The Hateful Movie Column: An Interview with Lee Cruse

All of us have a film that we hate.

It could be for any number of reasons. The film could have an actor that we hate. It could be because it is based off of a book that the filmmakers have failed to adapt properly. Or it could just be that the film sucks really badly.

With that in mind, I am starting a new column. I have seen many interviews where people talk about the films that they love. The films that inspire them. Films that they consider classics. This column is going to be the opposite of that.

Bad films can stay with us for a long time. I believe that if you look deeper into it, you can find surprising things in a bad film. For instance, while there maybe a film that you really hate, that same film could contain a scene or a moment that you really enjoy. An example of this is 50 Shades of Grey. Most people that saw the movie hated it with a passion. Yet, how many people own the soundtrack that came from that film? It just goes to show you that just like life, you can find something good in even the worst of things.

So with that in mind, let's begin our new column....

Lee Cruse is considered one of the funniest people in the state of Kentucky. Every morning on LEX 18 News at Sunrise, you can watch Lee give his trademark wit and humor as he visit various local businesses around Lexington, KY and the surrounding areas.

I have worked with Lee for the last few years and like many people, Lee likes going to the movies. He sees a lot of films good and bad. One of those bad films is the topic of this column today.

The one film that Lee cannot stand is The Revenant

Lee and I talked quite a bit about this film and why he hates it. That made him the perfect person to interview for this column.



Steven Hash: So do you think that it was just the hype for the movie or is it just the fact that you didn't like the movie that made you really hate this film. Because it seems like the director, Alejandro G. Inarritu, the movies he does.... it seems like they go up for a lot of awards and you have people that really like the stuff he directs, but you also have just as many people who hate his movies as well. 

Lee Cruse: To me, the film was just pretentious. Maybe because of the hype. But I think some of the decisions he made were for the elongation of a film that needed to be 45 minutes shorter. That is just a director who has just fallen in love with his cinematographer and is really just allowing this to go on.

And then DiCaprio, who I like and is a great actor, and Alejandro who I love. I mean,  Birdman was  okay. But DiCaprio's performance, here is the thing about it. That performance was hyped and it got him an Academy Award when he has done so many other performances that were just so much better than that. He was just rolling around in the dirt grunting.

SH: Well it is weird because it did have a show off quality to it because on one hand, Yeah he grew a beard. He went out the middle of the cold, he even went into the inside of a horse. But there also is this quality to it that is just him basically saying "I want an Oscar and I want one really badly!" 

LC: Yeah. I mean, I assume the tumblers all worked out for him to win an award. I think it really was for more past efforts. I don't know how the voting works. But I really don't know if that was Oscar worthy because I don't know what he did that was so fantastic other than be in pain all day and having it sort of reflect my experience sitting in the theater all day watching this movie.

SH: Was there anything you liked about the movie at all? 

LC: The visuals! I love the visuals. I love the special effects and that is the thing with Alejandro and his cohorts, I don't know if there is anybody more cutting edge with the way they organically integrate effects (with the real world). For instance, that fight scene with DiCaprio and Tom Hardy. When he cuts Hardy's finger off, that one shot choreographed fight.... how the hell they pulled that off where he grabs the axe and rolls over and then there is the effect put into place. I mean, it is just really felt so real but that is just what they do and they do it better than anybody right now.

SH: Well even the scene with the horse, when it went over the cliff, if you watch the behind the scenes clips, it really is just DiCaprio in a room somewhere that is all green screen and they something marked off somewhere that says that "this is where the tree is." 

LC: But again, that is impressive but not as impressive as the knife fight one because that is a staged CGI moment. The fight itself had to be choreographed with the actors reacting to what is going to take place when the finger is dismembered. To integrate that organically where it is not staged, where it is like "Hey, we are getting ready to have a big moment." Visually (with the horse jumping scene) there is clues to let you know that "here's the cliff and the horse is jumping." With the fight, it is just this fantastic effect that is so organic, that it looks real!

SH: I agree with you on that. With that being said, is there a part of the movie that just bugs you the most? 

LC: I think just the agony of him dragging himself around forever and ever and ever, and I think we could have gotten rid of what seemed, to me, to be padding. I mean these are Oscar winners. All of them. Someone has got to make a decision here. Why are you putting your audience through this?... You are just so in love with it all. You can convey that in a montage and just put some "Mister Mister" music behind it and (Laughs)... just play them going through the wilderness for maybe three minutes and we are done! We don't need this!!

SH: Do you agree with the assertion that if there is one thing that Inarritu loves to do is to show suffering. Like all his movies are just about "SUFFERING." I mean, the term "grief porn" has been used to describe some of his films. Do you agree with that assertion at all? 

LC: I mean, that is just a showcase of his stuff, so maybe. It be nice to see a departure. You know, maybe just do a comedy? Maybe see him do something different.

SH: Well Birdman is comedic...

LC: Well frankly there is a lot of pain in that as well... (Laughs) Emotional pain mainly. I don't think that assertion is a knock, I think it is just the experiences of the stories he is telling. I don't have a problem with that. It was just that with this one, I felt that "Hey we spent all the money to come out here, we got this beautiful vista, let's continue to show it." And it's like (sighs) okay.

SH: Well I take it you think it should not have won Best Picture then. What do you think should have? 

LC: Well what were the other nominees again?

SH: Well you had Revenant, The Big Short,  you had Spotlight which won Best Picture...

LC: Again, I think Creed was really good. I don't know about Best Picture but I am still pissed off about Sylvester Stallone (not winning).

SH: Since you mentioned liking DiCaprio as an actor, is there another movie of his you would recommend to other people to watch? 

LC: The Departed. I love that one. It is fantastic. If it is on TV, I'll usually stop the channel and watch that.

SH: Right. that is one of my favorites. So any other final thoughts on The Revenant?

LC: Don't see it!  Other than for the scene with the bear, don't see it!

Well many thanks to Lee Cruse for sitting down with me and giving some criticism of The Revenant.

This Saturday, May 7th, Lee will be a part of LEX 18 and their live coverage from Churchill Downs of the Kentucky Derby.

Please leave a comment down below. Let me know if you agree or disagree with Lee on this movie.


- Hash

Why "Batman & Robin" is One of The Most Important Comic Book Films Ever

This week, the highly anticipated DC Comics film "Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice" is released in theaters. It is one of many comic book films that are set to be released this year. With that in mind, it is hard to think how even a decade or two ago, comic book films were never really that well regarded in the film industry. Today, I am going to look back at a film that I see as a tipping point for comic book films. It is a film that you would never generally think about as a tipping point for the  genre. But once you look the film over, you see that comic book films changed for the better after it was released. 




The film in question that I am talking about? 1997's "Batman and Robin"

To me, Batman & Robin was one of the most important comic book films ever. 

Now I know what you are thinking: That is an incredibly stupid thing to say. Batman & Robin is a terrible movie. Many fans and critics have often named it one of the worst comic book films ever. The actors in the film have even dissed it. George Clooney was often quoted at the time as saying that he personally "killed the franchise." 

But film is an art, and just because a film is hated doesn't mean that it cannot be a turning point for change. I believe that Batman & Robin represented an end of an era for superhero films. The film's failure meant that comic book films could no longer be just empty action films or just be used solely for actors needing a box office hit.  The studios realized that comic book fans are a passionate bunch. If you make a great comic book film, the fans will support it and potentially help make it a hit. Or sometimes, like in the case of Batman & Robin, they can hate the movie so much that they sink any chance of it making money. That is the case with this particular Batman film here.

In 1995, Warner Bros. released Batman Forever. The film was a massive success for the studio. It was the second highest grossing film in the U.S. that year. The reaction to the film was mixed but the studio considered it a huge success. Warners made no secret that they thought the previous film in the series, Batman Returns directed by Tim Burton, was way too dark and that it should have made more money. Armed with complaints from critics and parents, Warners asked Tim Burton to step down as director and to just simply produce the next film in the series. They did however let him approve the next director to take over the series. The man Burton and Warner Bros. picked to direct the film? Joel Schumacher. 

Schumacher had been a very successful director at the time. He had directed a variety of films that included social subjects (Falling Down), vampires (The Lost Boys), and doctors dealing with death (Flatliners). He had a visual flair that Warners thought would be perfect for Batman. Despite on-set problems with lead actors Val Klimer and Tommy Lee Jones, he helped guide Batman Forever to become the massive success that it became. Warners immediately signed him up for the next sequel. 

At the time of it's release, many people saw problems with Batman Forever. Most notably that the film was way over the top. That the sets and the action scenes were way too gaudy and that the costumes were way too homo-erotic. I questioned at the time, why did the costumes had to have nipples on them? Why did they have close up shots of butts in the movie? 

Instead of looking to improve on the sequel, Schumacher seemed embolden to become way more over the top. He mentions that going into Batman & Robin that he was inspired by the 1960's Batman TV series and that he wanted the film to have a broad camp style to it. Right here is where I think the film went completely off the rails. 

If you think about it, one of the reasons why everyone was so excited about the 1989 Batman was because they were finally going to treat the character seriously. People enjoy the 1960's Batman TV series, but in no way is Adam West's version of Batman considered the true version of Batman at all. The character of Batman and the world he lives in is dark. This is a character who as a young child watched his parents die in front of him when they were both shot. This event has always haunted Batman ever since. For Schumacher to go full camp and to say that the film should, in his words, "be a cartoon," was a massive mistake on his part. 

Early on in Batman & Robin, you can just tell that the film is in trouble. The open shots of the film are close ups of both Batman and Robin putting on their costumes. We see up close shots of nipples and butts. Why Schumacher thought this was appropriate to show in a "family friendly" film is beyond me. From there we go to the film's opening action set piece. It takes place in an museum that has been turned to ice by the film's villain, Mr. Freeze. The whole thing is just too much. You have random ice skating villains. Both Batman and Robin seem to have the right random gadgets at just the right times. It's just terrible. 

The film only got worse from there. Between the characters Poison Ivy and Bane and the unneeded introduction of Batgirl, the film just makes no sense. It is all set pieces without any point to them. Chris O'Donnell, who played Robin in the film, has the best quote on the film. "It just felt like everything got a little soft the second time. On Batman Forever, I felt like I was making a movie. The second time, I felt like I was making a kid's toy commercial." That quote perfectly sums up the movie. Batman & Robin is a toy commercial where all the products Schumacher is trying to sell us suck. 

When the film was released on June 20th 1997, reaction to the film was very negative to say the least. Everyone hated the family friendly approach to the film. The one liners. The nipples. Nothing about the film worked. Although the film did well box office wise in the first weekend, by the second weekend it fell 63% at the box office. The proposed sequel that seemed certain to be released in 1999 was cancelled soon after. The film was so bad, it was not until 2005 when director Christopher Nolan released his rebooted version of Batman with Batman Begins, that the franchise got back on track. 

Begins is a great film. It is everything a Batman film should be. But I think Nolan was able to make a true Batman film only because of the failure of Batman & Robin. In fact, the 1997 film represented an end of an era for superhero films. For one thing, I think it made filmmakers and studios have to think different about the films they were adapting. Before 1997, if you made a comic book film, you were mostly ripping off the production design of the 1989 Batman film. 

In fact, if you look at the films that came after Batman, most of them had the same ascetic to them. They were always in an bleak urban environment and they had a very operatic feel to them. In some cases, they even had a retro 1940's feel to them like the '89 Batman had.  Examples of this would be films like Dick Tracy, Darkman, The Rocketeer, The Shadow, and The Crow. Some of those films are very good, but they all really had the same feel to them for sure. Heck, two of the films I just listed have the same composer (Danny Elfman) so even the music sounded the same at times. 

After 1997, films based on comic books got progressively better. In fact, this trend actually started in 1998 with the release of Blade, a film based on the Marvel comic series. It was a hit at the box office and audiences really enjoyed the film. 

Blade was really the beginning. It set a standard for comic book films and it showed a couple of things. First off that, remaining loyal to the tone or the style of the source material is not a bad thing and that it makes audiences appreciate the film more. And it showed that the films themselves can booster an actors career. Blade at the time did wonders for Snipes career. It probably is his most well known role when people think of the actor. 

Two years after Blade, we got X-Men. The 2000 Marvel film was based off a very popular series of comic books. The comic series had given us cartoons and even an arcade game that I played a lot of when I was a little kid. The film proved very popular with audiences, becoming one of the biggest hits of 2000 and has now spawned five sequels and two spin-off films. The newest entry in the series, X-Men Apocalypse, is set to be released this May. 

From X-Men on, the vast number of comic book films that studios made became enormous. Some becoming huge hits, others tanking at the box office. But it is clear that from 1998 on, comic book films have become a huge part of Hollywood and how they make money. They have refined the genre and improved it to where now pretty much any film is bound to get maximum exposure on television and the internet. 

And yet, without the failure of Batman & Robin, it might not have ever happened. Studios might not have learned their lesson and tried to make the comic book movie in a way that is right for each film. We might not have ever gotten a great Deadpool film with Ryan Reynolds. We might not have ever gotten a shared Marvel universe that included the Avengers and the Guardians of the Galaxy. We might not even be getting the Batman/Superman team up that is coming out this weekend that we never thought we would get. 

Batman & Robin is a film we always need to remember for how bad the comic book film can get when it is not properly handled. Joel Schumacher is a good director but he was so not right for directing a Batman film. The same goes for all the actors in the film, all of whom were very miscast. We may want to forget about the film, but it always is good to know that even if Batman v Superman is a terrible film, it will contain anything near as a bad as the sight of bat-nipples or of Arnold Schwarzenegger in a light up outfit giving out ice puns. 

- Hash

2016 Best Educated Guesses on the Academy Award Nominations: Part Five

And now we come to the end. 

Best Picture. Oddly enough, this has not been an easy category to pick this year. Usually you get a sense of a clear front runner like two months out. But this year, it seems like we only really got a sense of what film was going to win this award like three weeks before the ceremony. 

At the very least, it has made the awards season a lot more interesting. But with all that in mind, let's look at the race for Best Picture and who is going to win. 

BEST PICTURE

The Big Short 

Bridge of Spies 

Brooklyn 

Mad Max: Fury Road 

The Martian 

The Revenant 

Room

Spotlight 

To look at this lot of Best Picture nominees, at least the Academy decided to mix it up this year. Granted it would have been nice if Straight Outta Compton could have been nominated. It probably would have saved the Academy all the headache that #Oscarssowhite is bringing down upon them now. But alas that is an issue for another blog post. The film's that we have nominated now have one thing in common in that they are are all audience friendly this year. If you look at the audience score for each of the films, audience actually gave them all really good reviews. 

The most popular of the bunch up here would be The Martian. It kinda has fit itself into the spot that Gravity was in a few years ago. Like that Sandra Bullock film, Martian is a film that is wholly approved by most everyone. Critics, audiences, people in the industry. It is the type of studio film that you love to see come down the pipeline about once every year. Any other year, I think it would be the film to beat. But for some reason, I don't see it winning on this night. Whether it is the fact that the film came out all the way back in October or the fact that Ridley Scott missed out on a nomination for Best Director, The Martian just has the look here in this category of something that people have already moved on from and that is just sad for this film. 

Bridge of Spies, Brooklyn, and Room, all have the same problem. They are great films with great performances, but nothing about them screams "best film of the year." On paper, Bridge of Spies should be one of the front runners. It is one of Spielberg's best films and it got great notices across the board from audiences and critics. But Spielberg has been so successful for so long, that he probably is always going to be judged by his past work. Whether it is fair or not is a good question to ask, but Spies will just have to settle for the nomination. Same goes for Brooklyn and Room. The two real independent films in this category. They are both great films but they really are more noted for the performances of their female leads. The nominations alone are probably a victory for both of those films. 

The real wild child in this race however is Mad Max: Fury Road. My favorite film of the year. In fact, if it were to win Best Picture, I don't think you would find that many people upset about it. It is an imaginative film. It is not boring. The action scenes are great. The acting was good. But the film I am sure scares off the older branch of the Academy. It probably is a little too B-movie like for the members to accept as super high art. Sure they will nominate it just to show they are hip and with the times. But give Mad Max Best Picture? Not a chance in hell sadly. 

Oddly enough, that is the same problem I think The Big Short is having as well. The people who have seen the film and it's biting commentary on the financial collapse of 2008, love the film. Adam McKay is a very well respected comedy writer and director in the industry and the film is one of the best reviewed of the year. But you wonder if it is just a bit too hip for the Academy to pick as Best Picture. I mean, the film doesn't exactly end on a inspirational note. The film will probably win Best Adapted Screenplay for sure. I think the Academy members will see that and just move on with the other films. 

So that leaves The Revenant and Spotlight. If it came down to these two films, to me I would go Spotlight. A great story, amazing acting, a story that is still relevant. This is usually the type of film that the Academy cannot wait to give Best Picture too. Sure it has not been a monster Box Office success, but has never stopped a film from winning Best Picture before. Think back to 2009, when The Hurt Locker beat all time Box Office champ Avatar for Best Picture. Spotlight on paper would seem to be the easy choice for Best Picture. But it will not win. 

Why? Because the campaign for The Revenant by it's producers and it's star Leonardo DiCaprio has been very effective so far. They have been all over the press circuit talking about how hard it was making the movie in the harsh winter conditions they were in. How hard it was for DiCaprio as he had to grow a beard and how he contracted the flu three times during the shoot. How they had to rush the movie to get it finished on time. You start to sense in the last couple of weeks, with the awards that the movie is starting to rack up, that the Academy is absolutely in love with this narrative. Plus Alejandro G. Innaritu is a big hit with the Academy at the moment. Birdman was the best picture winner last year. Innaritu directed that film as well. Once the Academy really loves you, they will not stop with the nominations and the trophies that come your way. For an example, look at Meryl Streep. 

Don't get me wrong, The Revenant is a great film. It is nice to see an adventure film that has zero superheroes in it connect with the public. But if you combine the narrative of the hardships of making the film with the narrative that DiCaprio is "due" for his Oscar moment, The Revenant is going to be your Best Picture winner of 2016. 

Maybe DiCaprio eating raw bison liver was worth it for him after all. 

WINNER:

-Hash

2016 Best Educated Guesses on the Academy Award Nominations: Part Four

Best Actor and Best Actress.

One of these races is all but locked up. The other one does seemingly look like a done deal as well but there is a chance for a surprise there as well.

Both of these races if anything else speak to how big momentum and campaigning to win your respective award is to the Oscars these days.

So with out further ado, let's look at the races for Best Actress and Best Actor.

BEST ACTRESS


CATE BLANCHETT - CAROL

BRIE LARSON - ROOM

JENNIFER LAWRENCE - JOY 

CHARLOTTE RAMPLING - 45 YEARS

SAOIRSE RONAN - BROOKLYN

The remarkable thing that stands out in this category right of the bat is that the heavyweights in the category really don't have that much of a chance of winning. Cate Blanchett is one of those great actresses who is always up for a nomination but her inclusion here has puzzled many people. Her character in Carol is seen by many as more of a supporting character whereas her co-star Rooney Mara is actually the main character of the story. So I don't see Blanchett going home with the trophy here. 

Same thing goes for Jennifer Lawerence. Working with her favorite director, David O'Russell, Joy had the makings early on of looking like a possible win for Lawrence. But reaction to the film was mixed and she's also the film's only nomination here. Charlotte Rampling has been an industry veteran for over 15 years. Her first part was actually as a dancer in A Hard Day's Night. Respected for many years, Rampling stood a chance early on to come into this race and maybe pick up a sentimental win. But Rampling in the last month screwed up big time. When she was asked about her thoughts on the possibility of actors boycotting the awards show due to lack of diversity, Rampling replied that the whole idea of a boycott was actually "racist to white people." This is a incredibly stupid thing of her or anyone to say. So there is zero chance of her winning here. 

Saoirse Ronan has been a very well respected young actress in the industry for the last decade or so. Ronan has to carry Brooklyn for pretty much the entire film and she succeeds very well. Since most of the film is told through her character's experiences coming to America from Ireland, Ronan's performance is really extraordinary. But the feeling here is that this is Brie Larson's category for lose. Her performance in Room is extraordinary. The early scenes in the shack with her young son where she is just desperately trying to keep her kid happy while also trying to keep herself mentally sane is just heartbreaking to watch. It is the kind of part that the Academy usually loves to reward and this Sunday, Larson should be going home with her first Oscar.

WINNER:

BEST ACTOR

Bryan Cranston - Trumbo 

Matt Damon - The Martian 

Leonardo DiCaprio - The Revenant 

Michael Fassbender - Steve Jobs 

Eddie Redmayne - The Danish Girl 

Folks, this is usually the part where I go and write a long thoughtful analysis about who I think is going to win Best Actor and the wonderful ways they earned their way to the trophy. But let's be honest here, Leonardo DiCaprio is going to win this award no matter what any of us thinks. 

It's over. DiCaprio has absolutely dominated the conversation this awards season. He has played the "I'm due" card very well. I mean, at least The Revenant is a great film to win for. But I just feel bad for Michael Fassbender and Matt Damon. Both of these guys gave career highlight performances this year and basically both of them have been reduced to a footnote in this race. 

For comparison, DiCaprio is kinda riding the same train that Jack Nicholson rode when he won Best Actor in 1976 for One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest. It was also at the time Nicholson's fifth nomination after being nominated for Easy Rider, Five Easy Pieces, The Last Detail, and Chinatown. Many people felt Jack was "due" thus he finally won it for Cuckoo's Nest. DiCaprio is getting that same attention now since he has been a great actor and has been someone who knows how to pick great projects. 

So this Sunday, expect the Academy to give DiCaprio the award. It's just academic at this point. 

WINNER:

- Hash 

2016 Best Educated Guesses on the Academy Award Nominations: Part Three

Best Director is a category where history could be made. There is also a chance for a surprise win to sneak in here as well. That makes this one of the more fun categories to talk about. So let us look at the race for Best Director.

BEST DIRECTOR

Adam McKay - The Big Short 

George Miller - Mad Max: Fury Road

Alejandro G. Inarritu - The Revenant 

Lenny Abramson - Room

Tom McCarthy - Spotlight

Ridley Scott not being nominated for The Martian was stunning. He clearly was the front runner for this award this year. I believe that his snub opened a huge opportunity for a few other directors. Adam McKay would definitely be one of those people. The Academy has never really been kind to comedy directors unless your name is Woody Allen. But The Big Short is one of the best reviewed films of the year. McKay showed a very sure hand in guiding the complicated story and with getting great performances out of the films ensemble of actors. He has an outside chance to win this award for sure. 

On the outside looking in is Lenny Abramson and Tom McCarthy. Abramson in particular since he is a first time director. Room is a very well acted film and he managed to make the small space of the shack the Brie Larson and her son are trapped in look cinematic. But Room will get it's awards elsewhere, probably from Best Actress. Tom McCarthy should be commended for making Spotlight a film that has not a lot of flair or visual trickery to it. He lets the story go at it's own pace and the film is brilliant for it. However, the Academy does love a certain bit of flair and hype when they pick winners so McCarthy winning the award here is unlikely. 

That leaves George Miller and Alejandro Inarritu. If anyone benefitted from Ridley Scott not getting the nomination, it is Miller. Mad Max is the most popular film on this list for sure and Miller is a very well regarded filmmaker. He also is the man behind the Babe and Happy Feet films. There is a chance that the Academy could feel that maybe he is due for his body of work. 

But in the end, Inarritu is going home with the trophy. The Academy seems to be enamored with the director at the moment. Birdman won a ton of awards last year and with the way the Awards season is going, you get the feeling that the tide is turning for the filmmaker again. Also the Academy probably recognizes the opportunity it has for history here. If Inarritu wins this award again for a second consecutive year, he would join directors John Ford and Joesph Mankiewicz as the only directors to win a Best Director Oscar two years in a row. That is a very noble list of filmmakers to join. You know with #Oscarssowhite dominating the conversation again this year, Inarritu (being a Mexican filmmaker) is a safe bet to win this award again. 

WINNER:

2016 Best Educated Guesses on the Academy Award Nominations: Part Two

This year's group of screenplay nominees represent the most diversity of any of the categories that the Academy has to offer us this year. And in a year where diversity is sorely lacking in all the major nominees, that makes both of these screenplay categories interesting to watch.

Original Screenplay I think has some very fascinating nominations. Three of the films in that category are not nominated for Best Picture. Adapted Screenplay on the other hand is a category where four of the five nominees are listed for Best Picture.

Who will win in their respective categories? Let's take a look.

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY

Bridge of Spies-
    Matt Charman, Joel Coen, and Ethan Coen

 Ex Machina- 
Alex Garland

Inside Out- 
Pete Docter, Meg LeFauve, Josh Cooley, and Ronnie Del Carmen

Spotlight-
Tom McCarthy and Josh Singer 

Straight Outta Compton- 
Johnathan Herman, Andrea Berloff, S. Leigh Savidge, Alan Wenkus

As I mentioned earlier, three of the films are not nominated for Best Picture, so this makes this category very interesting to pick. This first nominee that grabs your attention right away is Straight Outta Compton. It is the film that many, including me, have thought should have been nominated for Best Picture. The temptation here would be to give it a Oscar as a sort of protest to the Academy, kinda like last year when the equally snubbed Selma did not go up for many awards like many people thought it should have. Selma eventually went on to win Best Song. But Compton is not nominated for any other award and all of the writer's on the film are white. So any kind of protest that the award would generate would be kinda moot. Bridge of Spies is a very well received film and it is co-written by Academy favorites Joel and Ethan Coen. But the film feels more like a Spielberg endeavor than it does a Coen Brothers one so I don't see a win here. I also don't see a win for either Ex Machina or Inside Out, which is a shame because they are probably the most well liked films on this list. That leaves Spotlight. The film has been praised for it's accuracy and for how the filmmakers were able to tell a gripping story out of a very sensitive subject. Usually that is the recipe for success and thus I see Spotlight getting a well deserved win here. 

Winner:

Spotlight






BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY

The Big Short- 
Adam McKay and Charles Randolph from "The Big Short" by Michael Lewis

Brooklyn-
Nick Hornby from "Brooklyn" by Colm Toibin 

Carol-
Phyllis Nagy from "The Price of Salt" by Patricia Highsmith

The Martian-
Drew Goddard from "The Martian" by Andy Weir

Room-
Emma Donoghue from her novel "Room"

Another strong category. All of the film's nominated here are all very well liked film's by the critics and audiences. However for Carol, the moment the film failed to go up for Best Picture, it lost any chance it had of winning here. Brooklyn is a very well regarded film but it is more well regarded in other areas of the film than the writing. Specifically, Saoirse Ronan for her acting and the films 1950's period production design. The Martian has the same issue going for it as well. Drew Goddard is one of the best writers in Hollywood right now for his work on Cloverfield and The Cabin in the Woods, but the film has been looked at for more of Ridley Scott's directing than for anything else. Room on the other hand has a couple of things going in it's favor. It was adapted by the books author, Emma Donoghue. She has been praised by critics and by people who have read the book for keeping a lot of the hard to stomach moments intact. But the best film of the bunch, The Big Short, should and will win this category. The book is incredibly dense with financial information and with the terminology of the stock market. But Adam McKay and Charles Randolph do a great job with never letting the audience get confused and with telling a entertaining story of the individuals who saw the stock market collapse of 2008 coming. For that, The Big Short wins big in this category. 

Winner:

The Big Short

Coming this Friday, I will look at the Best Director race. One of the more unpredicatble races of the night. Until then...

- Hash

2016 Best Educated Guesses on the Academy Award Nominations: Part One

It is that time again!

The Academy Awards are upon us and this year, the field varies very much depending on the category. Some categories, the winners already feel like a lock. In others, it is anyone's guess in how they will turn out.

Once again though, I have seen all the movies nominated for Best Picture and most of the films that are up in various categories.

The next five blog posts, I will examine the various top nominated categories and take a wild, educated guess as to who will win in each of those categories. Last year, I didn't do so well. This year though, I feel better about my chances.

Without further ado, here are my first picks for this year's Academy Awards:

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS


JENNIFER JASON LEIGH -  THE HATEFUL EIGHT

ROONEY MARA -  CAROL

RACHEL McADAMS -  SPOTLIGHT

ALICIA VIKANDER -  THE DANISH GIRL 

KATE WINSLET -  STEVE JOBS 

What started to look like the most wide open race of the night has, in the last couple of weeks, now become a two person race it seems. Alicia Vikander and Kate Winslet seem to be the odds on favorite of winning this category. Vikander has had a phenomenal year. She had a great star making role in Ex Machina as the main android in the film. She then turned in a well received performance in The Man From U.N.C.L.E. Now she ends the year on a high note with The Danish Girl. Many critics praised her acting in the film and she has now started to get rewarded for that. Kate Winslet on the other hand continues to just be one of the best actresses in film today. In Steve Jobs, she was the heart of the film. She had the most scenes with Michael Fassbender and through her character of Joanna Hoffman, we see the real Steve Jobs come out. Every scene she was in was electrifying. However, I have a feeling that the box office failure of the film is going to hurt Winslet (as well as Fassbender, who is nominated in the Best Actor category). As we get closer to the awards show, you start to get the sense that voters are probably going to go with Vikander here for the win. If nothing else it will be the cherry on top of the phenomenal year that Vikander as had and it will solidify her as a top actress to watch out for years to come. 

WINNER:

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR

CHRISTIAN BALE -  THE BIG SHORT

TOM HARDY -  THE REVENANT

MARK RUFFALO -  SPOTLIGHT

MARK RYLANCE -  BRIDGE OF SPIES

SYLVESTER STALLONE -  CREED

One gets the sense that of any of the major categories on Oscar night, this is the category that people will be watching the most. The reason: Sylvester Stallone. He is the one person that I think most people will be rooting for that night to win. Creed is a very well loved movie that some pundits have questioned and wondered about why it didn't go up for Best Picture. Stallone is also someone who has been around for years. A win here would be kind of a career achievement award for how great his career has been. Also in all fairness, Stallone is great in Creed. He has taken a part that he created nearly 40 years ago and somehow found a way to bring new life into it. Stallone has always appeared to be a muscle man but to see him be so vulnerable in the film is something that is unexpected and welcomed. However, the Academy has been weird about comeback stories. For all the love that John Travolta (Pulp Fiction) and Mickey Rourke (The Wrestler) got for their comeback roles, the Academy ended up giving the award to other actors. In case Stallone loses, there are a couple of other options here that make sense. Tom Hardy has been amazing this year. Not only did he take over the role of Mad Max in Mad Max: Fury Road to great acclaim, he also got great notices for his work in the little seen Legend. His work in The Revenant is also just as good as he takes on the role of the film's villain, John Fitzgerald. The way he mumbles his lines and how he was able to let us read his eyes for the emotions his character was going through was amazing to watch. Mark Rylance also was great in his very low key role in Bridge of Spies. Problem is, that it is so low key, will the Academy even honor it over the more showy performances here? Same goes for Christian Bale and Mark Ruffalo. Both actors were great in their films, but it is the type of performances that we usually see and expect from them. So unless the Academy feels that Hardy is just that much better, Stallone is going home with the Oscar here. Plus you gotta admit, "Academy Award Winner Sylvester Stallone" has a nice ring to it you know? 

WINNER:

That is it for this post. Up next will be the Screenplay races. 

- Hash

What A Lovely Day (And Year): The Best Films of 2015

The medium of film on any given year, has shown the reflection of our society. This year proved no different.

Whether it was showing us the corruption of our society, the way technology has overtaken our lives, or in most cases, how big business has taken over all of our lives. In Hollywood's case, the industry seems stuck in franchise and remake mode. No one was asking for a remake of Point Break at all, but for some reason or another, we got one.

But even in the worst of times, true art can rise to the top. 2015 was one of the better years in film. For me, there was a lot of good quality films that was spread out across the spectrum. The best films of 2015 I think over time will show that not only was some of the best, most surprising filmmaking going on this year, most of the films on this list have something to say on the times that we live in.

All of the films on this list, especially my pick for the best film, will be remembered for years to come. Without further ado, my pick for the ten best films of 2015.

#10 

Steven Spielberg is a student of history. Even when he is covering larger than life subjects like Abraham Lincoln and Oskar Schindler, Spielberg is someone who knows that looking at the society around these figures is just as important as the figures themselves. If nothing else, it says what they had to go through at the time in order to justify their cause.

Bridge of Spies is one of Spielberg's most enjoyable films. He has evolved as a more confident filmmaker over the years and this film shows that. While the director is known for his special effects and for giving us the blueprint of the modern blockbuster, Spielberg is someone who is becoming much better with actors. Case in point is Mark Rylance. Rylance plays Rudolf Abel, the Russian spy living in America who gets arrested by government agents. His scenes with Tom Hanks, who plays Abel lawyer and eventual friend, are some of the best scenes that Spielberg has directed. Spielberg is very smart to get out of the actors way.

A lot of moments in this film, like the scenes set in East Berlin where Hanks has to negotiate a trade off between Abel and two Americans who are caught behind enemy lines, could have been very boring. But by bringing in Joel and Ethan Coen to write the screenplay, Spielberg gives these scenes a riveting feel to them. Spielberg knows that in the end sometimes, real progress happens behind closed doors and not out in the battlefield.

#9

The secret to Pixar's success is very simple. They know people. They know emotions. They know that the everyday struggles that people go through are sometimes just as interesting as any of the number of action scenes that we see everyday on TV and on the big screen. None of this is more evident than in Inside Out. All of the main characters in this film are the emotions inside the mind of a young teenage girl, Riley. 

The temptation here would have been to be completely silly and go for the easy jokes with current pop culture references. But Pete Docter (Up, Monsters Inc.) is smarter than that. He makes each of the emotions in the film stand out on there own and even when the jokes come, they feel very true to real life. The two emotions that stood out in this film were Sadness, voiced brilliantly by Phyllis Smith, and Bing Bong, the imaginary friend of Riley from her younger age. Bing Bong probably brings in the most emotion scenes in the film as his character represents the true sadness we feel when our childhood ends and the turbulent teenage years begin. 

The visuals in the film of course stand out. Each of the emotions are assigned a proper color that fits them very well. Inside Out is the best animated film of the year and also one of the most emotion films of the year as well. Then again, Pixar is usually known for producing these kinds of films by now. 

#8

Ridley Scott is a master of directing science fiction. He is a visual filmmaker who knows how to make each of the worlds that are in his films look unique. He also knows that the best science fiction films work as a commentary on the nature of mankind. In The Martian, Scott finds the story of a astronaut who is stranded on Mars after a massive dust storm causes the rest of the crew to evacuate the planet.

Although the film is definitely science fiction, a lot of the elements in it are presented in a way that makes it seem like we are watching a classic survival story. We see Damon's character, Mark Watney, have to perform several scientific set ups in order to survive for a couple of years before the back up space shuttle can arrive. The story also covers the efforts by NASA back on planet earth as they try to come up with a way to get Watney home.

Besides Scott, the other great detail with this movie is the script by Drew Goddard (The Cabin in the Woods) and the performance by Matt Damon. Damon adds a very funny and human touch to the film. It is usually something one doesn't see much in Scott's movies but it is a welcome change here and the result is one of Ridley Scott's best films to date.

#7

In making The Revenant, Alejandro G. Inarritu has made what maybe his most enjoyable and complete film yet to date. It's odd, because on the surface, this film seems like it would be a chore to sit through, given that Inarritu is a director that does not seem to mind showing us human suffering at all. But in tapping into the story of Hugh Glass, Inarritu shows us a story about the primal nature of humans, nature and ultimately, revenge. 

The story starts with Glass and his son accompanying a group of fur hunters on a hunting trip deep into the American wilderness of the 1820's, where they are attacked by Indians. As Glass leads the group away from the Indians, he is viciously attacked by a bear. As the group leaves him behind so they can make it home, they leave Glass behind with his son and a fellow hunter, John Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald is not keen on staying behind with Glass so he attempts to kill him. When Glass's son sees Fitzgerald doing this, he tries to stop it but is killed by Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald then leaves Glass behind to die. Needless to say, Glass manages to survive and begins a long, bloody quest in order to exact his revenge against Fitzgerald. 

The acting in something like this is key and thankfully DiCaprio does a great job with the role. In fact he barely speaks at all due to the bear attack his character suffers. DiCaprio is very good at showing us the physicality of what Glass has to go through just to get back to health after surviving the bear attack. And Tom Hardy shows what a great actor he is. As Fitzgerald, Hardy gives us a personality to the part that in another actor's hands, could have been very one note. But it is not, and with Inarritu and cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki giving us some amazing scenery, this film is one that stays with you long after you watch it. 

#6

For years, I have always said that Adam McKay was the heir apparent to Harold Ramis. I said this mostly because I noticed a certain anger about social issues that always seems to seep into McKay's films in the same way that it did in Ramis's films. Anchorman 2 could be seen as a commentary on the media and the over saturation of the news. The Other Guys makes fun of the financial institutions amid the story of two regular cops. But with The Big Short, McKay gets serious about his social commentary and as a result, he has made the best film of his career. 

The story starts off in 2005. Michael Burry (Christian Bale) is a hedge fund manager who notices a ton of problems with the way the housing market is set up with a system of bad loans. So against the advice of everyone around him, he uses his hedge fund and bets against the housing market at a time when it was suppose to be "rock solid." This attracts the attention of a host of other investors, like Jarred Vennett (Ryan Gosling), a Wall Street trader who sees opportunity in the housing market crashing. It also gets a look at by Mark Baum (Steve Carrell), another hedge fund manager, who travels down to Florida and witnesses first hand how bad the housing market has gotten. Two younger investors Charlie Geller and Jamie Shipley think this could be the break they are looking for in order to get into Wall Street. They get the help of a retired banker, Ben Rickert (Brad Pitt), to set them up with the deal. 

Through these characters, McKay shows us how that even though these guys knew the housing market was going to crash, the system was set up by the big banks all along. The film is full of anger not at just the banks for screwing the American people over, but with the whole business culture at large. "This is why I quit!" Rickert tells Geller and Shipley in one scene. "All this business does is reduce people to ones and zeros." McKay knows that at the heart of this film it is us, the average people who matter and he never really takes his eyes off of that. In the end, the investors did win and make some big money out of the deal, but in reality, McKay asks us, did anyone really win? 

#5

Is man letting technology get too much control over our lives? A question that has been asked in many a science fiction film. But as the years go by, we are starting to see technology (phones, computers, etc.) become more and more prevalent in our society. Alex Garland must have noticed this and came up with Ex Machina. A sci-fi film that is also part social commentary and part thriller. 

Caleb Smith (Domhall Gleeson) is a programmer for a major tech company who wins a sweepstakes to spend one week visit at the home of Nathan Bateman, the mysterious CEO of the software company Caleb works for. Once Caleb arrives at the huge home, he realizes that Nathan has him there for other purposes. He has built an artificial intelligence robot named Ava. Nathan wants Caleb to administer a Turning test on Ava, which is a way to determine an AI's ability to appear human. 

What happens soon after becomes a cat and mouse game between the three main characters. Does Nathan have Caleb there for some other nefarious purpose? Is Caleb used as a pawn by Ava as a way to get rid of Nathan? Is Ava pitting Caleb again Nathan as a means of escaping into society? 

This story is very effective at keeping the audience guessing as to the true intent of what all the characters are up to. It also works as a social commentary in some surprising ways. Garland asks us that if robots eventually make it out into society undetected, would we even care after awhile? 

Garland is very effective with his writing here. Plus he gets great performances out of all his actors. Especially from Alicia Vakander, who performance as the AI Ava announces her as a major talent arriving on the scene. The last shot of her in the film is a simple image, but it is one that is scary and in an odd way, says what is happening in our society. 

#4

Every now and then, you get a film that surprises you. It Follows is probably the most memorable horror film I have seen in a very long time. It doesn't feel gimmicky. It has characters that feel like normal teenagers. The tone of the film feels very similar to the great horror films of directors like John Carpenter and Wes Craven. It takes place in the real world but it has stylistic touches to it that show that it takes place in a unique cinematic world. There is very few films like this one out in the cinemas now. 

The story follows Jay, a Michigan college student, as she goes on a date to the movies with Hugh. In the theater, Hugh freaks out. He sees the appearance of a woman staring at him. He asks Jay if she sees the woman and she does not. They soon leave the theater. Later on, the two of them go on another date and the night ends with the two of them in Hugh's car having sex. After they are done, Hugh knocks out Jay with chloroform. He ties Jay up to a wheelchair. With Jay asks what is going on, she now sees the woman that Jay saw earlier in the theater walking towards her now. The monster, Hugh tells her, can take on the form of any person and it is passed on to other people through sex. If Jay does not pass the curse on to someone else, she will be murdered. 

The monster itself is frightening. Since it takes on the form of different people, we the audience are always left in suspense as to if people in the background are the monster or if they are just simply walking by the characters. The film also has the benefit in having Maika Monroe in the lead role as Jay. She is going to be a fantastic actress. Here she possesses the quality that Jaime Lee Curtis had in Halloween: Smart but vulnerable. Tough but sensitive to how the monster affects her and to her friends around her. Couple that with a great 80's synth score by Disasterpeace and you have a film that stays with you long after it is over. Just like any great horror film should do. 

#3

Spotlight is an excellent film about the Boston Globe investigation team and the efforts they had to take in order to make sure that their stories about the Catholic Church and their cover ups on the sex scandal that many of the priests in Boston were involved with over the years. The film works as a thriller, a drama, and as a political piece about the media and it's job on reporting important events. But above all else, the film is a love letter to the newspaper and how that even though newspapers maybe going out of style in the age of the internet, the newspaper is still a relevant and vital part of our society. 

The story starts in 2001. New editor of the Boston Globe, Marty Baron (Liev Schreiber) has just arrived at the newspaper. He learns about the paper's "Spotlight" unit, which is comprised of a small team of reporters whose investigations into stories can sometimes take up to a year to publish. The team is headed by Walter Robinson (Michael Keaton) and is the oldest continuous operating newspaper investigative unit in America. 

Baron gets ahold of a column about a priest who was sexually abusing boys in his church and the lawyer who says that the Arch Bishop of Boston knew about it and did nothing to stop the priest. Baron wants Robinson and his team to investigate it further. What starts out as a look at a few priests that may have been abusing young boys turns into something that can only be described as an epidemic. The rest of the film is about how the team not only has to try and get some witnesses to talk to them, but also how they have to navigate the political and social waters that the scandal of this magnitude could bring. 

Director Tom McCarthy is very smart with his directing. He does not do any crazy camera tricks nor does he go to any sort of story telling gimmicks. Like the reporters in the film, we follow along the story with them as they learn various pieces of information. We feel their heartbreak as they have to listen to details from each of the victims and how the church did nothing to help those victims out. Like All The President's Men, it shows us the investigation side in great detail. But the filmmakers know that it is ultimately the human side of the scandal that we will remember the most. 

#2

For the second year in a row, Director Denis Villeneuve (Prisoners) has made a excellent film. Sicario is a film that grabs you and never lets you go. Rarely have I seen a film that was able to keep the level of tension high and carry it out throughout the movie. Sicario is one of those movies. It also has a wonderful story that for a good chunk of the film, you have no clue where it is going to go. 

The set up of the film is very simple. Kate Macer (Emily Blunt) is an agent for the FBI who goes along on a raid of a house that has suspected drug kidnappers in it. When they raid the house, they find dozens of corpses hidden within the walls of the house. They also find an IED explosive that goes off and kills a couple of agents as well. Angry at the lack of progress the agency is making against the war on drugs, Macer is given the opportunity to join a Delta Force task force that is comprised of agents from several government agencies. Included in this group is Alejandro Gallick (Benicio Del Toro), a mysterious man from Mexico whose real intentions are kept from Macer and the audience. 

The group's mission is to then go over the Mexican border and bring back one of the men who maybe responsible for the killing of the FBI agents. This leads to one of the best scenes in the film. When the group has the prisoner in their possession, they return to the border and sure enough, trouble is waiting for them. This leads to one of the most tense scenes in the film, as the group experiences people from all fronts coming towards them as they try to take back the prisoner. 

I will not reveal anymore of the story. It goes into many unexpected directions. Benicio Del Toro gives one of his best performances ever in this film. His character is scary to watch at times. Emily Blunt once again proves that not only is she a great actress but she is also a great action star as well. She more than holds her own here. 

Do yourself a favor and go into this movie as cold as you can. The surprises and the turns that the story takes is some of the best storytelling that you will see this year. 

#1

Film is a visual medium. While plays and novels rely on the written word, film is a medium that allows it's makers to create whole imaginary worlds. Film has survived for so many years because of this. It allows us to go to other places that might not be real yet. Planets. Cities. The past. The future. Wherever you imagination wants to go, film can more than likely take you there.

It is this reasoning that I think Mad Max: Fury Road is the best film of 2015. It is the brilliant work of it's visionary director, George Miller, who is able to transport us into a world that is very creative and alive. It has been said that Miller didn't even have a script for the film for a long time. He created a series a storyboards that was the template for the film. It is a very odd way to start on a film but it works beautifully here.

I think you see the great vision Miller has for the film in two different moments during the film. The first is the location of The Citadel, the main stronghold for the film's main villain, Immortan Joe. We see that the location has three huge rock clusters and that Joe and his followers live on top of these clusters, while everyone else has to live way down below them. This is a very cruel but effective analogy. It is none more apparent than in the scene where Joe pulls a lever and gives out the water to the masses below him. We see the giant waterfall activate and people come running to it with bedpans, buckets and whatever than can just to get a little bit of water. It is a crazy scene to watch but it says a lot about the character of Immortan Joe and the power he has over the people at the Citadel.

The other moment is when Max, Furiosa, and the wives of Immortan Joe are driving the gasoline rig that they have stolen from Joe towards a nearby canyon. From behind the rig, Joe and his followers are right on the rig's tail. Furiosa notices however another group coming up the the side of the rig. This is the gang from Gas Town, a nearby town from the Citadel. Within this gang, we notice the leader of Gas Town is among them. His name is the People Eater. Miller does a very clever thing here. We see the huge rig that the People Eater is riding in and it says more about the character than any line of dialogue ever could. On top of this rig, we see that instead of a standard junk car that we see on all the other vehicles, we see a Mercedes Benz body attached to the top of it. We see that this character is a man that prides himself above all the other gangs. We hear him talk later on in the film about how chasing the rig Max has stolen has costed them a lot of money. With the way we see him dress and the ride that he has, this is a character that cares only for money and money alone.

While the attention to detail is amazing, the action scenes themselves help make the movie great. The whole story is essentially one long chase film. But it is never boring and more importantly, we are never lost throughout the action scenes. This is a credit to Miller and cinematographer John Seale. They keep the action front and center on the screen. They make sure that each important moment lasts. Films lately have been going for more style and visual flavor over coherence. But not here. We know what happens and how it is important to the story at hand.

It's amazing to think. Usually when a film franchise gets four films deep into a series, it gets complacent. Producers and studios know that money has to be made and so usually they just repeat what the other films have done. But to see George Miller, who is 70 years old, not go the popular route, To come up with a daring new idea and to make that idea instead of repeating what the other films did, that is a site to behold. Fury Road is a film that has great action and wonderful storytelling that will be remembered for years to come.



- Hash