is viciously set upon by a mother grizzly, in one of the most anxiety-inducing action scenes of 2015. Afterwards, Glass is laid up and left in Fitzgerald’s care until he either regains his strength or dies and is buried.

But the treacherous brigand tries smothering Glass, is caught by Glass’ half-breed son, and dispatches the boy so as to wipe all evidence of his wrongdoing away, escaping to a fort to claim his rewards for “doing what had to be done”. But Glass is still quite alive, and now thirsts for revenge. He limps his way through the wilds of frontier-era territories to find retribution as well as civilization, dodging the renegade tribe after his fellow crew, and struggling to heal his wounds and survive long enough to confront his nemesis before nature claims him as well.

Let’s talk the look of the film as a whole: People get messed up, a lot. Arrows fly, men’s faces are bloodied in the worst of ways, people on horseback fly off cliff sides, Glass has to treat a horse like that poor Tauntaun from The Empire Strikes Back, he eats raw buffalo liver, it all gets pretty intense. The film looks great, in all its brutal glory. This is to be expected; it’s shot by now 8-time Academy Award-nominee and 2-time winner Emmanuel ‘Chivo’ Lubezki, who shot both G R A V I T Y and last year’s Best Picture BiRDMAN. Here’s the thing though, the entire movie reminded me of another very flawed, visually epic film adaptation: Justin Kurzel’s Macbeth.

Now, those of you who read my things will know that I mentioned that film as one to look out for come its release sometime in December. Welp, I saw it, and here’s one of the problems with both movies: Both films are filled to the brim with “trailer fuel”, shots that look amazing and will look great in the trailer for the film. But the whole film just screams “Look at me, I’m so interesting and pretty” and the audience tiredly nods like parents with over-excited children.

I feel most film should be like a good meal. The meat should be hearty and excellent, that is here. Every single shot is the photographic equivalent of a blue-ribbon slice of filet mignon. But, everything in the movie is a perfect shot, and I love filet mignon, but I can’t make a whole meal out of piece after piece of filet mignon. I need a side dish, one that’s not filet mignon. My champagne glass should not be filled to the brim with steak juice is what I am saying.

Wow: That’s a great shot! The MOVIE

Onto the little director that could: Alejandro Gonzales Iñárritu. He proved last year he was a visionary, with wit, charm, and a limit to his pretense that made The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance a neat treat of narrative and visual flair that was certainly worthy of a nomination for Best Picture.

Here’s the rub: He thinks too much. Seriously, there could be a good 20-25 minutes cut out of this movie for the sake of making it less pretentious and slightly more palatable. I hold no issue with the brutal nature of the violence or things that happen to Glass and his fellow frontiersman. I hold issue with the fact that there can be small cuts made here and there to keep the flow going, narratively. The Pirates of the Caribbean series also has this issue. The director refuses to sacrifice a frame of their vision and it can be aggravatingly slow-paced.

This does not mean Alejandro doesn’t know what he is doing. I can see what Alejandro is going for, after all one of my all-time favorite flicks is Lawrence of Arabia. That film was later described by one of its stars as “four hours long…no women, and no love story, and not much action either, and he wants to spend a huge amount of money to go film it in the desert”. I can appreciate his efforts, but he ends just short of the mark. Please don’t give him another Oscar simply because he made something that looks nice.

^Long story short: The Man Won His Oscar Last Year. Give it to Georgie.

Oh, Leo. You under-appreciated over-achiever, you. I appreciate all you’ve done over the years to entertain us. Catch Me if You Can is still a delightful romp of fun and intrigue, The Aviator showed your acting chops just right, Inception gave you a little something different that still had strengths for you to flex, and Django Unchained was psychotic fun from the moment you arrived onscreen. I truly appreciate your breadth of work.

I think you could’ve done better here.

My problem is not what Leo does in this movie. It’s what he doesn’t do. The character is two-note: Cautious Experienced Hunter & Revenge-seeking Revenant. He screams occasionally, like when he’s attacked by the bear, or when he finally confronts his adversary at the tail end of his journey. But in between those bursts, he is stuck with this comical scowl on his face that is supposed to stand in for emotion as he treks through the wilds of the American frontier for the sake of REVENGE.

At times, he will dream of his dead wife and his recently-deceased son, then he looks sad for a moment’s time. Then he wakes and he keeps on trekking, scowl plastered back on his face. There is no defined range that we saw in the likes of The Wolf of Wall Street or the under-appreciated grindhouse throwback Shutter Island. We’ve come to expect a range of things from this actor, and the film hobbles him by limiting him. That is wasting your talent. Not as in Leo is wasting it, but the film is wasting the talents of a gifted performer.

Now I expect a fair amount of backlash over my feelings on Leo along the lines of, “But you loved Tom Hardy’s rugged mug in FURY ROAD, and he spends most of that movie looking desperate and grunting every few minutes. You hypocrite!”

But, with Mad Max FURY ROAD, we have a franchise backlog of 3 other movies that contain Max’s backstory and experience to reference, and even with that the movie does a good job of catching us up without clunky exposition. Mel Gibson wasn’t exactly the most expressive Rockatansky after the first Mad Max. Tom Hardy did well carrying the torch as previous.

Speaking of Tom Hardy’s rugged mug, much like the similarly troubled H8ful Eight, this movie does have its share of excellent attributes. The cinematography, as noted, is par for the celebrated course. The cast is really good, with Tom Hardy providing a great character in Glass’ nemesis Fitzgerald, with a hefty swagger and true grit in acting that shows him as worthy of a Supporting Actor nomination, having been snubbed for previously excellent work in the likes of The Drop and Nicholas Winding Refn’s Bronson. Also of note is Actor of the Year, Domhnall Gleeson, as the expedition leader who pulls a few bad-ass moments out of his brief screen time. Keep your eyes peeled for Grand Rapids native Joshua Burge as an expedition member. The music is properly ethereal and never takes audiences out of the moments onscreen.

People and critics keep heaping praise on this work, citing how “it was such a difficult film to shoot”, “Leo had to eat bison liver raw, and he’s vegan”. Well, this is what happens when the director and ‘Chivo’ decide the film needs to be shot using only natural light, limiting their locations and schedule as per. I don’t know what to say about Leo’s life choices, but he signed on to make the movie. He knew what the hardships would be. He’s a big boy. He’ll survive.

In terms of difficult films to make, George Miller started pre-production on FURY ROAD in 2000. He spent nearly a dozen years location scouting, raising money for the production by making the Happy Feet films for the big studios, recasting when delays set in due to lack of funds, and designing props, vehicles, costumes with his crew. FURY ROAD was finally shot in 2012 and released to cinemas just last year.

Alejandro and His Films Do Not Need Defending. He Has Already Won Big. Long Live George Miller!

Overall, The Revenant is a good one. I think it is definitely worth seeing in the theater and ruminating over afterwards with friends by a fireplace, over a glass of Jack Daniels, neat. I will insist however that it is not the Best Picture of the Year. It is flawed, it is portentous, it is twenty-five-odd minutes of frontier action inflated with over two hours of artsy imagery. And I do hope Leo is finally rewarded, so he can relax for a few years before he decides he needs another Oscar. I wish they’d give it to Michael Fassbender or Bryan Cranston who had better performances overall, but I will be satisfied if they give it to Leo just so he can stop scowling at us.

SPOTLIGHT, Truth, and the evolving presentation of film journalism

January 18, 2016Citizen Journalism, Movie Reviewat the movies, Brett Wiesenauer, Journalism in movies, Oscarwatch 2015, Spotlight, TruthJoanne

Over the course of time, many films have come and gone about the press and its volatile relationship to democracy and the public it serves. To many, All the Presidents Men remains the benchmark for exceptional storytelling in the investigative journalism field that went on to become a beloved masterwork of true-life drama and political intrigue.

Since then, every newspaper movie has to have a conspiracy, a cover-up, something hidden in plain view that no one dares bring up for either reasons of personal safety or the argument of “the greater good” of society better left not knowing about the filth lying beneath society’s mirror sheen, sometimes both. Movies such as Zodiac and Michael Mann’s excellent The Insider both deal with journalists as the diggers, the folks who latch onto a story and dedicate the whole of their lives, for better or worse, to seeing their stories through.

In late 2015, two films were released that dealt with journalistic events in the 21^st century, both dealing with scandals that had repercussions in society, as well as the news field and the journalists who had to break the story.

Released first was Truth, covering the 60 Minutes Killian documents scandal, when, just before the 2004 election, CBS News Producer Mary Mapes ran a story that questioned George W. Bush’s National Guard duty in the 1970s. Acquiring questionable documents from a biased source who expected a political favor in return, the semi-anachronistic documents, once aired on television caused a major stink on conservative web-blogs, who lambasted the reporters and the network for airing such a questionable, scoop-worthy piece of glorified hear-say. This eventually led to CBS apologizing for the story and the termination of Mapes and accelerated resignation of Dan Rather, the legendary anchor who stood by Mapes as the controversy unfolded.

Spotlight dealt with the Boston Catholic child abuse scandal uncovered between 2001 and 2002 by the titular Boston Globe investigative team. The team, headed by “Robby” Robinson and overseen by incoming editor Marty Baron, follows up on various news clippings on abuse in parishes all over Boston, involving approximately 90 priests who were simply moved to different parishes to avoid scandal, only creating more issues of abuse.

The city officials and law offices refuse to participate with the team for the most part, leading the team to do most of the footwork themselves to interview victims and hunt through phonebooks and go door-to-door to ask about the priests involved. Eventually, thanks to some alliances made in the law offices and a miraculous legal loophole, they eventually manage to uncover damning documents that prove the Cardinal of Boston knew of the abuse and merely covered it up rather than dismissing his troublesome clergy.

While journalists have been portrayed as heroes in many titles, there is still a slight stigma on the news community as troublesome and prone to “scooping” for some publicity rather than the democratic principles journalism is expected to fulfill.

The 1981 drama Absence of Malice portrays a headstrong reporter (Sally Field) who goes to great, morally unethical lengths to get the first word on a juicy murder story that may just be damning an innocent businessman. Even Roger Ebert noted in his review for the film that Sally Field’s character “is a disgrace to her profession”. Other films such as the satirical Thank You for Smoking and the recently released ROOM feature journalist players that exploit their subjects in order to make names for themselves or simply to make it a “good story”, aka a ratings success.

Kirk Douglas in Billy Wilder's scathing drama, Ace in the Hole — Kirk Douglas in Billy Wilder’s scathing news drama, ***Ace in the Hole***

While this may seem like a common trope of today, that is not quite the case, as journalists have been portrayed both as crusaders for democracy as well as scuzzy ratings fiends as long as the classics of old. In films such as Billy Wilder’s seminal Ace in the Hole, Citizen KANE, and the classic Sweet Smell of Success, journalists hound sources and stories until tragedy strikes their subjects and launches an even bigger scoop, that only serves to disgust the moral centers and further the careers of the scum who tackled the story; behold the dark side of capitalist journalism.

Meanwhile, classic films such as 1947 Best Picture-winner Gentleman’s Agreement and Deadline U.S.A. feature the typical champion reporters who risk it all to take down the corruption they see surrounding them, all for the sake of democracy. It’s still inspiring sometimes, to read about true-life heroism in the print, on-screen, and in your neighborhood.

To conclude, check out Spotlight if and when you get the chance. The movie is a great example of a near-flawless journalism picture that covers just how the work is done and the lengths reporters go in order to break a story that just needs to be told. The acting is spot-on, the drama effective, and the story is anger-inducing in the best of ways. The anger involved is specific to the wrong done to generations of Bostonians and other effected youth around the world. While Truth is certainly an interesting story to read about, the film presentation is a bit biased and not quite as involving as the Boston controversy. Here’s to more great journalism in the future…and movies, too!

TRUMBO: Or Oscar Season Begins

December 16, 2015Citizen Journalism, Movie Reviewat the movies, Brett Wiesenauer, In Theaters Now, Oscarwatch 2015Joanne

It’s the most wonderful time of the year.

The popcorn’s popping, the crowds are gathering, and those pesky limited releases are finally getting to the general public in hopes of snagging a nomination for my beloved personal Super Bowl, the Oscars! The race has begun, so before the nominees are announced January 14, the studios are pushing the pride of their harvest, hoping to land at the least consideration for one of those gilded statuettes. The first films I’ve managed to see that I know to be striving for consideration is Jay Roach’s biopic of much-maligned screenwriter Dalton Trumbo, starring Bryan Cranston as the titular TRUMBO.

Bryan Cranston, as always, owns the film, playing the unflappable screenwriter Dalton Trumbo, leading the fight against the Red Scare in US courts and tirelessly concocting stories for various studio bosses behind pseudonyms so as to keep his family living in comfort. A communist in belief, he is held in contempt of Congress when he refuses to answer questions before HUAC and sent to prison. After serving his sentence, he finds the big studios don’t seek him out because of the stigma of his politics in the wake of McCarthyism, and instead seems doomed to work in B-movies and trash pictures like The Alien and the Farm Girl for the rest of his days due to his blacklisting. Even his neighbors make evident their disdain for him in their petty acts of vandalism to intimidate his family.

However, his passion and quality of work (including the likes of Roman Holiday and The Brave One) spreads the word of his still-present talent and eventually draws the attention of powerful, A-list Hollywood players such as Kirk Douglas and Otto Preminger, and the ire of John Wayne and gossip queen Hedda Hopper. In order to combat the crushing and relentless atmosphere of work, Trumbo enlists the aid of his children and devoted wife to help him cruise through screenplays bestowed on him by the company, while he sneaks his classier works to the bigwigs. Cranston has always had a knack for making us in awe of an average man’s amount of integrity and energy, from Malcolm in the Middle to last year’s GODZILLA. He is always pleasant to watch and has a wry wit that permeates this sometimes harrowing picture.

An example of Trumbo's classic pen. — **An example of Trumbo’s now-classic works.**

The rest of the cast is of particular mention as making the ticket price worth it. Joining Cranston is Diane Lane as his aforementioned wife, American treasure John Goodman as a cheapo movie producer who employs Trumbo after his prison sentence, cult favorite Alan Tudyk as a still-employed front for Trumbo’s classier work, Louis C.K. brings an anarchic edge to his extremist partner-in-crime to Trumbo, and Dame Helen Mirren oozes a petty grandeur as the debonair and equally detestable gossip columnist, Hedda Hopper.

A key standout in the supporting cast is Kiwi actor Dean O’Gorman playing legendary leading man Kirk Douglas. Mr. O’Gorman did such a great job that I hope they find time to make a Kirk Douglas biopic so he has an excuse to keep playing him.

The film plays out quite well, never stooping to clichéd routes of storytelling outside of the final speech, where it felt deserved. It takes a special hand to make these true life accounts not seem like they’re going by the numbers as some biopics can easily go (*cough* 42 *cough*). In terms of telling the story without overstaying its welcome, it is also a success, being very brisk in pacing. Whenever something dour happens, Trumbo proverbially brushes off his coat and continues onward, unswayed by the roadblocks before him.

If you’re still wondering if this qualifies as an awards contender, this film is leading the Screen Actors Guild awards in nominations, a sure sign of Oscar-worthiness. As a history lesson, TRUMBO proves just as watchable as one of the History Channel’s epic mini-series, and as a tale about the dangers of hateful group-think, it’s a film that could be useful as a tool exploring the consequences of blacklisting others because of their differences, regardless of your political or religious beliefs. Check it out at a theater near you!

The Martian Provides Quality Escapist Entertainment

October 26, 2015Citizen Journalism, Movie Reviewat the movies, Brett Wiesenauer, In Theaters Now, Oscarwatch 2015, Science Fiction, The MartianJoanne

Sir Ridley Scott has had a tough couple of years. His return to the ALIEN franchise, the inception of which made him a household name, was met with derision and snide remarks from fans and critics, and Exodus: Gods and Kings gave no impression of staying power longer than a mosquito bite. The man who gave us Blade Runner, Thelma & Louise, and Black Hawk Down has needed a comeback hit for ages.

And This Is It.

Sir Ridley returns to space with a mammoth cast and a stellar script from Drew Goddard, of Cabin in the Woods and Netflix’s Daredevil fame. The Martian is thoughtful, funny, engrossing, and a sure-fire hit with audiences and critics, judging from its first weekend alone. After witnessing it in 3D its opening weekend, I can further the hype even more with this here glowing review of mine.

Matt Damon plays Mark Watney, a botanist part of NASA’s mission to Mars. When a surprise storm hits and whisks him off, damaging his life support, he is reluctantly left for dead by his fellow crew, much to the chagrin of the Captain of the outfit, played by Jessica Chastain (Interstellar, Take Shelter). The next SOL (the Martian equivalent of a day), he limps his way back to his HAB[itat] and starts planning to survive while finding a way to contact Earth and alert them to his Robinson Crusoe situation.

The cast here is mammoth and incredible. To list a few names who make appearances: Michigan native Jeff Daniels as the cautious head of NASA who has the bottom line and legacy of his organization resting on his decisions, Sean Bean as a fiery mission director who will do anything for his crew mates, Chiwetel Ejiofor as the passionate engineer who is Watney’s main contact with Earth, SNL alum Kristen Wiig as a passive spokesperson; the list goes on, but then that’s just what this would become, a list.

The film looks genuine, even in the slightly dimmed RealD 3D I viewed it in. The Martian backdrop looks convincing, no hints of life as far as the camera eye can capture. We have been graced with 4 consecutive years of breathtaking space travel films, starting with Sir Ridley’s Prometheus in 2012, continuing with Alfonso Cuaron’s Gravity in 2013, Christopher Nolan’s INTERSTELLAR last year, and this year we have The Martian.

There is a clear sense of human achievement in the film that makes some of the harsher elements easier to deal with. Whenever something bad happens to Watney, he often remarks on his bad luck but comes quick with a witty response and a sense of optimism that Matt Damon can easily provide with his screen presence.

I am glad that space travel movies are making a comeback. There is a sense of wonder that they provide that spurs the imagination and inspires young minds to explore the sciences, which this movie will surely aid in seeing as science is what keeps the main character alive throughout. It makes for an entertaining adventure, that’s for sure.

Mad Miller Strikes Again

May 27, 2015Citizen Journalism, Local Entertainment, Movie Review, Reviewsat the movies, Brett Wiesenauer, Mad Max: Fury Road, Movie Review, Oscarwatch 2015Joanne

Editor’s Note: This begins a series of movie reviews by a film fanatic in West Michigan who is getting a degree in Communications, Broadcasting, Film and Video from Grand Valley State University.

“I am the scales of justice. Conductor of the choir of death. Sing, Brothers! Sing! SING!!” ~The Bullet Farmer

Over the last year, it’s been a slog anticipating movies. Enough movies have come and gone, here today gone tomorrow that I’ve just about given up on hoping for good, enjoyable genre films to come out and make a difference. I’ve been burned way too many times; PACIFIC RIM was amazing, but critics and audiences dismissed it as nothing special, Godzilla meandered around rather than inspiring any adoration, and anything who mentions the name Michael Bay to my face might as well slap themselves before I do it harder, with a folding chair.

But then, here comes George Miller, septuagenarian madman extraordinaire, to show off his kaleidoscopic symphony of insane imagination, relentless adrenaline, and consummate joy: Mad Max: FURY ROAD. It’s as if he’s been sitting off to the sidelines all these years, watching director after director try to make action movies in Hollywood, finally standing up in a huff, exclaiming, “No, no, no; this is how you make an action movie, lads”. On top of all that, the critics are lauding this film, of the 249 critics who have seen the film, only 5 have given the film a negative review, awarding the film a 98% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes. In regards to action filmmaking, this is unheard of; not since The Dark Knight has a film rode the critical whirlwind like this, and not a non-comic book actioner since the original Matrix film.

FURY ROAD follows Tom Hardy’s Max, a former motor cop broken down by the loss of his family and friends in the fall of law and order post-Apocalypse. He is captured by the War Boys of Immortan Joe, a warlord who looks like the result of The Joker designing a suit of medieval armor, holed up in the towering Citadel somewhere in deserted Australia. Shortly after Max’s capture, one of Joe’s subordinates, Imperator Furiosa, played to hardened perfection by Charlize Theron, steals Joe’s prized breeding wives, in a desperate bid for freedom across the hostile Outback. The following one-hundred odd minutes has been described as a cathartic, two-hour car chase in the desert between madness and unbridled fury. And it is astounding to behold.

Charlize Theron is fantastic as the stoic Furiosa who will do anything to provide a better life for the young ladies in her care, clearly earning her sharing top billing with Tom Hardy’s Max Rockatansky. Tom Hardy takes over from Mel Gibson quite well. He moves with precision, determination; there’s a lot of animalistic behavior in his madness. And his Post Traumatic Stress Disorder is as haunting as most anything from The Babadook. Nicholas Hoult is a treat as the nutty War Boy Nux, providing moments and dialogue that is destined for a pantheon of insane bad assery. There’s also the chief villain, Immortan Joe, who is played by the same actor as the villain in the original Mad Max, the Toecutter! Then there’s the Doof Warrior, a man clad in a lava-red jumpsuit who has not a single line in the film, but steals every scene simply because the man wields an electric guitar that breathes fire! Also, Rictus Erectus is to be referred henceforth as Stone Cold Steve Australia.

The funniest thing is that for the last 20 years, Miller has been tempering himself by working in family films. After seemingly concluding the original Mad Max trilogy with the entertaining, yet uneven Beyond Thunderdome, Miller made the 2 Babe films as well as 2 Happy Feet flicks. With ease, Miller remembers that the trick with all filmmaking, but the action genre in particular, is to show, not tell, as film is a visual medium. None of this Nolan-esque obsession with infinite exposition so the audience won’t ever be lost. Miller drives the audience head-first into the insanity, with a short chase scene that leads into yet another chase scene building up to an even BIGGER chase scene that will end up taking more than half of the film’s runtime. It’s quite admirable as well as shockingly to the point. The movie has been streamlined to the point that anyone can enter and enjoy the film as long as they are willing to accept the outlandish craziness of the post-apocalyptic Outback, where masked warlords rule over helpless refuse, stubborn drifters grunt and snarl rather than speak in sentences, and independent women are the most bad ass thing in sight.

On the note of the women’s role in the film. There is a small, but loud audience of deluded man-children on social media claiming that FURY ROAD contains a sickening feminist agenda, poised to forcibly insert feminist ideals into the gung-ho, he-man world of action films. Yeah, because Aliens was totally ruined by the fact that Ellen Ripley was the main character of the film. Oh, and how dare Lara Croft be born female? All action protagonists must be born with male parts and no feminine qualities whatsoever! Ugh! Just of note, this is a film where the main villain is a tyrant and known sex-slaver, yet there is not a single scene of extravagant nudity or even a rape scene, which premium television apparently relishes, cough cough!

This film is joy. A pure, off-kilter, powerhouse of joy. And I have seen this film eight times au cinéma since its release. This has NEVER happened before. Hollywood, please acknowledge my humble request: Fire Michael Bay, Can Zack Snyder, Halt production on all movies, and then give them all to George Miller.