Isle Of Dogs: The Fantastic Mr. Chief

Wes Anderson is a polarizing director. He's one of the few I'd say you either love him or hate him. His style of directing, his dialogue and his humor in general are tailored to those who understand his work. Even when he's gone "mainstream" with wide-released films like Fantastic Mr. Fox, there's still the Wes Anderson machine at work. Every actor is deadpan, spouting lines of dry humor within a very symmetrically shaped scene frame. I personally love it. I find most of his movies to be original pieces of work that bring happiness and joy to me as a movie-goer while dealing with real-life complicated issues. They're "fantastical" without being expensive. He uses a vast array of colors and set pieces that could fill a museum. His imagination is that of a Del Toro, only instead of using it for darkness, he uses it for quirk. My first experience with Wes Anderson was The Life Aquatic and then The Darjeeling Limited. Both of these films are generally relegated to the bottom of his filmography totem, but they're still my favorites because they're the ones that got me to love Anderson as a filmmaker. His brand of humor is unique and it's a nice change of pace to see a "different" comedy that makes me laugh and giggle and grin as much as a low-brow comedy can. And what's crazy-- he keeps getting better. The dude finally earned his first Oscar noms with The Grand Budapest Hotel, and in my opinion, Isle of Dogs is one the best movies he's ever made. The movie is elevated past some of his most iconic works on pure whimsy alone. I loved every second of it.

Set in Japan, an outbreak of "dog flu" has forced cat-loving/dog-hating Mayor Kobayashi to exile all dogs to Trash Island. There, a pack of dogs roam the island battling other factions of dogs for bags of trash. The dogs include Rex (Edward Norton), Boss (Bill Murray), Duke (Jeff Goldblum), King (Bob Balaban), and Chief (Bryan Cranston). All, except Chief, have been taken from their masters and forced to adapt to the lives of trash-dwelling strays. Chief, on the other hand, is a stray from very young and the leader of the pack-- due to his inclination to fight for what he wants (which is mostly, again, just bags of trash). A young boy, Atari, crash lands his little plane on the island in search of his lost dog Spots (Liev Schreiber). The pack band together to help young Atari locate his dog. The B story of this tale involves an American foreign exchange student, Tracy (Greta Gerwig) bringing to light a cure for dog flu that has been covered up by the Mayor in an attempt to keep dogs out of Japan. The adventure these characters go on is so fun and whimsical and seriously creative that it's hard not to sit there with a big dumbass grin on your face and giggle.

Isle of Dogs works in almost every way a movie can work and then some. Every single risk Anderson takes pays off. Starting with the idea of going with stop-motion again. The attention to detail Anderson takes, coupled with his unique style of filming and cinematography only enhances the gorgeous world (that just so happens to take place on an island of literal pieces of trash). The dogs are all meticulously constructed and animated, you forget you're watching figurines. Their eyes are vulnerable, their noses wet, their fur blowing in the wind-- it's almost more impressive to see than some of the best CGI we've seen in recent memory. All of these dogs are quirky and fun. Even the hard-nosed Chief, who is a self-proclaimed biter, is a lovable enough character that it's fun to watch his rough exterior change (even quite literally in one scene) to softened lovable pup. You can tell by watching this movie that Anderson really does have an affinity for canines.

The movie is also very funny. Wes Anderson, who looks like one of those dudes who lurks in the shadows of a Starbucks with his laptop, doesn't strike you as a guy with that great of a sense of humor. But he is. He's getting funnier too. His dry sense of humor, coupled with witty dialogue makes this movie humorous as well as charming. It's a love letter to dogs, with an adorable story at the forefront that reminds me why I started loving Wes Anderson in the first place. All of the voice actors fit in perfectly with his style and the deadpan delivery of lines mixed with the cuteness of the dogs somehow works-- even when it seems like it wouldn't. I'm really, really hoping this movie gets the attention that it deserves. 

You know those white people who are just obsessed with other cultures? A lot of times it's nerdy white dudes who just love Asian cultures-- this comes across very clearly with Wes Anderson. You can tell he has an affinity for all things Japanese. Along with hiring Japanese writer Kunichi Nomura to help make sure every detail was presented accurately, I love the fact that Anderson took the time to do so. All of the Japanese characters speak Japanese and while we do get some of the translations, a lot of the time we don't. And we don't need to. The dogs don't need to understand Atari's language to know that he's hurting for the loss of his dog and will do anything to find him. Is this cultural misappropriation? Maybe? I think there's a strong argument on both sides. Is there an inherent reason this movie needed to be set in Japan? No, probably not. But, I respect the fact that Anderson didn't just throw in his white-perception of Japan and actually took the measures to make sure everything was presented accurately and respectfully.

Keep in mind, parents with small children, even though this movie is animated and it's about talking animals-- it's not exactly a kids movie. There are some rough fights, some scarred up characters, a little bit of language and themes that children aren't going to understand (hence the PG-13 rating). There's no goofy singing and dancing and loud, outlandish dog characters there to entice children. It's a Wes Anderson movie. Had this movie been about people, the script would only need to change the species of its characters. It's not his attempt at a family film. But it is a well-executed, incredibly charming, overwhelmingly whimsical, dreadfully funny film that will melt the hearts of dog lovers everywhere. I loved this movie and even after just a single viewing, I can tell you that this film quickly encroaching the top of Anderson's filmography totem-- at least to me.

A

Ready Player One: I Heart The 80s

Steven Spielberg made a name for himself in the 70s and 80s by being the director who could make movies that were not only poignant and long-lasting in the zeitgeist of pop culture, but that were also very fun. He's the guy that brought us Jaws and E.T. and Indiana Jones and Hook and Jurassic Park and that's the just movies he directed. There's hundreds more you love (like Back to the Future) that he produced. Most of the pop culture references we reference from 80s movies have, in some way, to do with Spielberg. Then... he decided he wanted to become a "well-rounded" director and brought us things like Schindler's List and Munich and (ugh) War Horse. In his later years, Spielberg has stopped really continuing his legendary run of films. He's become more of a paint-by-numbers "that guy used to be so great" kind of director. It's not that his movies lately have been bad, but they're just not as ground-breaking as they used to be. It used to be an EVENT when a new Spielberg movie hit the marquee. Did anyone think The Post was an event? So, it's nice to see Spielberg getting back into the fun of movies. And what better movie than one who's every reference harkens back to the time when Spielberg was the king of pop culture?

Let's put this out there immediately-- Ready Player One is, by no means, groundbreaking. It's not that "holy shit Spielberg is back!" movie. But it is very, very entertaining. I wasn't expecting it to be, especially in the first twenty minutes or so. The film begins with some very loose exposition from our narrator Wade-- who is also our main character. The year is 2045 and people LIVE online. Everyone has a VR mask and suit and live in the Oasis. They work in the Oasis. They make money in the Oasis. They game, they dance, they date, they spend their entire lives online only breaking to eat, pee, or sleep. The creator of the game, Holliday (Mark Rylance), now dead, has placed an easter egg somewhere in the system so that the person who finds it (after passing a series of tests) becomes the rightful owner of the Oasis. Of course there's a competing company, the IOI, who want control of Oasis and their evil CEO Sorrento has been training an army of gamers to figure out Holliday's clues and gain control of the one thing that runs the world. Okay-- back to Wade. He's a gamer who lives in "The Stacks", a poverty-stricken trailer park community that's basically just trailers stacked on top of trailers as high as skyscrapers. For unexplained reasons, he's an orphan and lives with his abused aunt (who we get hardly any story around). He's hellbent on finding the easter egg. He works in a team with Art3mis (Olivia Cooke), and three faceless others. The film is them trying to beat the IOI guys from finding the easter egg. Back to the beginning-- this is all given to us from Wade's voiceover. It's so explanatory-- Spielberg uses his words as the entire backstory instead of building up this incredible new world for us. While I wasn't really left with any begging questions, I was really disappointed I didn't get to see more into the world other than the brief "let me catch you up" narration he gives us. Then we get to see Wade's avatar in the Oasis: Perzival. He's an anime looking weirdo who, everyday, drives in the same race (heh heh with a Delorean) to try and get a clue to the egg. And then... it's just kinda like watching someone play video games. Which, if you've ever done that... it's not that entertaining.

But then the movie started to suck me in a little bit. After really disliking watching Wade's avatar, the real world starts to become integrated in the conflict. And I started to care. A little. Once the adventure begins, I was hooked. Spielberg was entertaining me in a way that I hadn't been entertained since I was a kid. There's a lot of cool stuff in the movie and some really impressive CGI and an entire sequence involving the main characters and the hotel from The Shining that was really, really cool. But all of this entertainment was very surface-level. There weren't any complex characters. There weren't any underlying or internal struggles that each person has to overcome. There wasn't even really a ton of heart in the movie. It's just pure "forget everything else" entertainment. When you're not engrossed by the adventure, your eyes are darting all over the screen looking for all the 80s movies and music references scattered about. You're rooting for these characters, even though you're not wholly emotionally invested in them as people. And the games they have to play, the puzzles they have to figure out, and the way they overcome adversity is all very clever. But, that's about it. Don't think about it too hard after because Ready Player One definitely leaves you wanting much, much more-- which is weird because it's 140 minutes long. You'd think they'd given you everything you needed. I didn't read the source material the movie is based on-- so this review is purely from a blind cinematic experience, but in my opinion, I feel like it would've worked better as an HBO mini-series than a one-off movie.

For all the good in the movie, there's the "less good". One of the puzzles they figure out is very, very easy. Yet, we're told experts have been trying 24 hours a day to crack the code for nearly five years. I figured it out before Wade even does. That strained credulity a lot (though I'll give them this-- it was the only one. The others are pretty clever). Spielberg has his characters explain things-- a lot. It's explained enough that a decent audience should understand what's happening, but it feels like Spielberg doesn't his trust his audiences enough anymore and it's explained further and further as if to a child-- yet, the people doing the explaining already know what's going on, so there's no reason to explain it to each other. It bothered me. Several times. The "love story" part of the movie is actually kinda creepy. Wade is smitten with Art3mis after meeting her once. He tells her during the second meeting. She reveals that she's not the same person in real life that she is in the game. They meet. He's still in love with her.... so she now loves him? There's not much chemistry between them and the way he keeps PUSHING with the whole "I found love you guys" starts to become a little... I don't know... yeah, just creepy. And because we don't get a whole lot of underlying emotional groundwork laid for any of these characters (other than Wade doesn't have parents for some reason), we can't really understand their reasons for doing anything. Finally, there's the pop culture references. Some of them are really, really fun (especially the Zemeckis cube-- I loved that). But, in the battle at the end, when all the characters from all the 80s references collide into one big battle-- Spielberg is all over the place too quickly. You can hardly rest your eyes on any single character. The fun of the film is seeing all the different characters you watched during your childhood, but the camera work is so frenetic all you're able to make out is a hodgepodge of animated characters battling an army of assholes. If you're going to make a movie devoted to 80s pop culture, let us bask in it a little bit and point to the screen and go "hey! That's Terminator!" or "Hey! That's Rambo!" But it was too difficult to see much of anything other than the fight.

Ready Player One is very enjoyable and extremely entertaining, but I do believe Spielberg in the 80s was more qualified to direct this film than Spielberg today. There's a fair amount of action and humor in the movie and if you turn your brain off, then it's a solid way to spend nearly three hours in a theater. But it will definitely leave you wanting more. The good news is-- that "more" you want can be satiated by just watching all the movies referenced in the film. I can get what I want out of Ready Player One by going home and watching Back to the Future. I can get my fun and excitement with character depth by popping in Jaws or Jurassic Park. It's not good enough to declare "Spielberg's back!", but it does give make us hope that Spielberg can churn out a few more sci-fi adventures before the end of his career. And if you're a video game/80s nerd... this movie will be like porn to you. But you already knew that.

Oh-- and Simon Pegg with an American accent-- totally diminishes what we love about Simon Pegg. We'll let it slide this time, Pegg. Don't do it again.

B-

Red Sparrow: Honeypottin'

From what I can recall from the Marvel movies, the character of Black Widow is an ex-Russian spy who has been kidnapped(?) from her family and trained from childhood to be a super soldier. Only after some regretful kills and mishaps, she learns the error of her ways and decides(?) to switch sides and fight for good-- or at least fight for someone who isn't Russia. That's when she's recruited(?) by the Avengers for her badass fighting skills and knowledge and general awesomeness. She's a strong character that, if Hollywood knew what they were doing, would've had two or three solo movies about her already. So, if the plot and trailers of Red Sparrow have led you to believe that you will be getting was is essentially a mock-Black Widow film complete with a super-soldier Russian chick going ham on bad guys-- you are going to be sorely disappointed in the film. Red Sparrow is NOT an action film, it's not a shoot-em-up, hand-to-hand combat, Atomic Blonde-esque movie. It's a character-focused espionage thriller that's more about the twists and turns of the central character leading to the (probably obvious) outcome that doesn't involve much action at all. There is a lot wrong with Red Sparrow as it does have several faults, but there is, indeed, much to enjoy here as well.

Jennifer Lawrence is Dominika, a premiere ballerina in Russia who seriously injures her leg (cringe-worthy moment) and is forced out of a life she loved. Her mother is ill and the only income they have is from the ballet. Desperate for money to help her mom, Dominika turns to her creepy, pervert-eyes uncle who works for the Russian government. He sends her to a special school in the middle of snowy-nowhere to become a "Sparrow"-- special agents trained to use their looks to lure suspects in, gain their trust, and kill the piss out of them. Dominika is reluctant, but with no other options she joins the Sparrows. For some reason that is never truly explained, she excels at it-- especially the mind manipulation part of it. From there, she's recruited back by the Russian government to pull the ole' honeypot on an American CIA agent (Joel Edgerton), to try and get the name of a mole he is protecting. There's more to it than that and it's a convoluted CIA plot that can get a little tedious trying to keep up with, but generally everything is wrapped up in the end to make a somewhat clearer picture.

Now, the movie is based off of a book series (like most movies these days), so I can only assume the film stays true(ish) to the book, but what I saw was a lot of missed opportunity for some fun. Yes, it's cool to have a thrilling whodunnit filled with allegiance flip flops to keep the audience guessing (you won't be), but there were some real moments where I could tell the audience I was sittting with (and myself) was craving some real ass kicking. I'm not even talking about something as skilled and awesome as the one-shot, stairwell, hand-to-hand, Charlize Theron fight, but if we've been getting training montages and talking about how failure can lead to death, we need to see things go wrong and see Dominika get pissed off with her fists. But it doesn't really happen. She's more cold and calculated (with a couple of random outbursts of very brief retaliatory violence), than an action hero in the making. I'm not just saying this because it's what I wanted out of the movie, I'm saying it because it looked like it was being set up to do so. When Dominika finds out that her injury was pre-planned by her ballet partner and his lover, she goes off and nearly beats them to death with her cane. This is in the very beginning of the movie, yet we don't really get to see Dominika fight like that in the rest of the movie.

But it is a decent thriller. I am one of these moviegoers who isn't trying to solve the mystery early on. I like to enjoy the ride, so I'm one of these vulnerable types who normally doesn't see a twist coming when most people do because I'm not constantly guessing. So, the ending of Red Sparrow was kind of a strange one for me. There are several twists leading up to the climax and I saw about half of them coming (without even thinking about it) and the other ones weren't exactly eye-poppingly shocking. So, if you're one who constantly tries to predict the outcomes of entertainment, it's probably going to be a letdown for you in that aspect as well. However, that wasn't really my biggest problem with the movie. I liked the story, I liked the characters, I liked the acting... but the writing felt... off. I appreciate what writer Justin Haythe was trying to do with the film, giving it a very feminist arc, but it's a feminist story written by a dude. A dude who THINKS he knows what feminists want out of their main characters and of the stories. According to Haythe, in order to make a strong female protagonist, one must make every single man in the movie complete and utter sewage. Literally every male character in the entire film (save for Edgerton) is a slime. They come on to J-Law with basically drool already sputtering down their chins. Two separate characters in two separate scenes attempt to rape her. The product of a good feminist movie and title character is not she's great because all men are bad and this is where Red Sparrow really misses the mark, and it comes off as more insulting to women than empowering them.

J-Law apparently still has some draw. I honestly didn't think this movie was going to be a huge hit, mainly because films like it recently haven't made a ton of money. They've done well, but not top of the charts well. However, the theater I normally frequent when seeing my Thursday night premieres was packed. The reason we pick this theater for Thursdays is because there's never anyone there. We saw the 8:00 Atomic Blonde at the same theater and there were maybe six other people. Red Sparrow was completely sold out. I was trying to gauge the audience on the way out and no one was really putting the movie down. And it makes sense. Whatever faults the movie has can be overlooked by the good in it-- especially J-Law. If I was a betting man, I would've bet a lot that her accent was going to be dreadful. And it wasn't. Because she's a great actor. Joel Edgerton is always a joy to watch and he and J-Law had some very good chemistry (even if their entire storyline is full of plotholes). So, there is stuff to like. But, it's not superior to Atomic Blonde and it's definitely not a "thinkin-man's movie". It's an entertaining little film that can be enjoyed if you just switch your brain off for a little bit and watch the pretty colors.

C

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

Hit a bit of bad luck last year with only 6 predictions being correct out of 10. I mean, I guess we could say 7 because I had La La Land winning Best Picture and it TECHNICALLY did win for a solid two minutes. This year is going to be much worse. Usually the Oscars are difficult to pick because there are a clear two to three frontrunners, but any of them could win anything so it's the luck of the draw. Of the nine movies nominated for Best Picture (and I've now seen all of them), seven of them are amazing, fantastic, deserve-to-win type films. 2017 was an astonishing year for movies. I mean, only in February did we realize we had probably the best movie we were going to see all year in Get Out (which thankfully was recognized by the Academy, though it probably won't win anything). Then in early summer we had Dunkirk, thinking we had a shoo-in for Best Picture. Then followed everything else. Sure, you've got your Oscar-bait films like Darkest Hour and Phantom Thread, but 2017 was about unique filmmaking voices and talents making great movies. I'll be lucky to get 6/10 this year.

Best Picture:

Call Me By Your Name
Darkest Hour
Dunkirk
Get Out
Lady Bird
Phantom Thread
The Post
The Shape of Water
Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri

Look at this list! Almost any other year, nearly all of them could be the lead contender for Best Picture. It's almost bad luck for these movies to have come out in the same year. Lady Bird, Dunkirk, The Shape of Water, Get Out, Three Billboards... these are great movies that all deserve the award, but all but one will be outshined by the winner. This is the first year where I don't think the Academy forgot a movie. I think all were deserved (in their own right), however if I had my say, I would make one tiny move-- I probably would replace either Phantom Thread or Darkest Hour with I, Tonya. But other than that, they made the right call. It's going to be a tight race with Three Billboards and The Shape of Water with Lady Bird coming in as the dark horse, but I'm confident(ish) in my prediction:

What's Going to Win: Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri
What Deserves to Win: Three Billboards, Dunkirk, Get Out, Lady Bird, The Shape of Water

THIS is the tough category my friends. This one. Right now the projections for Best Picture have Three Billboards neck and neck with The Shape of Water and every other day Variety or The Wrap or Deadline or any number of movie-centric writing has them flip-flopping for Best Picture. The Shape of Water has the definite edge right now. It won Best Picture at both the Producer's Guild and the Director's Guild... and normally the film that wins those... wins the Oscar. But, I just have a feeling about Three Billboards. If The Shape of Water wins, I won't be upset-- but I also won't be surprised. I honestly thought right around awards season, the contenders would be Three Billboards, Get Out, and Dunkirk, but the latter two have kinda fizzled out. So, right now, it feels like it's down to two. I hope I get it right because to me, not only was Three Billboards a superior movie, it legitimately was the best movie of the year.

Best Actor:

Timothée Chalamet (Call Me By Your Name)
Daniel Day-Lewis (Phantom Thread)
Daniel Kaluuya (Get Out)
Gary Oldman (Darkest Hour)
Denzel Washington (Roman J. Israel, Esq.)

This is a solid list. I mean, any category that features Daniel Day-Lewis, Gary Oldman AND Denzel means that there were some solid performances by male actors in a single year. There were even two newcomers. Even though I agree that Chalamet was pretty good in Call Me By Your Name, it's the third performance I've seen him give and I'm just not that impressed by him. I'm not a fan and I'm not sure why. Kaluuya was sensational in Get Out as he freakin' NAILED that one-tear scene. That alone would garner an award from me. As far as snubs go... Tom Hanks is definitely missing from the list, but it's not a stretch to see why. He was good in The Post but he's been better. The one that's difficult to wrap my head around is James Franco. Before the #MeToo movement, Franco would have the top spot and be a genuine contender. Regardless of his actions and what you think of the guy, he knocked his portrayal of Tommy Wiseau out of the park. However, this does not mean that Franco the PERSON deserves ANY recognition anymore.

Who's Going to Win: Gary Oldman
Who Deserves to Win: Gary Oldman

This is Oldman's award. It's a solid list of actors, but there's really only one performance among them that truly stands out and it's Gary Oldman. The movie itself, to me at least, was a real snoozefest (that even Oldman couldn't save), but there's no denying his portrayal of Churchill was the best of the year. Everyone thought that DDL was a shoo-in due to the fact that apparently Phantom Thread is to be his last movie forever. He's already got three... could he be the only one for four? Nope. Not this time. And he was phenomenal in the role... they all were. But you can't tangle with that fat suit and a movie that just drips white hot Oscar bait.

Best Actress:

Sally Hawkins (The Shape of Water)
Frances McDormand (Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri)
Margot Robbie (I, Tonya)
Saoirse Ronan (Lady Bird)
Meryl Streep (The Post)

Take a second and drink in this list of five extraordinary actresses. Think about each film and each performance given be every single one of them. I honest to God can not remember a list this perfect when legitimately EVERY SINGLE ONE gave an Oscar-worthy portrayal. I'm proud of each and every single one of these women. I'm so very impressed by them, I'd like to eliminate the Best Actor category this year and be able to give an extra award to one of these women. Holy shit were they all perfect. It's seriously a shame that only one of them get to win. The only snub I can think of is Michelle Williams for All the Money in the World, and even then her performance in that movie is still sub par compared to the five women on the list. I hope this trend of writing amazing female roles continues and we get to see the Actresses severely outshine the actors for years to come.

Who's Going to Win: Frances McDormand
Who Deserves to Win: Frances McDormand AND THE REST OF THEM

Even though this race is the tightest in all of the categories, I have no doubt that McDormand will win. It will be highly deserved and I can not wait to see her crazy speech. She's a firecracker of a woman who plays the troubled and angry Mildred Hayes. The movie is not an easy one to sit through, but I could watch the movie every day just for her character alone. A close second, for me, would be Margot Robbie, though she's lost a lot of steam and the second place contender at the moment is Sally Hawkins who manages to turn in just as much of an emotionally resonant performance as the rest of them, even though she never utters a single word. Ronan is perfect in Lady Bird and I see bright things for her future. And Streep... well... Streep will always get that fifth spot. This just isn't the year for her to take the gold again. It's going to McDormand.

Best Supporting Actor:

Willem Dafoe (The Florida Project)
Woody Harrelson (Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri)
Richard Jenkins (The Shape of Water)
Christopher Plummer (All the Money in the World)
Sam Rockwell (Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri)

Much like the Best Actress category, this category is a sadly (and amazingly) one that is TOUGH. Here are five actors who gave outstanding performances, who, in most other years, would easily win. And not just them, either. Armie Hammer definitely deserved a nomination for Call Me By Your Name, but in a class this outstanding someone had to be left out. It's a shame that only one of these guys can actually take home the gold because a piece should go home with each of them. However, there is one who, by the tiniest of hairs, does stand out above all the rest. 

Who's Going to Win: Sam Rockwell
Who Deserves to Win: Sam Rockwell

Even if it's not the best performance of his entire career (emotionally and comedically I say it's damn near close), Sam Rockwell has been the underrated character actor in Hollywood for far too long. During his acceptance speech at the Golden Globes he made a joke about how happy he is that people are actually seeing a movie he's in and it's a damn travesty. He's one of the most likable actors in recent memory and the dude should be a STAR at this point. An Oscar definitely wouldn't hurt his chances with that. Look, Richard Jenkins made me feel things I didn't know I could feel and Dafoe and Harrelson were wonderful as well (and Plummer was a hell of a Kevin Spacey), but Rockwell deserves this award. He deserves it.

Best Supporting Actress:

Mary J. Blige (Mudbound)
Allison Janney (I, Tonya)
Lesley Manville (Phantom Thread)
Laurie Metcalf (Lady Bird)
Octavia Spencer (The Shape of Water)

Okay... this is a strange list. I agree with the five ladies on the list (though I haven't seen Mudbound, I've just heard how great Mary J. is in it). I do worry a little bit that the Academy is nominating Octavia Spencer every time she's in a movie now so they're not called out for #oscarssowhite any longer. She absolutely deserves a nomination for The Shape of Water -- much more so than her nom for Hidden Figures. Let's just make sure these names are deserved and not obligatory. Meryl Streep gets the obligatory nomination literally every year, we don't need more than one. But again, it's a solid list. Holly Hunter would've made my five for The Big Sick, but other than that, I can live with these names.

Who's Going to Win: Allison Janney
Who Deserves to Win: Allison Janney OR Laurie Metcalf

It's either of them. Seriously. Gun to my head I wouldn't be able to choose which one gave the stronger "tough mom" performance. Janney is the frontrunner because she's basically the Sam Rockwell of actresses-- amazing but sadly underrated. She deserves to win due to her longevity in the business and how happy she makes everyone around her/everyone who watches anything she's in. But Laurie Metcalf... she came out of nowhere. Go back and watch old episodes of Roseanne and point to the TV and say "hey, you know she's going to be nominated for an Academy Award" and no one would believe you. It was brilliant casting on Greta Gerwig's part and Metcalf gave us all a shock at how great she still is. Give it to either of these lovely ladies and it'll be the right call.

Best Director:

Christopher Nolan (Dunkirk)
Jordan Peele (Get Out)
Greta Gerwig (Lady Bird)
Guillermo Del Toro (The Shape of Water)
Paul Thomas Anderson (Phantom Thread)

Get the f**k outta here with that Paul Thomas Anderson nomination. No way. No absolute way does he deserve to be on the list with four other directorial geniuses. Phantom Thread was okay. The direction was very Paul Thomas Anderson-y, but it doesn't mean you should just move aside a couple of really deserved people in order to get his name up there. There's a legitimately good chance that Three Billboards is going to win Best Picture, not just because I think it should. And if it does, its writer/director (who will probably get an award for his own script and by proxy get a few of his actors awards) will be devoid a spot on the Best Director list. Get the hell outta here, Academy. That being said... how awesome is it to see the rest of these names? Two who directed their FIRST films ever. I don't know any of them, but I'm proud of four of them... and Martin McDonagh.

Who's Going to Win: Guillermo Del Toro
Who Deserves to Win: Guillermo Del Toro OR Christopher Nolan

I mean, we saw this with Argo before when the Best Picture of the year's director didn't even get a second look. So, I would honestly say that McDonagh deserves at least a nom. But, for me, it's Del Toro or Nolan's to take. Dunkirk isn't going to get nearly half the love it deserves, but it's a stellar movie. What Nolan did with the constant intensity coupled with the lack of dialogue is superb. I've never really seen a movie (especially a war movie) like it. He's been overlooked several times and he should get more notice for his passion project. Speaking of passion projects and being overlooked-- it's equally Del Toro's time for an Oscar. He was sorely overlooked for Pan's Labyrinth and the man is wholly talented in all aspects of film. The Shape of Water is gorgeous, but it wouldn't have been half of what it is without Del Toro's directorial eye. He deserves the award even if The Shape of Water doesn't win. And he will get it.

Best Animated Feature:

The Boss Baby
The Breadwinner
Coco
Ferdinand 
Loving Vincent


So... what is it, Academy? You felt too respected? You were TOO separated from the Golden Globes? They're the ones who are supposed to hand out disrespectful nominations in favor of actual good movies. What, you wanted to be the laughing stock of the awards world? I'm just gonna say this right now... a couple of years ago... The Lego Movie not only deserved a nomination... it deserved the win. And it got neither. This year, you have once again snubbed a very good and highly regarded by critics and audience members Lego movie-- Lego Batman Movie. Not only did you piss on the Lego franchise once again... but you gave one of the five spots... to the f**king Boss Baby?! Are you kidding?!

What's Going to Win: Coco
What Deserves to Win: Coco

This isn't even up for discussion. Coco might be Pixar's magnum opus. I thought Inside Out had everything anyone ever possibly needed in a movie and then they come back with Coco. It's PERFECT. It is a perfect movie. It's so perfect it deserves to be up on the Best Picture list instead of relegated to the Animated Movie category. If you haven't seen it... see it. If you didn't like it... stop watching movies because you're clearly going through something that impedes your ability to love. Coco will win.


Other Predictions: 

Best Original Screenplay:
What's Going to Win: Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri
What Deserves to Win: Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri, Get Out, Lady Bird

(I just want to point out how much I love the fact that five of the best movies of the year... were ORIGINAL SCREENPLAYS. Take more chances, Hollywood!!!)

Best Adapted Screenplay:
What's Going to Win: Call Me By Your Name
What Deserves to Win: Logan OR Call Me By Your Name     

Best Foreign Language Film:
What's Going to Win: The Insult
What Deserves to Win: Uhhhh... no idea. Didn't see any of them and this is the one I've read has the best chance.

How Many Categories I'm Guaranteed To Get Correctly: 8/10

Consensus:

Finally... it's a year where the majority of the front-runners and favorites in all categories are the movies that DESERVE to win those categories. There probably will only be an upset (if there is one) in the Best Picture or (and this would have to be super dark horse) the Best Director category. I could see Get Out or Lady Bird taking the Original Screenplay category for both the fact that each movie will probably get overlooked in nearly every other category and this is a category the Academy could give it a little recognition. But, I'm pretty confident in at least 8 of my picks this year. Let's keep this trend going, Hollywood. Keep banking on original content and let writers bring us beautiful stories we've never seen before. And... for old time's sake... bring back Billy Crystal or Steve Martin for one more Oscar hosting gig before we don't get to see them anymore at all.  

Annihilation: Mesmerisingly Ambiguous

Sometimes you're a writer/director and your first movie is flawless. Some way, somehow you managed to fit all of the pieces together perfectly to craft a masterpiece. Why this is good: you can immediately establish yourself as a force in Hollywood, one that actors desire to work with, production companies desire to fund, and audience members desire to go see. Why this is bad: it's hard to go up from there. Alex Garland's first film as both writer/director was the sickeningly great Ex Machina back in 2014. It's a perfect little movie that has stayed with me after each viewing. I eagerly awaited his next venture, but knew he would have a hard time topping his first effort. His second film as writer/director is Annihilation. And while it's put together better than someone with lesser chops than he, it doesn't hold a candle to Ex Machina in terms of greatness or emotional resonance.

Going into the weekend of its release, for some reason I had the crazy notion that it was going to do very well at the Box Office. I thought it was going to be the film to knock Black Panther back a peg or two. I thought the star power of Natalie Portman and Oscar Isaac, the premise, and Garland's name attached would be the driving force to get audience asses in seats. What I didn't realize is that Garland is not a household name yet (and, unfortunately, neither is Ex Machina - as it is more of an underrated cult hit than a movie held in high esteem by the masses). I also didn't realize that Paramount Pictures, who released the film, gave up all hope on the film entirely. Last year, Paramount didn't have a great year (Monster Trucks, Rings, Ghost in the Shell, Baywatch, Mother!, Suburbicon, Daddy's Home 2, and Downsizing all underperformed). So, needless to say, they needed to start the year off right. Their first move was to make a last-ditch effort to make some money off of the terrible Cloverfield Paradox by selling it to Netflix. And Annihilation-- didn't have a much better fate. Yes, it made it to theaters here in the states, but in other countries, it was sold to Netflix to premiere only 17 days after its theatrical release. That, plus the lack of TV spots and overall advertising in general, Annihilation has all but been given the Cloverfield treatment. And it's much, much better in terms of quality. Though, the conclusions of each film are reminiscent of one another (I'll explain in a bit).

Based off a popular book series, Annihilation features an alien "comet" striking Earth and then surrounding ground zero with a large shimmering bubble (labeled "The Shimmer"). For years, soldiers and scientists and researchers have been going into The Shimmer and only one has returned-- Natalie Portman's husband Kane (Oscar Isaac), who has come back sick and fallen into a coma. Finally, it's time to send in the women. Portman leads a team into The Shimmer to discover just what's causing this ever-expanding bubble to take the lives of so many people, possibly find a way to stop it, and discover what's happened to her husband. Obviously, all is not kosher once inside. Different species of flowers have mutated to become one, animals have combined DNA (like a killer croc with a shark's teeth), and slowly their minds start turning into paranoid mush. I'd never heard of the book series, but it sounded like a pretty decent sci-fi thriller to me. And with Garland's name attached-- I was in.

The result is very Garland-like. He took a lot of risks with the script and the story, and a lot of it paid off. He's not your typical JJ Abrams type of sci-fi writer/director. He's more of a cerebral one. He's not here to give you big neon-sign'd answers to questions you have and he looks deeper into stories thematically. However, he may have dug himself a little bit too deep with this one artistically. This is fine to do as an artist, but you run the risk of alienating your audience-- which is something I think has probably happened with this film. It's easy to get invested in the story. It's a big sci-fi thriller mystery movie with hybrid animals and badass chicks at the center of it. I knew halfway through the movie that I was probably not going to get all of the answers to all of the questions that were forming in my head during the film, but I was hoping for at least a few. And this is where the movie fails-- most of the answers to most of the questions are left intentionally ambiguous (similar to The Cloverfield Paradox-- see, I said I'd explain!). When a viewer becomes this entangled with story, we want/need a little bit of clarity toward the end. We're not asking for a complete explanation, just something to satiate our curiosity since we took the trip. And Garland doesn't give it up. I felt betrayed by the ending and the fact that I got nothing. Then, there's a last ditch effort at the end that feels like it's setting up for a sequel.

The major problem with this is-- your average joe moviegoer isn't going to accept Garland's ending as anything but "artsy bullshit". I'm already a fan of his, and even I didn't accept the ending. I was mesmerized by everything in the movie, but the end, even to me, felt like a cop out. Like the TV show Lost that posed too many questions they didn't know how to answer-- or didn't want to. However, the movie isn't a total loss. It is hauntingly beautiful. I thought I hadn't seen a movie as aesthetically gorgeous as Arrival, but Annihilation ups the ante.  The visuals, coupled with the eerie and oddly relaxing soundtrack made for a very thrilling movie-going experience. Portman is great, as are the rest of the actors (even if I didn't personally care much for Oscar Isaac's attempt at a "southern accent"). So, it's hard for me to recommend the movie knowing that while I'm confident you will enjoy most of the film, the ending will undoubtedly leave you as unfulfilled as I was. It's also a movie that probably should be seen in theaters due to how viscerally impressive it is, but I don't know if I can justify paying for it. I guess the answer lies here-- if it interested you, see it. If not, wait.

C+

Black Panther: A Marvel Triumph

Damn it, Marvel. Since 2008 we have been saturated every year by Marvel movies. They started off slowly, but as of the last five years amped it up so that there is hardly a lull in theaters between Marvel universe films. In the middle there was an onslaught of bad to mediocre Marvel movies that, coupled with the saturation, drove myself away from the films. I was just exhausted and didn't want to keep up with the storylines and watch the same origin story over and over again. I'm talking about The Wolverine, Thor: The Dark World, The Amazing Spider-Man, Avengers: Age of Ultron, Captain America: Civil War, Doctor Strange, Fantastic Four type movies. Then... out of nowhere, Marvel decided to ditch convention and give the movies to risk-taking filmmakers with established voices that don't necessarily reflect the juice-box-mentality of previous Marvel movies. 2016 gave us the R rated Deadpool - a risky move that paid off tenfold. 2017 gave us Logan, Guardians of the Galaxy 2, Spiderman: Homecoming, and Thor: Ragnarok. All four of these movies gave us a different voice/perspective on the Marvel superhero genre and has somewhat given Marvel a second wind, not only financially, but now moviegoers aren't putting up with half-assed comic book adaptations anymore. There's a reason Justice League couldn't hold a candle to the films above. Most Marvel movies, I've only seen once. They're not my favorite films and I'm still exhausted trying to keep up, but if the movies are as good as they've been, I'll keep attending. Black Panther, in my own opinion... is the best Marvel has offered us thus far.

Black Panther has received a lot of hype so far. It's being built up to the point where expectations are at its highest and most of the time that's a recipe for failure. Believe it. Believe everything good you hear about this film because it's fantastic. Ryan Coogler (director of Fruitvale Station and Creed) has brought something to theaters that is often neglected, overlooked, and bastardized by lesser filmmakers. He has brought to life a story that celebrates people of color, African culture, femininity, and heroism in a time when it is most needed. On the surface, yes it's another superhero movie. But below the surface, at the story's very core is something much smarter and deeper and resonant. I recently heard a debate on the radio about if white boys and girls have their superheros that they emulate, who do black boys and girls have to look up to in the superhero world? There's Blade and Spawn and that's about it. It's a shame it's taken us THIS long, but if it had to wait (it didn't) Black Panther is the movie to answer the question. There are so many different themes explored in this film that one would assume they would miss the mark on at least one of them. This isn't the case. There are poignant moments and moments that make you take a second look at the real world in nearly every scene... along with some pretty neat choreographed fight sequences.

At the forefront is Black Panther (Chadwick Boseman), our hero and protagonist of the story, but by his side are an onslaught of tough African warrior women including Nakia (Lupita Nyong'o) and Okoye (Danai Gurira) who alone transcend the term "badass". I found myself, along with the rest of my theater, cheering for them more often than I was cheering for BP. Hell, even Letitia Wright, who portrays BP's 15 year old tech genius sister has a few moments of badassery herself. Coogler, who also shares writing credit on the film with Joe Robert Cole, has crafted a story that's fun and exciting, but also is entrenched deep into the culture of Africa. Every minute detail of the characters and the settings and the costumes and everything has been thoroughly thought about and precisely executed. Having smart writers on a superhero film has been the standard as of late and the movies keep getting better. The best thing that Coogler and Cole did, however, was create a villain with all sorts of layers and depth. He's one of the most sympathetic villains I've ever seen in film. There comes a point in the film where the audience's loyalty is called into question. You're rooting for BP, but once you know the motivation of the villain Killmonger, there are times where you almost root for him. The tugging of heartstrings from opposite ends is a brilliant move by the writers. It also helps that Killmonger is portrayed by the fantastic Michael B. Jordan.

Most have already seen the film, but I don't want to give anything else away for those still needing to watch it, but suffice it to say, it's the best Marvel movie I've ever seen. Take away the "alien technology" and the costumes and I don't even know if I'd throw it into the superhero genre. It's a story about people and the willingness (or unwillingness) to change. Aside from some poor CGI during a few fight scenes, the rest of the movie is perfect. Great acting, great writing, great directing, great movie.

A

What Happened After?: Volume 1

Guest contributor Ashley Green is here to give us a bit of insight into our favorite movie couples. Most of us assume that once the cameras stop rolling and the credits end, the two lovers live "happily ever after". However, Ashley is here to dispell the rumors and give out some much needed truth--



DANNY AND SANDY:

  

Apparently there are quite a few theories regarding Sandy and Danny and what became of them. After searching around the Internet and deciding that the theory of Sandy and Danny actually being dead throughout Grease was appealing, it's too easy. Almost as easy as throwing these two in a flying car and calling it quits.

WE LAST SEE DANNY AND SANDY:

In a 1949 Wayfarer Convertible, literally flying away from the school carnival, happily in love.

WHAT HAPPENED AFTER:

When that 1949 Dodge Wayfarer Convertible landed, it crashed violently into the real world. 
It turns out that after adopting a completely different personality in order to be loved by Danny, Sandy also adopted a bad hallucinogenic drug problem. Her new cigarette habit, while seemingly innocent, was in fact something much more sinister.

Sherms - as some kids call them - or cigarettes dipped in PCP - were her drug of choice. What appeared to be Sandy and Danny riding off into the sky in a 1949 Dodge Wayfarer was actually Sandy and Danny barricaded in the fun house, Danny in a fetal position while Sandy, brandishing a rusted pipe she tore from the wall, threatening to murder Danny if anyone got too close to their “new home”.

It took 14 hours for Sandy to come down from her PCP high. When she was finally lucid, she realized that she had beat Danny to death. Later, Sandy would realize that maybe it wasn’t entirely the PCP’s fault she killed Danny. Sandy had forsaken who she really was for some greaser dickhead and perhaps her subconscious was just not having it.

Sandy is currently in her 80s, living comfortably in a California mental institution, sometimes suffering from PCP flare-ups due to the excessive amount she ingested in the 50s.

She is the most feared resident.



JOHNNY AND BABY:

1963 was a terrible year for anyone who wasn’t a middle to upper class white person (specifically a man), but luckily, Frances “Baby” Houseman checked enough boxes to be able to take a trip to the Catskills with her wealthy family. It was there, in the heart of the southeast New York wilderness, that Baby’s soul found the one it loves (Jesus 6:9 or something). Johnny Castle, the sensitive bad boy with writhing hips and a mild anger problem, bumped and grinded his way into Baby’s heart.

The collision of Baby’s pubic bone with Johnny’s created a tear in space time, and from this rip in the Universe’s fabric, we were given the gift of True Love. That’s the only reason it exists, people.

WE LAST SEE JOHNNY AND BABY:

In the middle of an auditorium, swaying to "(I’ve Had) The Time of My Life", a 1987 hit playing in the early 60s.

WHAT HAPPENED AFTER:

It had only been three weeks at a strange resort in the Catskills where all of the rich Caucasians in the area came to dance and play cards, but Johnny and Baby knew their love was eternal. Baby, recognizing Johnny’s new unemployment and homelessness, begged her father to allow Johnny to stay in their guest house, just until he could get back on his feet. Her father may have been relieved to know that the dude banging his teenage daughter wasn’t responsible for the bastard fetus that a non-doctor attempted to extract from Penny Johnson (Johnny’s platonic BFF) resulting in her near death experience, but like, he wasn’t THAT relieved.

So after a hard no, Baby, now fully invested in her love for Johnny, declared that they would wed and her father would HAVE to accept Johnny then. They drove to the nearest courthouse that afternoon and left as Mr. and Mrs. Johnny and Baby.

Baby’s father never fully accepted Johnny, but whatever. Baby and Johnny were deeply, incredibly, unbelievably in love and they had the best sex to ever be had on planet Earth. Baby didn’t join the Peace Corps and didn’t go to college because she had Johnny and she had Johnny’s wiener and really, does anything else matter? So she worked at a lot of diners, and Johnny taught a lot of dance lessons, but they finally saved enough to open their own dance studio in New Jersey.  It was a mild success.

They had enough money to pay their bills and fill their fridge, and really, that was enough for them. Their love was pure and primal and everlasting. Also, banging almost 24/7.

Baby and Johnny were happy and they stayed happy well into their 50s. Eventually though, all good things must come to an end and Johnny died tragically of pancreatic cancer, leaving Baby drowning in grief that caused her to make a terrible plastic surgery choice that ultimately gave her the nose she always wanted, but stripped her of the face that everyone she knew recognized.

Baby, alone, friendless, and without a family, decided to finally pursue her dream of joining the Peace Corps.

She’s currently 72 years old and the best dancer in Uganda.





CARLOS AND NICOLE:

 

It’s early 2000s California where no bras, dirty hair, and baggy jeans are all the rage among the burn-out high school girls who embody white privilege. What a perfect time to be alive for Nicole Oakley. She stinks like stale booze and sweat and she hasn’t showered in a week. Nicole is a musky whirlwind of self-destruction and poor choices. Successful, smart, good looking athlete Carlos Nuñez, who busts his ass every day to attend the same prestigious high school that Nicole basically shits all over day in and day out, is immediately drawn to her BECAUSE DUH.

After a series of events which always end with Nicole pants less and crying and Carlos rescuing her, Nicole becomes aware that the world doesn’t revolve around her and the choices she makes affect the one person she cares about most: Carlos.

It’s around this time Nicole and Carlos take a shower together, and I only mention it because it’s such a relief as a viewer to see Nicole practicing some sort of hygiene. That being said, she remains greasy the remainder of the film.

I get being attracted to crazy. I’ve gone out of my way to get closer to crazy people. Ryan asked me to marry him knowing full well how nuts I am. I get being attracted to crazy. But Carlos takes it to a whole other level.



WE LAST SEE CARLOS AND NICOLE:

Driving along what appears to be the PCH, snuggling and smiling, Nicole greasy as ever and Carlos willfully ignorant to the chaos his future held.

WHAT HAPPENED AFTER:

Carlos graduates and Nicole gets her GED. Carlos enlists in the Navy, goes off to basic training, and Nicole loses her shit. She attempts to burn down her own house.

After being 51-50’d, Nicole is able to work out her emotions with a shrink and waits the remaining 8 weeks of Carlos’ basic training in the hospital.

After her eleventh visit (in a span of a week) to the naval base where Carlos had been stationed, Carlos insisted that Nicole regularly see someone about her issues. She agreed, and stabilized herself with a prescribed cocktail of lithium and diazepam. She then decided it would be best to focus on her photography while allowing Carlos to acclimate to his new role as a Navy pilot. This was a short lived idea.

Nicole quickly ditched her meds, went into a manic spiral, and was arrested outside of the naval base at 3 o’clock in the morning after attempting to break in.

Thanks to his charming personality and ability to make friends easily, Carlos had enough connections already to handle the situation and bail Nicole out of YET ANOTHER MESS. And, like all of her messes before, Nicole reeled Carlos in with tears and self-deprecation, guilting him into forgiving her and staying in the relationship.

Although Carlos seemed to be understanding of yet another Nicole breakdown, Nicole had become paranoid that Carlos would eventually leave her because of her psychotic behavior and poor hygiene. She had secretly poked holes in the condom they used that night during make up sex. Out of guilt and his sense of responsibility for Nicole, Carlos proposed to her after she announced her pregnancy.

Both in their mid thirties, Carlos and Nicole are recently separated parents of three.  Although they are currently living in different houses, Carlos often spends the night over at Nicole’s. He just can’t stop loving her beautiful craziness.

Nicole is pregnant with their fourth child.