Batman V. Superman: Dawn of Justice: Occam's Razor Dulled

-Written by guest reviewer Drew Boudreau

I had the privilege of seeing Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice several days after its debut, marked by critical destruction. I am, among my group of movie goers, the forgiving one. I liked X-Men 3 and I liked The Dark Knight Rises despite some problems here and there. If there is a movie that everyone else craps upon, I usually hold it close, stroke its head, and whisper down next to its shivering, tear-laden head 'Shhh...shhh...it's ok...they're just being fanboys...you're not bad.' Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice was too difficult to like. I tried to like it. I tried to hold its hand and see things from its point of view. But it wasn't the subject matter. It was the continued choice of otherwise competent characters making outlandish and ignorant choices in the face of simple situations to further the contrived story.

The whole premise of this movie is that Lex Luthor wants Batman and Superman to fight, just for funsies, so he frames Superman for the murder of some (American?) soldiers in the desert, where Superman is saving girlfriend Lois Lane. The soldiers are all killed by the machine guns of Lex Luthor. So...the feds never went to the scene of the crime to see how their soldiers were killed? Never did an autopsy, never even saw the bodies? Nope. Strike 1.

Batman, the great detective, believes Superman to be a threat to the planet, based on the events that occurred in Man of Steel.  So he foregoes all detective work and instead makes a plan to kill him, with no further investigation. Strike 2.

When the battle does begin, Batman is armed with Kryptonite weapons that he fires at Superman. Superman recovers, and Batman fires again. Again, Superman recovers. Superman just forgets he can end this all by flying at warp one-gillion with Batman in tow and telling him that Luthor is using him. Strike 3.

Batman is winning the fight nearly the entire time, in a blind killing rage, gleefully punishing Superman (again, we're still not sure why) and as he's about the strike the death blow, Superman mentions his own mother's name, which happens to also be Batman's mother's name. In that one moment, Batman changes course entirely, and decides to be Superman's new BFF. Once again, he has asked no questions or done any research into whether Superman is telling the truth or not, not what his intentions might be. So far, Guy Noir puts this guy to shame in the detective department. Strike, what is that, 4?

Let me take this moment to also explain how this movie shoots itself in the foot with a sawed-off shotgun. It attempts to paint a dark, realistic picture of modern city life in Gotham and Metropolis. It opens '18 months' after the Man of Steel fight that completely wiped out downtown Metropolis--and the whole city is rebuilt. To put this fairy-tale number in perspective, I went to visit Ground Zero in March of 2003, and there was still rubble from the two skyscrapers that fell, that were being cleaned up. It took 10+ years to even begin planning of the Freedom Tower. And in Metropolis, the equivalent of the entirety of midtown Manhattan was sacked and burnt, and it's back to normal in a year and half. That's two strikes right there. 6, I think.

Now to the subject I liked the least, and like talking about the least as well. Jessie Eisenberg. I have never seen worse film acting in a big budget movie. He plays Lex Luthor as disturbed, paranoid and giddy with unstable evil plots. Unfortunately, he also plays him with all the skill of a high school student taking his first acting class who thinks anyone can play Heath Ledger in The Dark Knight.  I cannot figure out if director Zack Snyder had a clause that said he wasn't allowed to direct Eisenberg, or if he just wasn't allowed to fire him. I have to believe it's the second. When you see this film, you'll realize how hard it is to play a mental affliction with nuance. Three more strikes for Eisenberg. The side is retired.

The visual aspects of the movie are fantastic, as are the first few minutes of the film, seeing the ending of the Man of Steel from Gotham, just across the river.  All the actors, sans Eisenberg, give engaging and full performances, including Ben Affleck, Henry Cavill, Laurence Fishbourne, Amy Adams, and Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman (whose extremely brief screen time was absolutely nailed).  However, there is an awkward moment when Cavill and Affleck are meeting for the first time, and the energy in the theatre peaks, until Eisenberg joins them and it's like watching the guy who won the walk-on role join the real actors. (In the same scene, Luthor says to Bruce Wayne he is glad he finally got Bruce into Metropolis. The billionaire businessman has never ventured into the biggest city in the country? One more strike. Team forfeit.)

There are far more script flaws I could go into, but I get no satisfaction ripping on a movie. I hope this was just birthing pains, a necessary plot device to enable the launch of the Justice League movies, which I also hope meet success. But this film shows you that the necessity of a plot device (Batman and Superman have to fight!) will make good screenwriters create dumb narratives, and otherwise smart heroes useless when it matters most.

C-

Editor's Note: Though I didn't see the film, and have no intention of seeing it (yes, that probably makes me a bad critic, but I refuse to see Douche Snyder wreck the only superhero [Batman] I still give a shit about), I feel this clip from the incredibly underrated 90s film 'Angus' accurately sums up why Superman is a terrible character:

 

Zootopia: An Important Movie, Especially Now

Disney and Pixar have been the be-all end-all for animated films. Pixar has had a long standing reputation that holds itself to the highest quality of family-friendly animated film. It has breached said reputation only a few times. And, even still, it wasn't enough for movie goers to disqualify the Pixar name. Last year's Inside Out was spectacular and had way more emotionally thematic layers than any animated movie should. But, Pixar gives a shit about people and telling a story that actually means something. It's almost guaranteed with Pixar.  Look at other production companies and the animated movies they put out the last two years: Minions, Hotel Transylvania 2, Alvin and the Chipmunks 4, Rio 2, Planes, The Nut Job.  Yes, not all non-Disney/Pixar movies are bad.  There's some hidden gems (like The Lego Movie), but it appears Pixar has the monopoly on well-rounded, fun, emotionally taut, fantastic family animated films.  Then, a branch of Disney started making their own animated films separate from Pixar and they've been nothing less than stellar: Tangled, Frozen, Big Hero 6, Wreck-it Ralph, and now Zootopia. I say this with zero hyperbole: Zootopia may be the best animated film I've ever seen.

We begin with Judy Hopps, a teeny-tiny bunny rabbit with big dreams of leaving her podunk bunny town and moving to Zootopia to become a police officer. She's tiny (and don't call her cute), but she's got a ton of heart. She finishes top of her class and finds her way to Zootopia where she isn't taken seriously and is put on parking duty. There, she meets a con-artist fox, Nick, who winds up being an important ally in an on-going missing persons case within the city. Judy has to prove herself, not just to her gruff police chief, but to the entire city that thinks a tiny little bunny won't amount to anything more than a carrot farmer. And while the film follows Judy and Nick in their attempt to solve the case, it really isn't about that. The heart of the film is a beautiful message of racial equality. Judging one another based on stereotypes (a bunny could never be a cop, a fox can never be anything but a predator) and a serious commentary about said equality, especially now.  Racial tensions in this country have always been high and it's forever going to be an embarrassing stain on our country's history, but it's films like Zootopia that has the opportunity to open ignorant eyes in 2016 which is something very powerful.

Racial inequality is not the only embarrassing aspect of being an American... especially right now with a few specific candidates running for President on a platform of nothing but mere hate. When Donald Trump wants to ban all Muslims or build a wall separating this country and Mexico, and he's still the favorite to be the Republican nominee... something is seriously wrong. Zootopia was released in the perfect time to be able to add the ongoing dialogue of the pervasive problems surrounding our American culture and society and the way we treat others who are different than us. The way we lump all Muslims together when it's a religion of peace and a few radical terrorist groups have been able to successfully exploit the religion's name is appalling, but not surprising in this country.  We are a people who base our lives around what we fear. If that brown dude wearing that tarp thing on his head is sitting next to you on a plane-- do you immediately think he has a bomb?  And yes, racism itself is never going to end, but when pieces of art like Zootopia can get ignorant brains to start working again... it may actually make a difference in the lives a few people.

This wasn't meant to be turned into some preachy rant... and that's what's great about the movie-- it's got a strong message without being preachy. It's not exactly subtle in its message, but if you're not looking for one, it might be easy to overlook. Whatever the case may be, it's a fun, fantastic, funny, and important film, especially now, that everyone should see. Whether you're a fan of animated films or not-- this is one to take anyone you know to.  Especially kids.  Let's cut the hate while they're young.

A

10 Cloverfield Lane: Like If The Chick From Room Never Got Out Mixed With War of the Worlds

First off, do yourself a favor and STOP watching any and all trailers for this movie. I saw the initial trailer back in late January and that was it for me.  I avoided everything else so that I could go into the film as blindly as possible. And it made a difference. Secondly, do everything in your power to separate the original film from this one as best as possible. The first one was a nice little surprise, but it suffers re-watch value because of its use of the incredibly tired 'found footage' trope. It would be a near-perfect monster movie if we didn't have to follow around the film with a shaky cam and the quippy voice of, now famous, TJ Miller. 10 Cloverfield Lane doesn't really have much to do with the original, but believe me when I say... it's definitely a Cloverfield-esque ride. I know it's only March, but this is the best movie of the year so far.

I'm not going to do much of a plot breakdown because, like I said, you should go into the film with as little knowledge as possible. What you've seen on the original trailer is this: Melissa (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) is trapped in an underground bunker, with a broken leg handcuffed to the rail and her captor Howard (John freakin' Goodman) is a sinister dude who may or may not be completely insane.  There's also another dude there with a broken arm named Emmett (John Gallagher, Jr.).  Melissa was in a car crash and saved by Howard before a global "attack" which forced him to lock them inside said bunker where they can't leave for at least a couple of years. Initially Melissa doesn't believe a word the socially inept Howard says, but things start to happen that send her questioning if she was actually kidnapped or if the hell she's in currently is not as bad as the hell happening outside.

It's a great concept for a wonderful hybrid film.  This easily could've been a standalone kidnapping film without any of the Cloverfield alien stuff lurking in the back of your mind, because the scenes with Melissa, Emmett and Howard are the best moments of the film. They're tense, they're frightening, and they're the most gut-churning. We all know John Goodman as the lovable dad and here he's anything but. He's a nutty conspiracy theorist who doesn't know how to interact with other humans. He'll say something that leads you to believe that he's a murderous killing psychopath and the next, he'll be friendly and you'll wonder if it's all in your head (like Melissa does the ENTIRE film).  It's a brilliant character played brilliantly by a brilliant actor. It's almost uncomfortable watching Goodman portray this, at the very least, Aspbergers'd up nutjob.  It's a terrifying little puzzle you're trying to put together all the while having flashes in your mind remembering that this is still a Cloverfield movie so literally anything can happen.

This film has strong writing that benefits strong characters. Goodman, who switches back from villain to hero to villain again is only so good because his character was written so complexly. Melissa is a great strong, female character.  Never once is she damsel in distress.  From the moment she wakes up chained to a pipe, she's got a plan.  She doesn't sit and cry about it, she's ready to get the hell out of there. Every character turn Howard makes, Melissa has a plan.  Every time it appears he's docile and telling the truth, she's still ready for anything. Even better is they don't try to have some sort of forced romance between her and Emmett.  This movie knows what it is and it doesn't deviate.

So, having spoiled nothing for you, hopefully you understand how original and how creative this movie actually is. There's something here that you will like and if you're a fan of consistently feeling nervous throughout a film, this one will knock you on your ass. I still can't get over how great this movie was and it was filmed in secret. No one knew it existed until the trailer leaked online a few months ago.  What a refreshing treat. I love that it takes the concept of movie monster and breaks it down a few ways: yes, it's Cloverfield so you're already under the assumption that there will be a monster, but there's also Goodman's monster.  He's a monster that may or may not actually be a monster. It's a perfect metaphor. Stop watching previews for this movie, stop reading reviews for it, and go see the film. Just thank the Lord it wasn't a found footage movie.  It's awesome.

A

The Witch: A Dark Look Into Puritanical Christianity

There's a new horror trend emerging that is taking average joe moviegoer a little bit of time to come to terms with. Recently, good filmmakers have done away with both jump scares and gore. Jump scares are the cheap way of getting a reaction out of an audience there to see a 'scary' movie. They are not so much scary, as they are manipulative.  The 'jump scare' used to have a bit of tact to it. Early M. Night Shyamalan and currently James Wan are both big users of jump scares. However, their talent also lies in their writing. They are able to create such a dark and sinister atmosphere that the jump scares felt warranted instead of cheap. This, in turn, led to movies using the jump scare as a crutch.  Recent films like The Forest and The Boy both employed this method and did terribly in the box office. Gore, on the other hand, is an even cheaper crutch because instead of trying to effectively scare the audience, it's trying to gross them the hell out. This is not scary.  So, recently, filmmakers have started to do away with both and utilize a terrifying story about unseen entities and creepy situations. The biggest proponent of this was The Babadook, an underrated horror film that your standard teenage horror film fan was confused about. It didn't pop out and startle you, it slowly built up in order to creep you out the entire time.  This is good horror.  A highly-praised film, It Follows also used this method.  It received a lot of attention and acclaim... though I have to say I didn't care for it.  Yes, it was effectively creepy and tense, but by the end it felt like I had been pranked.  So, this long-winded explanation leads me to explain why most "average" fans will probably not enjoy The Witch, even though it's one of the best horror films I've seen in the past few years.

The Witch is not a movie that uses gore (though there is some pretty messed up stuff that happens).  It is not a movie that relies on jump scares to keep the audience interested (there are none).  It's a slow burn of a film that takes advantage of its terrifying ambiance, its unbelievably creepy soundtrack, and its time period to scare the living shit out of anyone in the theater that is willing to sit back and understand that nothing is going to pop out from behind the trees. The Witch tells the story of a family of Puritans who have been, essentially, exiled from their village in London and moved toward the outskirts of the woods. They grow crops, they raise animals, and they speak of God often. However, almost immediately into the story the infant son of the family goes missing at the hands of a witch in the woods. The family starts to slowly break apart blaming God and asking for forgiveness for any number of ridiculous sins they may or may not have committed. This leads the patriarch and matriarch of the family to begin to separate emotionally as well as call into question the motivations of their eldest daughter, Thomasin. Little by little and slowly but surely the family breaks down, is picked off, and essentially lose their minds which leads to some very uncomfortable and dark scenes.

Now, if you weren't raised in a particularly strict Christian household the events depicted on screen may seem a bit strange. Every "bad" occurrence in the film is repented by the family immediately. Prayers and offerings to God are aplenty because this family's entire reason for existing is to serve the Lord and when things go awry, clearly God is angry. I imagine this is a pretty apt depiction of what it was like to grow up in Ted Cruz's house. But, along with trying to make you piss your shorts, the film does a pretty good examination of the folly that is Puritanical Christianity.

The story itself is a pretty good one and it's based off of records of witch trials from the time period, events that inevitably led to the Salem Witch Trials. However, it's not just the story that makes the movie so fascinating and terrifying.  There's the acting; in particular, the patriarch, William, played by Ralph Ineson is fantastic.  His low, deep, gruff voice will creep you out even if he's saying the most complimentary of things.  The rest of the cast is great as well... the matriarch, Katherine's descent into madness is both difficult to watch, as well as infuriating. I think the thing, though, that makes the movie its own is the dialogue.  They all speak in the Jacobean dialogue of the time. It's difficult, at moments, to pick up exactly what was said, but it all works to add to the unsettling nature of the film. Then, finally, there's the spine-chilling soundtrack mixed with the claustrophobic cinematography that makes The Witch frightening as hell.

Now, as much as I can build this up and as much as the film has been built up already... like I said earlier... it's not so much that 'scary' in terms of what the standard audience member is looking for. If you're a high school kid going on a date looking for your girl to leap into your arms or grab your junk that you're hiding in your bucket of popcorn, you're going to be sorely disappointed. This is a horror film for movie fans.  If you can appreciate a terrifying ambiance and a chilling ride that keeps your heart beating fast for an entire film, rather than something popping out unexpectedly, then you'll enjoy it.  If you're looking for a grotesque bloodbath, you also will be disappointed.  But, if you want to sit in a theater and be severely unnerved for an hour and a half, I believe The Witch is the horror film for you.

B+

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

Last year I called my shots pretty damn well.  I was only fooled a couple of times and those were some pretty controversial choices (probably) #whoremembersthisshit? Anyway, 2015 was a pretty sweet year for white people.  White movies reigned supreme. As they should.  White people are obviously God's children that only deserve his love and respect #Jesuswaswhite. So, for all the whitey's out there who want the well-deserved recognition for their whiteness... I have compiled a list of Oscar predictions to discuss when out with friends sharing wine, eating kale and discussing Paul Rudd. #whitelivesmatter


Best Picture:

The Big Short
Bridge of Spies
Brooklyn
Mad Max: Fury Road
The Martian
The Revenant
Room
Spotlight

Not to take away from all of the well-deserved whiteness from all of these movies, there is the possibility of ten nominations.  They used eight of them.  So, I mean you could've used those two spots to holla at Dope or Straight Outta Compton or Beasts of No Nation or, you know, completely not use them at all because ethnic movies are #inferior. So, of the white movies I can say that they are all very good movies... with very good white people in them. All are enjoyable and most of them are deserving of the Oscar... but who will the old white people vote for? The one about white people on Wall Street?  The one with the white people during the Cold War? The one with the white girl from Ireland? The one with the white person on Mars (is that technically immigration...?).  Or the one with the white dude who gets maliciously attacked, unprovoked, by a BROWN bear? #buildawall

What's Going To Win: The Revenant (However I could see it going to Spotlight too)
What Should Win: The Revenant or Spotlight or a well timed discussion of diversity.

It's kind of hard to give a shit about the Oscars this year.  I mean, for a budding screenwriter it's the Super Bowl.  And as a white man, it's doing everything it can to keep us on top.  But, it's just going to be underwhelming this year. Yes, all of the movies were very white good. And if The Revenant wins it definitely deserves it. But when you give an award to the cutest identical twin... it's kind of fucking stupid.

Best Actor:

Bryan Cranston (Trumbo)
Matt Damon (The Martian)
Leonardo DiCaprio (The Revenant)
Michael Fassbender (Steve Jobs)
Eddie Redmayne (The Danish Girl)

These awards are so fucking white this year they nominated not one, not two, but THREE GINGERS. #nosouls. None of them have a shot in hell at winning, but can you get any whiter? So, look, legit I know that Concussion was not that brilliant of a movie. So, it didn't deserve a Best Pic nod... but my boy Will Smith was as good as I've ever seen him. Cranston is a must, DiCaprio is a must... everyone else was the same plain yogurt flavor.  Coulda blacked it up a bit #thatwasn'tracist #Ipromise.

Who's Going To Win: Leonardo DiCaprio
Who Should Win: Leonardo DiCaprio or the fact that people will never stop using the argument that there "aren't enough roles written for black actors" #Jesuswaswhite

You KNOW the Academy gon give Leo his damn Award.  And overlooking the fact that he was born of white descent... he deserves it.  He really does.  Dude has paid his dues tenfold. Then again, I think the wait was worth it.  This really was his best performance. Wolf of Wall Street was a great performance, but not that difficult of one.  The only movie I've seen him in where he's been as great was The Departed and dude wasn't even nominated for that one.  He was nominated for Blood Diamond #whiteAfricansbetterthanBlackones

Best Actress:

Cate Blanchett (Carol)
Brie Larson (Room)
Jennifer Lawrence (Joy)
Charlotte Rampling (45 Years)
Saoirse Ronan (Brooklyn)

Real talk: Yo, Tessa Thompson from Creed KILLED IT.  Shit, that role was made for an Oscar... chick had a hearing problem #canyousaydisability? Yet, we had to overlook her performance in favor of making sure J-Law got ANOTHER nomination.  No one loved Joy.  No one gave a shit about that movie when they left the theater. Yet, it's another year that J-Law had a movie come out, so she gotta get put up because white.

Who's Going To Win: Brie Larson
Who Should Win: Brie Larson or Hollywood big wigs who paid Brie Larson a tenth of what anyone in the Best Actor Category was paid for their film.

For realz-- Room was a heartbreaking white movie and Brie Larson really does deserve the award.  This finally showcased her talent to the general public and it legitimately should be her.  The only competition she has, in my opinion, is Saoirse Ronan about the WHITE IRISH immigrant who came over to the US to start a new life.  Uhm.... fuck.  This looks bad. Yeah, damn, Academy, like I know it was only semi-on-purpose, but this shit starting to look intentional.

Best Supporting Actor:

Christian Bale (The Big Short)
Tom Hardy (The Revenant)
Mark Ruffalo (Spotlight)
Mark Rylance (Bridge of Spies)
Sylvester Stallone (Creed)

Okay.  Finally we got a diverse movie in the mix with Creed.  Wait... what?!?! It's the ONLY white dude from Creed? Ah, goddamn it. Look, this is probably the most fuckbiscuit category. You left out TWO actors from Beasts of No Nation (Idris Elba and the kid) who turned in magnificent performances. But no... we got Christian Bale randomly selected from a fucking white ensemble film who wasn't even the BEST ONE FROM THE FILM. But, he did have a glass eye #fullretard. Oh, wait, there's another white ensemble film actor nominated in Mark Ruffalo who did no better or worse than anyone else acting around him including Michael Keaton? Oh, okay.  Yeah. These are must-haves.  Fuckers.

Who's Going To Win: Sylvester Stallone
Who Should Win: Sylvester Stallone/Tom Hardy or the bear from The Revenant proving that even ethnic animals only get cast playing thugs.

I was on the Stallone bandwagon for a good long while because he legit blew me away with his Rocky character for the seventh time. But, then I started to realize that this amazement probably stemmed from the fact that I forgot Sly could actually act. Then, I saw The Revenant a second time and Tom Hardy was the bee's tits. I felt hate for his character I've only felt a few times before. No one else (on the list) left me that emotionally scarred. He deserves it.  Sly will get it.

Best Supporting Actress:

Jennifer Jason Leigh (The Hateful Eight)
Rooney Mara (Carol)
Rachel McAdams (Spotlight)
Alicia Vikander (The Danish Girl)
Kate Winslet (Steve Jobs)

I think Oprah once said, "Damn it feels good to be a gangsta." Those words could not ring truer than they do for the category of Best Supporting Actress. I mean, you've got gangsta-ass Rachel McAdams who honestly blends in so well to her film Spotlight I forgot she was even in it. And Kate Winslet was able to recite Aaron Sorkin dialogue quickly just as he intended.  Then, there's Rooney Mara who plays a lesbian.  Oh, shit, Academy... a lesbian and a cross-dresser? I guess I should ease up on the bitterness of the ethnicity issues here, 'cause it looks like you already got it under control.

Who's Going To Win: Alicia Vikander
Who Should Win: Jennifer Jason Leigh or the tears of a thousand black people who weren't even asked to be in Steve Jobs.

This is the only major nominated movie that I didn't see. I was on my Oscar run seeing movie after movie day after day and The Danish Girl was the only one I didn't end up seeing.  After awhile I heard that the movie was verrrrrryyyyy 'meh' and the only reason to see it was for Vikander's performance in it. That's exactly how I felt about Redmayne's last movie The Theory of Everything.  I didn't like it at all, but he was great in it... which doesn't really mean I had to see it. So, I didn't see it. I'll see it eventually. She's apparently great, but Jennifer Jason Leigh as some crazy bitch outlaw HAD to have been a lot more entertaining and award-worthy.  I mean, she was a woman who kept getting punched out by dudes the entire movie and had a black eye the entire time.  This type of female abuse should be making these old ass Oscar voters just a little bit hard.

Best Director:

Adam McKay (The Big Short)
George Miller (Mad Max: Fury Road)
Alejandro Inarritu (The Revenant)
Lenny Abrahamson (Room)
Tom McCarthy (Spotlight)

If you had told me that the director of Anchorman and Stepbrothers would be among the crackers (and one Mexican) who were nominated for Best Director I would've laughed in your, supposedly, white face (I don't know many black people). However, dude directed a hell of a movie. He's one of the whiteys that really deserves to be on the list. Inarritu is the only non-white face in the bunch, but he won Best Director last year so now the Academy considers him an honorary white person.  They see no ethnicity with former winners. I feel like Abrahamson was a strange choice especially because they Academy missed their chance to give Spielberg or Ridley Scott another nomination.  They're like the director equivalents of Meryl Streep or J-Law.

Who's Going To Win: Alejandro Inarritu
Who Should Win: George Miller or Ava DuVernay for her wonderful directorial debut in last year's Selma... a film that was nominated WITHOUT A NOD TO IT'S BLACK FEMALE DIRECTOR! She should win this year or at least get an apology note. #racismisdead

I mean, it's probably going to be Inarritu because what he accomplished with The Revenant was nothing short of extraordinary... but dude... did you see Mad Max?? Dude came back thirty plus years later and re-made his OWN movie. Not only did he remake it, he made it better and crazier than the original. It was honestly one of the best movies of last year and was, in my opinion, the best directed movie of the last year.

Best Animated Feature:

Anomalisa
O Menino e o Mundo
Inside Out
Shaun the Sheep Movie
Omoide no Mani

While there was a significant amount of white animated movies, I have to give it to the Academy on this one because there were two foreign animated movies (that stand zero chance of winning) on the list. One from Asia and one from Mexico (I think... I did just enough research that I found the filmmakers names to be from Mexico and Asia... could not have been... I'm just channeling my inner Academy here). I do think, however, that The Peanuts Movie was a delightful little film honoring the once revered comic strip.  However, there was a black kid in the movie which may have hindered its chances. Then again, he was an animated black child... so does it really count?

What's Going To Win: Inside Out
What Should Win: Inside Out

Inside Out was, without a doubt, the best animated movie of 2015 by a long shot. It was emotionally resonant with legitimately anyone who has kids or anyone who has ever been a kid. It dealt with the colorful emotions (or as the Academy likes to refer to them as: emotions of color) of a little girl and having to deal with uprooting her life and moving to a new city. It's a gorgeous, near-perfect film and it deserves the award.  Especially because of it's incredibly diverse color scheme (then again, there were no brown emotions were there...?) Have I hit the racism nail on the head yet? #obviously

Other Predictions:

Best Original Screenplay:
What's Going To Win: Spotlight
What Should Win: Straight Outta Compton or the fact that you realize this is the only award nomination that movie got and its writers are white.

Best Adapted Screenplay: 
What's Going To Win: The Big Short
What Should Win: The Big Short or the fact that the Academy Awards are in its beginning phases of dying if they keep up what is a highly offensive class of nominations led by some seriously misguided and old fucking individuals.

How Many Times Chris Rock Will Call Out The Academy On Their Bullshit:
How Many Times He's Going To: A Lot
How Many Times He Should: More than that.

How Many Categories I'm Going To Pick Correctly: 
I'm Going To Get: 7/9
How Many I Should Get: 1/9 (They should surprise the hell out of everyone and give all the Oscars to Idris Elba)

Consensus:

The Oscars are careening downhill very quickly. If you're a white person who likes to take white bubble baths and bathe in your white privilege and think there was nothing wrong with the way this year's and even the last few year's Oscars have been handled, then this is the show to watch.  However, you are also probably voting for Donald Trump or Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz and you should hit yourself in the genitals several times with a power cord. If you are a culturally conscious person who prides him/herself in having an ethnically diverse background/friend group... you're probably not going to watch.  So, really the show is only going to be for those who are true cinephiles like myself... and I can tell you this... if they keep this up, even I won't be watching for much longer.  

Deadpool: Boobs, Blood, Bullets, and Ryan Reynolds Makes Marvel Its Bitch

This is how many superhero movies come out: I find myself repeating the phrase "I'm so sick of superhero movies" over and over and over again in these reviews. And I am. Yet, because binge watching TV has become the new norm for us (thanks Netflix, you dicks) I have to keep up with the story.  It's never truly over. Oh, I've seen three Iron Man's and two Avengers films... well, obviously I'm going to have to see the new Captain America... it's just the next episode.  Except I'm sick of the show. I'm sick of the characters and the same CGI and explosions.  But, I have to know how this shit ends. Now, every once in awhile there is a brand new and original "superhero" film that breaks ground and changes the game so that it doesn't FEEL like you're watching the same standard Marvel fare. Guardians of the Galaxy did it. Kick-Ass took the superhero genre and flipped it on its ear. And The Dark Knight (a reference I will continue to use) felt like a great crime drama than a superhero movie. So, now we've got Deadpool... the anti-superhero.  And, I will admit, it's a lot better than I expected. However, and I'm sure I'll get chastised for this, other than the excessive gore, gratuitous nudity, and foul language... it wasn't exactly that far off from, say, Iron Man.

Just hear me out. So, we have an origin story about giant dickhead Wade, who falls in love with a hooker with a heart of gold, finds out he has cancer, decides to use the superhero program thingy to rid his cancer and becomes a burned-looking dude who can't get hurt. The catch: he's still a vulgar dickhead. He wears the spandex, shoots the bad guys and calls them cocks while doing so. That's the only difference. He pairs up with a couple of unknown X-Men, tracks down the bad guys, and has a big fight scene complete with a big CGI boat explosion at the end. And once I was aware that this was the case, it kind of took me out of the story a little.  Not enough to ruin the movie for me... just a little bit. So, I guess if you're a fan of superhero films and the Marvel universe, but you're tired that they're all family-friendly PG-13 fare... this is the superhero film to end all superhero films.

What Deadpool does, however, that is exceptional is this: it takes risks. Even though it really does follow the same superhero structure, it does everything in its power to convince you that it isn't... in a good way.  The opening credits list nobody's names but things like "The Comic Relief" or "A Celebrity Cameo". There's the anti-hero Reynolds who is allowed to say what EVER the hell he wants to say and as crassly as he can, and for the most part it's funny.  About 85% of the quips out of Reynolds' mouth is pure comedic gold.  15% you're shaking your head wondering how any of it made the final cut (a lot of these lines are wasted in the trailer, thank God).  There's awkward, yet hilarious sex scenes, amazingly violent action (which, I still think could've gone harder, but it was still good) and it was a very risky move for everyone involved.  We can see now that it's definitely going to pay off.  For a film that is adapted from a comic book and following a very specific structure... it's pretty original.  I realize that's kind of an oxymoronic thing to say, but it's true. And it's aware of this as well.  Every time it starts to fall back into the structure of a superhero film, Deadpool will break the fourth wall and talk to the audience reminding us that this is the way shit is done... he may not agree with it... but it's happened.

So, did I like Deadpool? Yes. Am I recommending it to you? Absolutely. Is it already in the running for best film of the year? No. It was very entertaining, but I'm sick of superhero movies. And unlike Guardians of the Galaxy and Kick-Ass it didn't take me OUT of that world. I was still very much in it. The biggest difference between Deadpool and Iron Man is that Tony Stark is restricted by a PG-13 rating and Deadpool is not. If Stark got his own R rated movie, it would probably be a lot like this one. And those are decent films too... I'm just sick of them. So, here's hoping that Deadpool does more good than bad.  We've already seen that an R rated superhero movie can still make box office bank (and I'm hoping and praying that Suicide Squad doesn't puss out and hit us with PG-13). It's a fun ass movie... but will not change your mind about being sick of the Marvel world. Okay, maybe a little bit.

B

Zoolander 2: The Cameo Comedy Of The Year

Here's a tip for Hollywood that nobody will listen to: stop making sequels to comedies from more than ten years ago.  I'm not saying that they're bad. They're not awful.  I'll give them that. But, they are tired and too far removed from the original that there's not a chance in Hell any of them can live up to their predecessors. When you take a great character comedy like Derek Zoolander and then fifteen years later make the sequel-- you're proving that all you have to do is make a sequel to anything and it will make money.  Once this becomes a full fledged thing... we won't get any new characters. We won't get the next actor to give us a movie surrounding a hilarious character LIKE a Derek Zoolander or LIKE a Ron Burgandy or LIKE a Harry and Lloyd.  These were great movies with great characters that didn't need sequels.  Then, because Hollywood takes zero chances anymore with originality, they decided to make sequels of these much older characters because fuck you that's why. Zoolander 2 isn't a very good movie... but, the original isn't THAT fantastic.  It's a great character in a funny film that should've stood alone. The sequel isn't much different.

We meet Derek in present day ostracised from the world because his "center for kids who can't read good..." was built out of materials that made the model-sized one and collapsed killing his wife. He had his child taken away from him and became a recluse.  Now, there are people out there killing famous celebrities and all of them have been killed using a Zoolander signature look. So, he's recruited by INTERPOL and reunited with Hansel to figure out who is behind it. There are some new characters like the INTERPOL agent (Penelope Cruz) and a fashion mogul Alexanya (Kristin Wiig) as well as some old ones Mugatu (Will Ferrell) and Billy Zane (Billy Zane).  There's not much to it and it's hit or miss in spots.  But, what comes across entirely is that the film did not need to be made.

Forgive me, but the first Zoolander was kind of a fluke. I really like the movie, don't get me wrong, and it certainly has it's really funny moments, but it should've been a one and done kind of film. The sequel definitely channels the energy and style of the original, but it's done using mostly re-hashed jokes and bad puns. Then again, there are some very funny moments in the second film as well. Ferrell, who wasn't all that famous in the first film, nails it in this one. Stiller and Owen Wilson still have that great chemistry that they've always had. But the rest of the humor seems to stem from them trying to cram as many recognizable cameos into one film as they can.  And none of them do anything that particularly funny... the joke is that they're on screen. Probably the funniest cameo in the entire film is Benedict Cumberbatch and that's the only one that's effectively ruined by the trailer.

Look, the bottom line is that if you enjoyed the first film, you'll probably enjoy most of the new one.  Yes, it's a bit more annoying and loud and crass and dumb, but it's still in the same vein.  Just like Anchorman 2 and Dumb and Dumber To both had their moments and captured the essence of the originals, you were keenly aware that it wasn't as good, would never be as good, and didn't really ever need to exist. Let's stop trying to force comedic sequels to great characters and start making up some new great characters that twenty years from now can be ruined.

C-