Chappie: Like Short Circuit, But With Massive Blood and Death

When District 9 came out, newly touted director Neill Blomkamp showed us a new side of science fiction.  He brought aliens and documentary together within the confines of a third world country in the midst of the slums and poverty and showed not only a poignant message, but a compelling movie as well.  Since then, however, he's kind of been stuck in the same rut, trying to replicate that magic again instead of trying something else new and inventive.  His follow up film, Elysium, was also set in the third world future, but had a different twist than the aliens of the first film.  I actually liked the movie, but it was generally panned by critics.  Now, his third widely released film is still in the same vein of poverty stricken South Africa, but instead of a bunch of aliens, or a disease that causes Matt Damon to wear a super suit, it's about robots.  You've already said everything you need to say about South Africa, Blomkamp... move on.  As far as Chappie goes... it's certainly his weakest effort, but it's not without it's merits also.

Chappie is Short Circuit on steroids.  In the future, in South Africa, crime is at an all time high.  So, a multinational corporation designs robot police so that real human police can stop getting slaughtered.  The robot police work exceptionally well, too well, in fact, and crime hits an all time low.  However, the robot's creator, a nerdly office worker and computer programmer, has this idea of making a robot with what is essentially a soul.  He wants it to be living, feeling, understanding, and evolving (because obviously he hasn't heard of Skynet).  So, he takes a malfunctioning police robot home, uploads software into it, and boom, it has a soul.  Unfortunately for him, a small group of thugs have screwed up their last job and owe a bunch of money to a South African warlord.  So, they steal the nerd and his robot in hopes of teaching the robot how to do a heist.  This small group is played by South African wondergroup Die Antword.  Yolandi, the girl of the group names the robot Chappie and essentially becomes its mother.  Ninja... yeah... his father.  The problem is, Chappie has to learn and grow just as a human does, so he's stuck in a child-like state throughout the time that he's supposed to be learning how to shoot a gun, steal cars, and fulfill the requirements of a fully fledged heist.  Then, if this isn't enough, Hugh Jackman with a mullet is also a computer nerd and kind of a sociopath has designed super huge police robots, but keeps getting the models rejected because they're considered overkill.  So, he installs software that makes all the regular robot police malfunction and his overkill bots are needed more than ever.  His character and motivations are definitely the strangest of the film.

So, yeah, there's a lot going on in the movie.  At base level, there's Chappie.  The innocent, and admittedly adorable, robot who is learning what it means to be human from two pretty heinous individuals.  Then, there's Mullet Jackman trying to sabotage robots in order to get his robots sold.  Then, there's nerd dude who wants to get Chappie back.  Then, there's Die Antword on a time clock trying to pull a heist.  Then, there's all out war in the country and it just becomes something of a mess.  It's too frenetic and it never really stops to enjoy itself.  There are moments of fun and games with Chappie in his developmental stages, but the scene lasts only a short while and it's back to frenetic action and everything hitting the fan all at once.

It's also very Yolandi and Ninja heavy.  They're horrible people (who learn from Chappie as much as he learns from them), but if you're not hugely into Die Antword, this is probably going to be a bit of an annoyance for you.  It's really difficult to pinpoint exactly what is wrong with the film, but sitting in the theater watching it I just felt that it was missing something, something I couldn't put my finger on.  It definitely lacked a focus, and was generally all over the place.  But there was something else.  And even now, having seen it a week ago, I'm still unsure as to what was missing in the film.  If anyone has any thoughts themselves, I encourage you to tell me.  But, Chappie  isn't a bad movie, it's just an overly-packed movie with similar themes found in Blomkamp's other films-- themes that were better told through better filmmaking.  His next venture is an Alien sequel, which, in theory, keeps his film entirely up in space rather than South Africa.  If he can use his efforts in perfecting another aspect of the sci-fi genre, I think he'll re-discover his steps and take us back on an another amazing journey.  Chappie just missed this mark by too much.

C

The Gunman: A Humanitarian's Action Movie

Dude!  Sean Penn is kinda fu*kin ripped!  Like, you'd think with his shirt off he'd have really saggy skin and just a weird rubbery, but coarse body that hangs... this is getting strange.  I'm just saying, the dude is in shape and it was surprising to see.  The dude is also a self-righteous prick.  This is true.  But, for some damn reason, he's a very watchable self-righteous prick.  He's the asshole that you know is an asshole, but don't mind is an asshole because he's so watchable and [usually] makes good movies. The Gunman is no different.  He's clearly preaching his "humanitarian" side and giving long tedious lectures about relief work in third world countries and other monotonous geopolitical Sean Penn themes... but at least he's fun to watch.

It generally pisses me off to the point where I can't enjoy a film when the trailer is spliced together to be as misleading about the film as possible.  The purpose of a trailer is to advertise a movie, give you a look at what you're going to see, and hopefully convince you to see it.  These days, it's about convincing you to see the movie whether the movie is actually about what you're watching in the trailer or not, who cares, they just want your money.  I was severely mislead by the preview for The Gunman.  Here's what was advertised to me-- a new addition to the "I'm over 50 so I'm actually more badass than these shaved kids today" action films like Taken or The Expendables.  Hell, there were a couple instances in the trailer where it was shoved in your face that The Gunman was directed by the same dude who did Taken.  In the trailer, you've got Sean Penn working for some company... looks like a hit man company where he's hired as a contractor to kill people and this is what he's done for his entire life.  However, someone (Javier Bardem) has turned.  The company is now being led by a new man (Javier Bardem) and he's out to clear house of all loose ends.  So, he sends guys to kill Sean Penn.  When those guys get dead quick, he kidnaps Penn's wife until Penn shows up and has to kill everyone else.  This is exactly what the trailer shows.  It might have been my interpretation on a few aspects, but one thing was certain-- Penn was a badass and Javier Bardem was the villain.

Here's what The Gunman is actually about-- Sean Penn is doing humanitarian work in Congo with partner Bardem and love interest.  He works for a mining company.  The rebels in Congo are being funded weapons by the mining company.  The only person standing in the rebels' way of total anarchy is the Mining Minister.  Penn is then hired by the company to assassinate the Minister, but the caveat being he must leave the country as soon as it's done.  He asks Bardem to care for love interest, does the job, and leaves.  Eight years later, he's back in Congo after having spent most of the time away.  Now, he's actually an honest man, doing honest humanitarian work, digging wells for the desolate. When three rebels show up to camp to assassinate specifically him... he knows something is afoot and because it's Congo-- it must be because of the last time he was there.   So, he goes home and starts putting pieces together and, yes, someone is trying to kill him because of his last job.  It must be Javier Bardem, right?  Because that's what the trailer shows!  NO!  It's not.  Bardem is now just a sloppy drunk who has married love interest and is just a pawn in the larger game of the story.

It's strange that the trailers mislead you because the idea for the movie isn't so terrible that you'd have to be mislead, but it still gave the movie, and especially Bardem's role, a very strange feel to it.  Like I said earlier, Sean Penn is a very watchable actor.  I was excited at the prospect of him being a new action badass, and while there are some very cool action/death scenes... they're few and far between and take a loooooooooong time to get going.  I'm not entirely sure why Javier Bardem decided to take a very small, very inconsequential role.  I understood when I thought he was the villain, but this role wasn't much.  I also don't understand why Idris Elba took the role and is actually second billed.  He's in the movie probably a total of three minutes.  It was just a little bit disappointing expecting an action film that plays out like a more sophisticated version of Taken and winding up with a political thriller that plays out like a much more shitty and pandering version of The Constant Gardner.

The movie isn't without it's merits.  The writing isn't bad... it's just too preachy.  The acting is solid.  There's no doubt about that.  And the story is interesting to a point... but after that point the movie just kind of rolls on with your eyes on the screen, but certainly not glued.  There are cool fight sequences in the movie and that keeps it going, but once you realize you're in for the Sean Penn preachy hour, you may want to just catch this one at home in five years when it runs every other weekend on TBS.

C

Run All Night Figuring Out How To Use Liam Neeson Is Like A Fine Wine... Insert Wine Reference Here

Fellow readers: I know we're not all alike.  I know that there are some strange movies that I swoon over and special places in my heart for actors you may or may not give a shit about (*cough* Nicolas Cage).  There has been and will always be a special place in my heart for Liam Neeson.  The man knows badass like he was born with it.  He plays badass so well I just kinda assume this is how he acts usually even off set.  Once showed America his badass-ness with Taken, the dude has found his niche.  The problem with that sort of niche is that America is tired trying to decipher which ones are the good ones and which ones are the piss ones.  Sometimes, I'll admit, it's hard to tell.  We all knew that Unknown, Non-Stop, Taken 3, and Battleship were going to be utter shite.  But, I'll admit that I thought Taken 2, Clash of the Titans, The Grey, and A Walk Among The Tombstones were going to be gold.  Unfortunately, the latter two were the only ones worth anything.  So, with the high volume of Neeson movies coming out, you don't want to waste your money on one that isn't as badass as the first Taken.  Well, ladies and gentlemen, I present you with Run All Night.  Probably the best Neeson movie since Schindler's List.  At the very least, the best since Love, Actually.

Plots in a Neeson movie don't usually matter, but they kind of matter this time.  Neeson stars as Jimmy Conlon, the second hand man to crime boss Shawn Maguire (Ed Harris).  When Shawn's son sets up a drug deal that goes awry, he's left to clean it up with his own incompetent hands.  Unfortunately, caught in the crossfire of this deal is Jimmy's son, Michael.  Shawn's kid decides he has to kill Michael and Neeson intervenes at the last second killing Shawn's idiot son (who really had it coming).  But, because there is some strange code of honor among thieves, Shawn isn't able to let this one go.  He puts out a hit on Jimmy and Michael.  Jimmy must now spend the rest of the night trying to keep his son alive.  The entire movie takes place, essentially, in one night.

On the surface, this sounds like your typical high concept Neeson film that just allows him to kill as many people as possible within the confines of a small time-frame. But, there's much more to it than that.  Jimmy and Michael haven't spoken in years and are, in every sense of the word, estranged.  As Jimmy tries to keep Michael alive, he's also trying to repair their relationship that is all but dead.  He's also trying to keep his kid from becoming himself as well.  He's trying to keep him from pulling a trigger so he doesn't fall into the "life".  There's a wonderful father/son dynamic that paints Neeson, and everyone else in the movie for that matter, as more than a one-dimensional character.

What it really comes down to is that this is still a Liam Neeson action flick.  However, what separates it is the writing.  We all knew Neeson could act, but given the wrong script, it doesn't matter how good an actor you are, you'll come off wrong (Taken 2 and 3).  But, with good writing, a good story, fully-fleshed out characters, and perfectly choreographed action sequences... you're in for a good film.  What's cool too is this is Neeson's third collaboration with director Jaume Collett-Serra who helmed the sub par films Unknown and Non-Stop which were very underwhelming.  But, having worked together enough, the two of them were able to figure out that perfect combination of great action with a great script, despite some terrible directorial choices to freeze time and cheesily wipe from one location to another (a very weak point of the movie).  Run All Night isn't just a mindless action flick, it actually has something to say-- which is as rare as much as it is a delight.

B+

Focus: A Good Conman Film That Unfortunately Loses... Focus

I'm a big fan of conman films (for the best ones check out The Sting and Matchstick Men) and I'm a big fan of Will Smith... so, if you tell me that the two are coming together for a mid-winter movie, my initial instinct is to say that I'm in.  Especially since Will Smith has been on hiatus from the box office, it has to be a hell of a script in order to pull him back into the limelight.  However, with it's February release date I have to wonder... what's the catch?  The catch is that the movie's title is essentially what the script is lacking. Writers and Directors Glenn Ficarra and John Requa have a certain style to their movies.  They write crass comedies that are equal parts vulgarity and heart.  Their previous works, Bad Santa and I Love You Phillip Morris, however, are far better than their latest outing.  That isn't to say that Focus is a bad movie... it just doesn't live up to the expectations nearly everyone will have going into the film.

Without giving anything away, Will Smith plays Nicky, a successful small-time con man.  He meets Jess (Margot Robbie) in a hotel restaurant and the two hit it off.  When Jess tries to pull an obvious con against Nicky and he calls her out on it, she decides she wants to join forces and have Nicky teach her the ways of the grifter.  They plan a massive series of small time capers against drunk and staggering Mardi Gras travelers and wind up pocketing (along with the rest of the team) over a million bucks. The two fall for each other, but Nicky lives by the code that there's no room for love in the conman game.   So, he leaves her with her share of the money and moves on with his life.  Flash forward three years: Nicky is hired by Garriga (Rodrigo Santoro) to pull a big con against his business rival.  Nicky agrees and the plan moves along swimmingly until Jess shows up out of the blue as Garriga's current squeeze.  Nicky realizes he still loves her and mixing work and love turns out to be quite the challenge.

That's essentially it.  It's actually mostly fun to watch and try and figure out who is playing who and who is the victim and who has the upper hand and how are things going to get seriously screwed up and how they're going to get out of the next pickle... However, the scenes with Nicky and Jess are, well... boring.  It's unfortunate because Will Smith and Margot Robbie have amazing chemistry together, but it's not fun watching the two of them together.  I mean this in the love aspect of the film.  In the grifting sections they're a joy to watch.  As Nicky shows her the ropes and teaches her the game, you'll find yourself glued to the screen.  But, later in the film, when Nicky is trying to get Jess to run away with him, when he tries to woo her, it's mostly mundane and unfortunately uninteresting.

Another problem the movie has is the tone.  While the dialogue plays mostly like a fun comedy, it's shot with dark, serious colors and shades.  There's a serious overtone to the movie, but the characters are having a great time.  The way the film is shot and presented seems like it may have played out differently on paper.  Are we looking for a comedy with dramatic elements or a drama with comedic elements?  A good conman movie is able to incorporate both organically much like the aforementioned Matchstick Men and The Sting.  This film is difficult to pinpoint just what exactly the directors were going for.  When they're acting out their plan and playing everyone around them, the film is a blast.  It's when it slows down in order to get our two leads together is when the film drags.

I would say that Focus mostly succeeds as a film, but the failures are very evident and quite hard to ignore.  While this isn't exactly the movie to bring Will Smith back into the minds of the average moviegoer it's a better step in the right direction than After Earth was.

B-

Hot Tub Time Machine 2: Oh, My Science! The Sequel To End All Sequels

It sucks.








A lot.

D-

Kingsman: The Secret Service: A Bloody Good Time

It's fair to say that James Bond is the staple of the secret agent spy genre.  It's a franchise that's been going for over fifty years.  Since then, there have been several different variations to the spy genre, several homages to the Bond/spy genre, and several parodies of the genre.  Somehow, Kingsman is a combination of all three.  It takes the already established spy genre (in an almost entirely meta fashion) and tweaked it to fit it's own story.  Then, while doing so, it is able to pay homage to the classic Bond films as well as parody all of them collectively.  The result ends up being a fast-paced, yet never unsophisticated, hilarious action romp that delivers on nearly every beat it serves.  It's fun and wildly entertaining... and that's all you can ask for when searching for a good secret agent spy film.

Based on a comic book, or graphic novel, I don't really remember or care because it's still infuriating that Hollywood is now essentially refusing to release original scripts anymore so everything has to be based on something else.  Whatever.  It's source material had pictures... I think.  Anyway, the Kingsmen are a secret spy organization based in the deepest catacombs of England.  They work on their own in the utmost secret having little to no government affliliation and are essentially modern day Knights of the round table.  Enter Galahad (Colin Firth) the top agent looking to recruit a new agent into the Kingsman to replace a fallen spy.  He chooses Eggsy (Taron Egerton), the son of a fallen spy who, 17 years prior, saved the life of Sir Galahad.  Eggsy is a troubled teen, always in trouble with the law, who still has a good heart and a likable persona.  Galahad sees potential in him and recommends him to the Kingsman society.  Most of the film is him training with other recruits in order to get the coveted position.  During the training, billionaire genius Valentine (Samuel L. Jackson) is up to something sinister, but not yet explained.  However, it's apparent that some wild shit is going to go down.  Now, without spoiling anything... yes, shit happens.  And yes... Eggsy and Galahad are involved.  But, why spoil all the fun here?  It's a blast to watch.

The best part about Kingsman is how balls out it goes.  Helmed by director Matthew Vaughn whose prior films include X-Men: First Class and Kick-Ass... this is not uncharted territory for him.  He has a style all his own and when he's free to let loose and spill as much blood as possible is when his films succeed.  Kick-Ass never would've worked as a PG-13 vehicle.  It was glorious watching a 12-year-old girl spurting heinous profanity and dismembering countless bad guys.  The same works here for Kingsman.  Yeah, it isn't nearly as graphic as Kick-Ass, but the two scenes where Vaughn channels his inner 16-year-old thirst for onscreen blood is where the movie hits its peak of fun.  It's bloody.  Oh, is it bloody.  And graphic.  And choreographed to perfection.  Those who are squeamish may want to get some more popcorn, but those who can take it are in for a treat.

Colin Firth, as always, is the most fun to watch.  He's able to bring a sophistication to the Kingsman that makes Bond even look like a hooligan.  Samuel L. Jackson is also quite good-- though the character is a little strange.  He's a madman... with a lisp (which, I'll admit, does nothing to the character, but if you can get past it, it's not so bad)... who is squeamish at the sight of blood and death.  But, it's Taron Egerton as Eggsy that really steals the show.  I'm unfamiliar with his prior work, but he's brings a troubled charm to the character that really allows the audience to sympathize with him instead become ambivalent.

There's always a red flag when a film which was supposed to come out in summer is pushed back to the next year's winter line up.  This is usually due to poor test screenings leading to substantial reshoots that do absolutely nothing to improve the quality of the overly shitty film (I'm looking right at you Seventh Son).  However, thankfully, this is not the case for Kingsman.  As far as I can tell it was pushed back to winter so that it wouldn't have to compete with the blockbuster movies of summer and have the ability to own the winter weekend when nothing but complete trash is posted on the marquee (this absolutely includes 50 Shades of Grey).  So, if you haven't been to the movies in awhile... which I'm sure is the case because there's nothing worth watching right now... this is the film to break that streak.  It's fun.  It's funny in a very tongue-in-cheek kind of way.  It's action-packed.  It's got great characters, a great story, and everything you could want to be entertained for a solid two hours.  I thoroughly enjoyed this film.

A- 

Big Peck's Cineflex Awards Edition III: Oscar Winner Predictions

So, last year I had much better luck on predicting the winners.  This is something that I'm not necessarily proud of because this means that the Academy has become that predictable.  I want to be surprised.  I want to expect the period piece drama to win and then the comedy or the horror or the low-budget, yet quirky indie movie to come out on top.  I hate the predictability that has become the Oscars.  However, this year... while the nominations were standard and not incredibly surprising... the winners of most of the categories are actually pretty hard to choose.  So, I'm going to do my best to pick what I think the old farts are going to pick for their favorites this year.

Best Picture:

American Sniper
Birdman
Boyhood
The Grand Budapest Hotel
The Imitation Game
Selma
The Theory of Everything
Whiplash

What's cool about this year is that nearly every movie nominated for Best Picture deserves to be up there.  Last year, there were some good ones and some very obvious ones, but nothing (other than Wolf of Wall Street) really stood out as a movie that would last for years to come.  This year is a different story.  There are so many good movies, so many underrated and under-seen films this year that it's honestly hard to tell what's going to win.  Seven of the eight movies could win and I wouldn't be upset with it at all.  The eighth, however,   The Theory of Everything, does NOT deserve to be among this list.  That spot should've been given to Nightcrawler.  I don't necessarily think it would've won, nor do I think Theory is going to win... but it was much more deserved than the film that took its spot.

What's Going To Win: Birdman...or...Boyhood...Um...yeah...Birdman
What Should Win: Birdman or Boyhood or Whiplash or Selma or Grand Budapest

This one is going to be tough.  It's about predicting what I think the old farts in the Academy building will select as Best Picture and not what I believe the Best Picture Winner should be.  However, hopefully that will be the same.  Birdman was my favorite film of the nominations followed very closely by Whiplash and Selma.  However, it's not a guarantee to win Best Picture.  Boyhood was gaining steam in the BP department and even won the Golden Globe.  But, Birdman has essentially won everything else.  In the past eleven years, whichever movie wins the Producer's Guild Awards for Best Picture is essentially a lock for BP.  Birdman has officially done that.  But, remember who the Academy are.  They are more likely to take a very small indie film that had a substantial story behind the movie-- the twelve years it took to film it-- and it looks like the more obvious choice.  I'm looking at history here, and of course, a little bias, but I'm going with Birdman this time around.

Best Actor:

Steve Carell (Foxcatcher)
Bradley Cooper (American Sniper)
Benedict Cumberbatch (The Imitation Game)
Michael Keaton (Birdman)
Eddie Redmayne (The Theory of Everything)

Again, any of these guys could win the Gold and I would be fine with it, but there's still someone missing.  Yeah, it's Jake Gyllenhaal.  Never did I think I'd be picketing for JG to get an Oscar.  It wasn't until Nightcrawler that I saw something truly remarkable from the kid.  I don't understand what the Academy's recent hard-on for Bradley Cooper is, but he was fine in American Sniper... but JG kicked his acting ass.  He should've been in there over Cooper.

Who's Going To Win: Michael Keaton
Who Should Win: Michael Keaton

This category is just as difficult to predict as Best Picture because it comes down to two guys, not just one.  You've got Keaton, a Hollywood staple that everyone loved, who dropped out of the limelight for years only to make a triumphant return in an amazing film while delivering a performance we haven't seen from him... maybe ever.  Then, there's the bio pic kid-- Eddie Redmayne.  I don't want to take anything away from Redmayne, he was beyond incredible in The Theory of Everything, and he's the reason that movie is even watchable.  The way he had to transform every piece of himself to become Stephen Hawking is jaw-dropping.  He could easily take the gold... and, again, these old geezers in Hollywood that vote for this category eat bio pics up.  But, they also love a good comeback.  I think Keaton's got the edge on this one.

Best Actress:

Marion Cotillard (Two Days One Night)
Felicity Jones (The Theory of Everything)
Julianne Moore (Still Alice)
Rosamund Pike (Gone Girl)
Reese Witherspoon (Wild)

It's nice to see Rosamund Pike get a nomination for Gone Girl even though it was my favorite movie of the year (which actually now might be second favorite to Whiplash... don't quote me on this shit... I'm a fickle critic).  But the rest... well, not to take anything away from these extraordinary actresses... but I'm not sure anyone actually cares who wins this one.

Who's Going To Win: Julianne Moore
Who Should Win: Reese Witherspoon

This is also a little bit biased because I haven't actually seen Still Alice and I actually have zero desire to watch it.  Watching someone, a linguistics teacher no less, begin to start losing themselves slowly to Alzheimer's is not exactly my idea of a good time.  I've seen the trailer a few times and Moore looks pretty good in it, and I've read that she's actually marvelous, but I actually saw Wild and let me tell you Reese Witherspoon's performance is something to behold.  Moore probably deserves it, but from what I saw from RW... man, that would be cool if she got some recognition for it.

Best Supporting Actor:

Robert Duvall (The Judge)
Ethan Hawke (Boyhood)
Edward Norton (Birdman)
Mark Ruffalo (Foxcatcher)
J.K. Simmons (Whiplash)

Robert Duvall may be my favorite actor on that list and who knows how much time he's got left being one of the most underrated actors of many generations.  I love that man and I tip my hat to the Academy for recognizing him in a role he deserved to be recognized for.  Give that man all the awards to everything.  He's one of my favorites truly.  But......... yeah, he's not going to win.

Who's Going To Win: J.K. Simmons
Who Should Win: J.K. Simmons

Yeah, hands down, no question is J.K. Simmons going to win this year.  And good for him.  He's another under-appreciated actor in Hollywood who was relegated to character acting, quirky fathers, and insurance commercials.  Not until Whiplash did we get to see the reason J.K. Simmons is actually employed on a regular basis in Hollywood.  There's no one else on this list that even stands a chance.  And if you still haven't seen Whiplash then you don't know why I'm claiming this as a 100% lock to win, but those of you who have... you probably haven't even read this far because you're already in agreement with me... you don't even need an explanation.

Best Supporting Actress:

Patricia Arquette (Boyhood)
Laura Dern (Wild)
Kiera Knightley (The Imitation Game)
Emma Stone (Birdman)
Meryl Streep (Into The Woods)

Hey, look everyone, it's the annual obligatory Meryl Streep nomination.  Don't get me wrong here, I love everything about Meryl Streep, but Jesus, can we help anyone else out the way we help out Meryl???  To me, actually, the supporting actress category isn't all that hard to figure out and it isn't all that impressive, either.  I mean, Kiera Knightley?  Really?  She wasn't bad in her role, she just didn't... do... anything in the movie.  Laura Dern... yeah, she cries a little and dies a little... but anyone could've done it.  I'm actually pretty happy to see Emma Stone on the list.  She was a little spark plug in Birdman and it's about time she's getting noticed.

Who's Going To Win: Patricia Arquette
Who Should Win: Uh.... Patricia Arquette?

I mean, yeah, sure she was good and giving twelve years of your life to one project is a lot of effort most people wouldn't put into something, but she did.  It's just that while watching Boyhood I never stepped back and went, "damn! Patricia Arquette is killing it!"  She was good, but she's got that high pitched whiny voice like someone still hasn't told her that she's a legit actress people pay money to see.  So, I don't know...  I mean, she was good... I guess she should win... Not a real strong year for supporting actresses I suppose.  God, you guys think I'm a total douche misogynist don't you?  Get your own blog and bitch about it.

Best Director:

Wes Anderson (The Grand Budapest Hotel)
Alejandro G. Inarritu (Birdman)
Richard Linklater (Boyhood)
Bennett Miller (Foxcatcher)
Morten Tyldum (The Imitation Game)

Fuck you Academy.  Fuck you so hard for this.  This is some really messed up shit you pulled with the director category here.  You're going to purposefully and knowingly NOT nominate Ava DuVernay for Selma even though you have it nominated for Best Picture, but instead give it to Bennett freaking Miller whose movie ISN'T EVEN NOMINATED FOR BEST PICTURE!!!  That is some cold shit, Academy.  Like, unforgivable shit.

Who's Going To Win: Richard Linklater
Who Should Win: Richard Linklater

My instinct tells me that I should go with Inarritu because of the ambition he had when filming Birdman as one continuous shot... but Linklater saw that ambition and raised it eleven extra years.  What Linklater did was stunning.  He committed to a twelve year project, never letting it fade out and put together a comprehensive and amazing film.  He had to constantly re-write the script, be constantly updating the times of this boy to when he was filming.  The number of ways he should've failed is exponential, but instead he actually filmed a boy growing up and it had something to say.  Like Birdman, Boyhood was not a novelty of a film and either director could win it... Linklater should.

Best Animated Feature:

Big Hero 6
The Boxtrolls
How To Train Your Dragon 2
Song of the Sea
The Tale of Princess Kaguya

You stabbed me in the back with the DuVernay snub, Academy, but you're twisting it so much by completely freaking ignoring The Lego Movie.  Are you serious??  I don't care what kind of weird japanese anime crap film you thought was bold and beautiful... there's no way either of the two last movies were as close to as funny or as poignant as The Lego Movie.  I'm starting to think you guys are just dicks.

What's Going To Win: How To Train Your Dragon 2
What Should Win: The Lego Movie

Who cares?  It's not The Lego Movie.

Other Predictions:

Best Original Screenplay:
What's Going To Win: The Grand Budapest Hotel
What Should Win: The Grand Budapest Hotel

Best Adapted Screenplay:
What's Going To Win: Whiplash
What Should Win: Whiplash

How Many Categories I'm Going To Pick Correctly:
I'm Going To Get: 3/9
How Many I Should Get: 9/9

Consesus:

While it didn't feel like an overly extraordinary year for film, the movies and performances recognized for the best in their field is certainly much better.  Save for neglecting Nightcrawler, The LEGO Movie, Gone Girl, and Ava DuVernay (you racist bastards!) it's a pretty exciting year for film awards.  At least, unlike the last few years, there aren't as many bland movies.  They're movies that folks actually want to talk about that actually mean something and have something to say.  The last few years have been a bunch of The Theory of Everything's and it's been kinda boring to watch the obvious choices to win.  I know the picks here are still a little obvious (I mean, clearly, Grand Budapest isn't going to just sneak by and win Best Picture), but at least there's still a little excitement when it comes to which two of the list are going to win the battle... or is it the war?  Eh... go watch The LEGO Movie... or Whiplash.