"Gods of Egypt": Serial Structure Cannot Save It

Now In Theaters

After the financial success of the remake of Clash of the Titans and its sequel, it only seems natural that another studio would step up and try to cash in on some CGI mythological action.  Lionsgate has now taken its shot with Gods of Egypt, and the results aren’t exactly the cream of the crop.  This is going to be a film that will be ripped apart by popular criticism, not the least of all for Lionsgate’s choice to cast primarily Caucasian actors to play the roles of Egyptian characters.  That criticism is valid and should definitely be a part of the popular discourse, but I think it worthwhile to point out some things that the film does well, even if it isn’t worth the price of admission.

Set in a mythological version of Egypt, Bek is a mortal young man who spends his days as a petty thief.  As he and his lover, Zaya, attend a ceremony at the palace of the gods, benevolent King Osiris is murdered by his brother Set and Prince Horus is left blinded and cast into exile.  Set takes over the land, subjecting mortals to slave labor and ruling that admittance to the afterlife is dependent on personal wealth.  After Bek steals one of Horus’s eyes, Zaya is killed in the escape and Bek goes to Horus for help.  In return for bringing Zaya back to life, Bek will assist Horus in retrieving his remaining eye and his rightful place as king.  Basically, this is Hamlet meets Perseus, with Horus and Bek filling out the character arcs of those characters respectively.

The film at first feels very disjointed, with minimal effort given to establishing characters and letting the world speak for itself without much by way of exposition.  It remains coherent, but any piece of dialogue feels as if it is a contrivance to bring us to the next CGI action setpiece.  What turned the film around for me was when I realized that this was a conscious choice, that the filmmakers had explicitly crafted the film in this way so as to be a walking tour of Egyptian mythos in a variety of locales.  It’s reminiscent of old adventure serials in that way, right down to the redundant expository dialogue in later portions of the film that seem crafted to remind us of character motivations after a period of time away.  In other words, this film has built in commercial breaks and would work perfectly as a bit of cable programming.

But what’s going to rub a lot of people the wrong way about this construction is that it doesn’t lend itself well to continuous viewing from start to finish.  I found myself waiting for the film to just get on with it during the second act, as each action setpiece became more and more tedious as I waited for the climax to finally come.  The setpieces themselves are serviceable and entertaining in the moment, but they are pretty forgettable for the most part and definitely aren’t worth the price of admission, even in its touted 3D format.  And while the screenplay does do its job in telling a compelling if pulpy story, don’t expect the performances to similarly engage you.

Were it not for the film’s explicit whitewashing, it would likely be quickly forgotten or even potentially ignored upon release.  It definitely isn’t worth seeing in theaters and isn’t even worth the cost of a rental.  However, if you see this pop up on Netflix or on cable in a couple years, there are worse ways to kill two hours, especially if you only want to pay partial attention or need to watch in spurts.  Its adventure serial inspiration is novel enough if you know to look for it, but beyond that, Gods of Egypt best serves as an egregious example of Hollywood casting inequality.

"Triple 9": Great Cast, Awful Script

In Theaters on February 25, 2016

In a time when sequels and reboots dominate the cinematic stage, it’s always exciting when a new intellectual property takes its time in the spotlight, particularly if it seems to be backed by an immense amount of talent.  Triple 9 started out as a spec script, screenwriter Matt Cook’s dream of making it in his chosen profession, and the fact that the film finally got made would normally be a testament to at least some innate quality in the work presented.  Unfortunately, that very script, the piece of the puzzle that caused all others to shift into place, is so fundamentally flawed and riddled with cliché that it drags the entire production down with it.

The premise actually seemed to carry some promise, with four bank robbers, two of whom are corrupt cops, being blackmailed by the Russian mafia into performing a seemingly impossible heist.  In order to buy themselves time, the crooks contrive to set-up a triple-nine police scenario, an officer shot far enough away from the scene of the heist that the police would be too distracted to provide any real resistance to the group’s escape.  The bait?  A corrupt cop’s new rookie partner.

Despite an actually engaging opening heist sequence, the film's first big mistake is to make little to no effort in establishing its characters beyond the most basic of archetypes, if it can even be said to have bothered with that minimal step.  A fantastic cast, including Chiwetel Ejiofor, Anthony Mackie, Aaron Paul, Norman Reedus, and Kate Winslet, turns in some adequate performances, but are ultimately held back by dull dialogue that doesn’t give any of their characters room to breathe or interact in ways that aren’t plot critical.  I couldn’t tell you any character’s name or relation to the other characters beyond the vaguest of memories I have from a few throwaway lines that only barely establish who our protagonists even are.

The other thing working against this story is that it is hopelessly and needlessly complicated by subplots that grind the second act to a halt.  These include an extended shootout between the police and a minor drug-runner who doesn’t relate to the main Russian mob plot in the slightest, a member of the heist gang cracking under pressure, a quirky detective trying to make sense of seemingly unrelated events (Woody Harrelson doing his best to be this film’s Willem Dafoe surrogate), and a relationship of one heister with his young son.  There are too many pieces moving at any given time, and most of it is unnecessary given that these subplots mainly serve to either eliminate superfluous characters or set-up the climax in overcomplicated ways.  It got so bad that I didn’t even realize the third act had started until already neck deep in it, which says something of how little care was put into guiding the audience through the labyrinthine passages of the narrative.

This doesn’t even address the fact that every single person of color in the film is either a criminal or inept, including the police officers, and the two heroes of the story are white men coded to the audience as good guys by literally wearing an American flag and a crucifix.  I was hoping that a contemporary film dealing with police corruption would not be quite so tone deaf, but perhaps that was one hope too many.  Even absent that glaring textual blemish, Triple 9 is an absolute mess of underdeveloped characters and overcomplicated nonsense.  Don’t bother with Triple 9.  It's a shambling corpse whose screenplay should have been announced dead on arrival.

"Z For Zachariah": The Wasted Potential of Adaptation

Now Available on DVD and Blu-ray

When making an adaptation, making changes to the source material does not have to be a cataclysmic affair.  Take, for instance, Jurassic Park, a film that wildly veers away from the original novel in regards to tone, characters, and even major plot points, yet the film has ended up as more beloved than the book ever was.  However, sometimes a singular change can completely destroy the intent of the original work, which not only can make the adaptation unfaithful, but also thematically muddled and thereby inferior.  This is what seems to have happened in Z for Zachariah.

Though I have not read the novel of the same name, the parts of Z for Zachariah the film does a good job with are apparently those lifted straight from the page.  Set in a post-apocalypse wherein seemingly nobody has survived (presumably after a nuclear war), Ann (Margot Robbie) is living alone on her family farm, trying to eke out a living by hunting local game and tilling her fields.  While out hunting, she comes across a man, John (Chiwetel Ejiofor), bathing in a pool that she knows to be radioactive.  She offers him shelter and nurses him back to health.  Ann’s farm is seemingly protected from radiation due to a geographic anomaly, so she lets John stay and the two try to build a life together.

What’s remarkable about this scenario is that it plays out pretty much how one would think a scenario where two straight people of the opposite sex remain as the last living beings on Earth.  They are ideologically opposed on a number of things: Ann is a religious and sentimental farm girl who only wants to remain comfortable with what she has, yet John is a scientist who wants to focus his efforts on rebuilding society, even given the meager resources at his disposal and what that might cost Ann.  But the two are still drawn to each other in compulsively sexual ways, feeding into a biological need that is simultaneously romantic as it is creepy.  It is an oddly compelling way to watch two people interact, particularly when one takes into consideration how vulnerable Ann is around John and how he could very easily exploit that, yet never crosses that tempting line.

But the film completely destroys that tension by adding a third character not found in the novel, Caleb (Chris Pine).  Never mind the fact that Chris Pine is a poor excuse of an actor who is only remotely enjoyable when he’s imitating William Shatner, but this completely subverts the entire point of the story.  Instead of exploring the ramifications of two strangers trying to build a life together, the film decides to contrive a love triangle that transforms its unique premise into a mundane soap opera.  The character of Caleb is more ideologically similar to Ann, yet Ann sees more hope for her survival in John, and I was just waiting for one of them to turn out to be a werewolf or a vampire so that the Twilight parallels could be more blatant.

This film fails purely because of its wasted potential.  It had a good thing going with its two-person cast, painting a dark and disturbing romance between uneasy strangers that works just fine as originally written.  However, with the inclusion of an unnecessary third character whose actor couldn’t even bring anything to the role that the screenplay didn’t, the tension quickly unravels and the entire film’s thesis becomes buried in trite romantic clichés.  Now if you’ll excuse me, I have what I’ve heard is a vastly superior novel to read.

"Zootopia": Disney Gets Brilliantly Political

In Theaters on March 4, 2016

I went into Zootopia expecting to enjoy it.  Disney Animation Studios has really stepped up their game in the past few years, delivering hit after hit that, if not overt critical successes, are of the requisite quality to become part of the popular culture and return Disney to its days of former glory.  So, yes, Zootopia seemed like yet another entry into this stream of quality children’s entertainment.  But this film is more than good; it is nothing short of brilliant in premise, execution, and pure entertainment value.  This is going to be one of the most intellectually discussed popular films of the year, which is an astounding feat for any animated film, let alone one exclusively populated by talking animals.

Judy Hopps (an appropriately chipper yet subtly nuanced Ginnifer Goodwin) is a rabbit from the rural countryside who dreams of being a police officer, despite there never having been a rabbit police officer before in a profession dominated by larger, aggressive animals.  When she graduates at the top of her class from the police academy, Judy moves to Zootopia, a multi-environmental city that boasts a cultural diversity of almost every species of animal.  She isn’t taken seriously at her job and is assigned to parking ticket duty, so Judy becomes motivated to investigate a missing person case that the rest of the department is unconcerned about due to the species of the animal in question.  With the help of a con artist fox named Nick (a perfectly cast Jason Bateman), Judy places her career on the line to unravel a mystery that is bigger than she could have imagined.

Structurally, the film plays out like a buddy cop detective adventure, with Judy and Nick not liking each other much and gradually changing their minds as they discover more about one another.  They investigate a rogue’s gallery bizarre one-off characters in a fashion not dissimilar to The Big Lebowski, and there isn’t a single joke in this film that doesn’t land.  Not only are the film’s mystery beats genuinely engrossing and will keep you guessing until the very end, but the film uses comedy to make itself palatable to both kids and adults alike.  Whether it’s a visit to an animal nudist colony (seriously) or to a DMV run exclusively by sloths (a joke made no less funny by how obvious it is), Zootopia is wickedly inventive with its humor and uses its premise to its fullest potential.

And that potential includes some incredibly poignant commentary on the state of race relations in America.  You read that right.  Zootopia uses its premise to paint an allegorical portrait of the nature of prejudice and how people of different races cohabitate in an urban setting.  It’s not terribly subtle about it, but it also doesn’t assume that its audience is stupid or that the subtext will go over their heads.  This is a film that wants to make a point, and it does so in ways that are at times absurdly humorous, but also in tragic and unexpected turns.  The relationship between Judy and Nick is especially symbolic of this, as Judy has been told all her life that foxes are to be feared and not trusted, and Nick has issues of his own related to how others perceive his species, so their eventual coming together as friends and the mistakes they make even as friends are shockingly true-to-life in how people of different races interact with each other in America.

I expect Zootopia to be a huge hit with critics and audiences alike, but I also suspect that a fair bit of controversy will revolve around the film for quite some time.  It isn’t afraid to call out police profiling practices or the conditioned prejudices that affect us all, and that’s going to rub some people the wrong way.  But that’s why this is such an important film; this is going to teach an entire generation of kids that racism isn’t just something you do, but something that each of us struggles to confront within ourselves, even when we think we’re being reasonable or prudent.  Hopefully, by being presented in such an entertaining package, more than a few adults can take that lesson to heart as well.  Zootopia is probably going to be one of the smartest, funniest films of the year, so it would be a disservice to yourself to miss out.

"Whiskey Tango Foxtrot": Why Tina Fey?

In Theaters on March 4, 2016

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot is the kind of film that sounds like it is a really good idea on paper, but some further reflection and, indeed, observation of its execution make it evident that there are flaws at the conceptual stage of the project.  This is primarily a Tina Fey vehicle, and the woman that Fey’s character is based on reportedly has a similar disposition and sense of humor, so casting Fey in this role when Paramount optioned the rights to the story seems like a no-brainer.  However, given the type of story being told here, Tina Fey may not be the best choice of actress to have cast, and it’s unfortunate that choice is probably the largest reason why this film can’t escape mediocrity.

Set in Afghanistan, Kim Barker (Fey) is a war correspondent sent over just as the Iraq war starts revving up, primarily because she is childless and without strong family ties.  She is tired of her desk job and her dead-end career writing news copy and takes on Afghanistan as a new challenge.  However, as she becomes more and more involved in local events, Kim starts to take greater and greater risks with her own safety and the safety of her fellow journalists, and she must decide whether this kind of life is sustainable and if the risks are worth the prices she will have to pay.

The film is primarily billed as a comedy, and the comedic sections are where the film shines at its best.  Fey is, as always, quick with a scathing one-liner and has such matter-of-fact flat delivery that it’s hard not to at least chuckle, even when a joke doesn’t entirely land.  Her best moments, both in this film and in her career in general, are those of absurdist feminist observation, which is particularly well-suited to the overtly masculine environment of both Afghan culture and the international safehouse in which she lives.  When the film deigns to be funny, it can be uproarious, because that is what Tina Fey is best at, and that is how the directors can best use her.

But let’s face it; Tina Fey is not a dramatic actress, and a film set in Afghanistan during our military involvement in the region is not going to get away with being a straight comedy, and it would be disingenuous to the story this film was trying to tell to portray it that way.  However, Tina Fey does not carry the serious moments this film well.  The flatness that gives her comedy a unique flavor works against her, only ever coming to life when her character is supposed to express anger or exasperation.  I wouldn’t go so far as to say she is bad, but she is nowhere near as compelling as a leading character needs to be.  The directors clearly acknowledge this fault and try to minimize it by moving Fey into the action of Afghanistan as quickly as possible, but that has the consequence of weakening the character of Kim into just being “Tina Fey in Afghanistan,” only gaining depth in retrospect and by compositing poorly established character moments.

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot is an entertaining film that occasionally breaks out into moments of comic brilliance, but when taken as a whole it isn’t quite as touching or profound as it wants to be.  There’s a compelling story in there, but Tina Fey was probably not the best vehicle to tell it through.  Let her be a comic actress; it’s what she does best.  Leave drama for the method actors who can portray someone other than themselves.

"Black Mass": Taking Johnny Depp Seriously Again

Now Available on DVD and Blu-ray

Johnny Depp really hasn’t had a great run the past decade or so, has he?  He’s appeared in a number or Disney-produced effects-driven spectacle flicks wherein he played a variation on the same eccentric archetype that gained him mainstream popularity in Pirates of the Caribbean, but that has produced steeply diminishing returns so that even fans of his antics are starting to find them a bit stale.  So it only makes career sense for Depp to return to his more understated personas of his earlier cinematic turns, particularly those of Public Enemies and Once Upon a Time in Mexico that saw him portraying a darker criminal element.  And as a return to form, this film is sure to win a lot of older-school Depp fans over with its dark and serious tone.  However, the film itself feels riddled with missed opportunities.

Depp portrays James “Whitey” Bulger, a notorious Boston gangster of the 70’s and 80’s.  The key to Bulger’s success, besides a brutal willingness to do any violence necessary to protect himself and an almost paranoid survival instinct, is that he was well connected.  Most notable of these connections, at least as the film chooses to portray it, is with FBI agent John Connelly (Joel Edgerton), a childhood friend whom he feeds information to about rival gangs.  This in turn paves the way for Whitey to build a virtual monopoly on organized crime in Boston while having an inside man with the feds protecting him from a full investigation.

The dynamic between Depp’s Whitey and Edgerton’s Connelly is intriguing, though I feel that an opportunity was lost in choosing to structure the plot as procedural rather than as an operatic tale of lifelong friends.  It’s clear that Whitey and Connelly have a history through snippets of dialogue, but we never actually see it, and such a dimension to the story should really have had a greater impact on the intense moments when the two men talk to each other as friends on opposite sides of the law.  The focus instead falls on their mutual manipulation of their relationship to advance their careers, which is still interesting, but the inevitability of their falls from grace doesn’t feel as impactful as it could have been had their relationship actually been explored more than just the most superficial level.

However, none of this makes Black Mass a bad film.  What brings it close to being a bad film is that we rarely get to see much of Whitey’s criminal activity firsthand, but are only privy to it via conversations around tables and office desks.  The film’s primary saving grace is Depp, who may not be turning in an Oscar-worthy performance, but is definitely reminding everyone that he is a pretty damn good actor.  His secret is that he uses his extensive make-up job as a reliable mask to hide any semblance of the goofy persona we have come to associate with his face.  Instead, Whitey is cold and soft-spoken, and only ever raises his voice when he is taking necessary action in heartlessly violent ways, but even then there is never any malice, only a business-like stare.  It’s Depp’s best work in years, as unimpressive as that statement may be.

Black Mass isn’t quite the Oscar season opener that many were hoping it would be, and with a lesser lead it would have been a fairly generically dull dud.  However, as a Johnny Depp vehicle, this has turned into proof that the actor doesn’t quite deserve to be written off just yet.  If you see this film, Depp will probably be the only piece of it you care about.  And that’s probably just fine.

"The Diary of a Teenage Girl": Sexuality at Center Stage

Now Available on DVD and Blu-ray

Coming of age stories are a favorite of the indie circuit, probably because they are relatively cheap to produce but also because freshman filmmakers are just themselves coming into their own as adults.  This has led to an influx of pretentious (…heh) independent cinema that is supposedly rich with the artistic flourishes that influenced the auteur, but ultimately come down to a few comic book sensibilities from their youth.  The Diary of a Teenage Girl would technically reside in this camp of genre convention, but it fortunately has something else going for it that elevates it above other coming of age fare: perspective.

Set in the 1970s and based on a memoir of the same name, this is the story of Minnie, a fifteen year old girl who has a crush on her mother’s boyfriend, Monroe (Alexander Skarsgård).  When Minnie asks Monroe to have sex with her, he agrees, starting an affair the leads Minnie to question what she thought she knew about sex, love, and anything outside and in between.  Before you raise your pitchforks at the pedophilic aspect of this film, yes, the relationship between Monroe and Minnie is sexual and Minnie is underage.  However, within the context of the narrative, Minnie is entirely in control of the situation, and Monroe is in no way malicious or manipulative, just a guy who says yes much too easily to a series of really bad decisions.

See, the point of the story isn’t so much that Minnie is coming into her own as a sexual being (though that is also certainly happening) as it is that Minnie is learning about herself and her place in the world through the act of sexual intercourse.  She knows that sexuality is a huge part of being an adult, and now that she is at least physically an adult she wants to explore adult existence.  This comes in the form of realizing how sex plays a part in her life, what she wants from a sexual relationship, who she wants to have sex with, and how this contrasts with the adults in her life, most notably her mother.  This is not a film that is afraid to acknowledge budding female sexuality, which is a much appreciated rarity in a culture that demonizes feminine promiscuity.

As much as I enjoyed the film for that reason, though, a few token indie quirks still rub me the wrong way, though I will admit these are mostly trappings of the genre that I don’t much care for.  Minnie is an artist (because in an indie film, of course she is), but the film goes so far as to animate her drawings and those of her idols in colorful juxtaposition to her everyday life.  This is a trick that has been used numerous times in other low budget flicks looking for a distinct visual appeal that has become so overplayed so as to no longer be distinct.  It isn’t pervasive in this film, but it is distracting when it does happen.  Furthermore, the soundtrack consists of acoustic guitar tracks that seem compiled to say “Please buy this movie’s soundtrack album to support independent artists.”  It’s obtrusive and really doesn’t fit the 1970s aesthetic the film is going for visually.

However, ranting about my pet peeves aside, The Diary of a Teenage Girl is a pretty fantastic film that captures female sex positivity in a way that few films do.  I specifically pursued this film for its place on many critical top ten lists of 2015, and while I wouldn’t go so far as to say it is that astounding, I think it is well worth watching and should gather a following purely for its perspective on sex and how it plays a vital role in a young woman’s development.  It’s worth it for that alone.

"How to be Single": A Troubling, Tangled Mess

In Theaters on February 12, 2016

It would be really easy to dismiss How to be Single as just a bit of harmless chick flick fun, but the more I think about it the more I really dislike much of what this film supposedly has going for it.  Regardless of whether you think the film is particularly funny or not, it’s an absolute clusterfuck of plotlines and a demonstration of sexual attitudes that I realistically know are normal for the average twenty-something but are still depressing nevertheless.  And the saddest thing is that there is actually a premise in there with some potential that gets grossly overshadowed by meaningless distractions.

This premise comes in the form of Alice (Dakota Johnson, proving that she is not well suited to comedy), a woman who has never been single who decides to take a break with her longtime boyfriend, only to discover that when she wants to reunite he has moved on.  Now she has to try to discover who she is without the influence of a relationship.  That’s actually a very empowering theme that I would have loved to see the film commit fully to, but it doesn’t get to that conclusion until the very end, forcing Alice to muddle through missing her ex and having a casual sexual partner and dating another man, all of whom are severely underdeveloped so as to be little more than plot device stepping stones that ultimately lead to the same place the single break-up could have.  Alice herself doesn’t even get that much development, instead having the film’s moral explained to her via dialogue without undergoing an on-screen character arc until a montage in the film’s final moments.

You may also notice that there are three other women on the movie poster, and every single one of them has an in-depth subplot that is either entirely unnecessary or completely overemphasized.  Alison Brie plays a woman who desperately wants a boyfriend and then eventually gets one, and also has next to nothing to do with the rest of the main cast.  Rebel Wilson plays a party girl who is mainly there to spout gross one-liners and has a forced strained-friendship arc with Alice toward the end of the film.  Leslie Mann is a career-oriented woman who decides she wants to have a baby, only to fall in love with a guy after inseminating herself with donor sperm, which feels like it would have been better served in a separate movie altogether rather than as one of a ridiculous number of subplots in this one.  It furthermore doesn’t help that none of these characters has room to develop beyond being defined by their relationship with men (or with motherhood), completely undermining the central thesis of the title that there is value in having a singular identity.

But a lot of folks will probably just want to know whether the film is funny or not, and your mileage may vary.  I’ve never been a fan of Rebel Wilson’s gross-out shock humor, and if the laughs in my theater were any indication, the general reaction is lukewarm.  There were two scenes that legitimately made me laugh, but they were brief and didn’t save what was ultimately a pretty slow film.  A lot of what is supposed to pass as comedy is based on stereotypes of how men and women supposedly act, and often the women in this film come across as naïfs subject to the manipulative influence of men in ways that are not only condescending but also legitimately creepy.  A good example is a joke about how a certain number of drinks will lead two people of the opposite sex to fuck no matter what, and as Alice counts the final requisite drink she has had with a guy, she pounces on him in full vigor like subject to a law of physics.  Given the real-world implications of alcohol in a sexual atmosphere and a culture that esteems men for getting women drunk enough to conquer sexually, what was supposed to be a funny scene comes across as shockingly gross, and this is only one extreme example in a film full of tone-deaf moments.

This review is slightly longer than my normal word count, which you wouldn’t probably expect from a throwaway rom-com, but that’s a legitimate reflection of my problems with this film.  My worry is that a lot of people will go to this film and see their own sexual politics affirmed, and that’s just sad.  The fact the film is a structural mess that feels it necessary to tell rather than show only makes it worse, and the potential for a good story only makes it sadder.  Don’t see this one, even if only for stupid fun.  If you’re anything like me, you’ll only be disappointed: in the film, in yourself, in other moviegoers, in society as a whole.

"Crimson Peak": del Toro's Still Got It

Now Available on DVD and Blu-ray

Perhaps this is a cliché at this point, but Guillermo del Toro is one of the most criminally underappreciated directors of modern cinema.  This is a man with a vision for the macabre that is unparalleled and is consistently undermined by the lack of box office returns.  So with Crimson Peak it makes sense that del Toro would work with a smaller budget, but boy would you never guess it from the work he has assembled.  It is only slightly unfortunate then that this gorgeous film doesn’t have a nearly compelling enough story to accompany it.

As a bit of on-the-nose metatextual commentary early in the film points out, this isn’t a ghost story, but a story with ghosts in it, despite what the film’s horror-based marketing would have you believe.  Edith (Mia Wasikowska) is a struggling author and daughter of a wealthy businessman who one day meets the charming Sir Thomas Sharpe (a surprisingly un-Loki Tom Hiddleston).  Thomas whisks her off her feet and, after the mysterious murder of her father, takes her away to live with him upon his mountaintop home, named Crimson Peak after the clay deposits that stain the snowy mountaintop a blood red.  As Edith lives with Thomas and his cold and distant sister Lucille, she comes to discover spectres in the house, leading her to believe there is more than meets the eye to her new husband and the dilapidated estate that is her new home.

The film is structured in such a way as to keep plenty of surprise plot twists and intrigue for the latter half, but unfortunately those twists are telegraphed way too early and too often to come as much of a surprise by the time comes for their unveiling.  This is a shame too because the plot is actually quite interesting and not so much a matter of supernatural horror as it is a slow boil of tense relationships.  Though the film turns out quite predictable, the climax it builds to is fantastically realized and will likely stick in people’s minds long after the credits roll.

And this is because the film is, in an unexaggerated word, gorgeous.  Del Toro is, as always, the master of the color palate, mixing reds and whites and yellows to make some of the most memorable set and costume choices of the past year.  The sets of Crimson Peak are superbly detailed and perfectly structured to evoke a sense of gothic mystery in nearly every frame.  As for the ghosts themselves, the use of CGI is both minimal and unobtrusive, and the uniquely bloody designs are obviously del Toro’s without pushing the film into full Pan’s Labyrinth horror territory.  If there were one film that has been snubbed an Oscar nomination for production design, it’s Crimson Peak, hands down.

Guillermo del Toro may not always be the best screenwriter, but he is most undoubtedly one of the technical masters of our times.  Even if his film’s story fails to fully engage, he at least knows how to put gorgeous images to film and enthrall us with a unique vision for the creepy and grisly that never relies on cheap or tired horror tactics.  Crimson Peak may not be one of his best films, but it deserves recognition as a worthy addition to del Toro’s extensive library of fantastic direction.  Hopefully the success of this film will convince studios that del Toro can sit the director’s chair for another big budget masterpiece.  (Like, say, Pacific Rim 2!)

Oscar Predictions and the Best Movies of 2015

It’s that time of year again and I have (mostly) caught up with the major films of 2015, so it’s time to announce my top ten films of 2015 and weigh in on the Oscar race.  First up, my list of the top ten films of 2015.  Of course, I haven’t seen every film of 2015, but I’ve seen a great number of them, some of which I haven’t posted reviews of (yet).  And besides, this is my list, so if you disagree or think I’ve left something out, feel free to leave a respectful comment below.  I won’t go into detail as to why these are my favorite films this year, as most of these will be elaborated upon in the Oscars section, and you can read my original reviews to get my first impressions by clicking the hyperlinked titles below.

1.       Mad Max: Fury Road

2.       Inside Out

3.       The Martian

4.       It Follows

5.       Carol

6.       Room

7.       Creed

8.       Spotlight

9.       Kumiko, the Treasure Hunter

10.   The Big Short

And, without further ado, here are my predictions and thoughts on the 2015 Oscar nominations.  The only film I haven’t seen in the below categories is Boy and the World, and I will not be weighing in on the Best Foreign Language Film and Best Documentary Feature categories, nor any of the short subject categories, as accessibility is a major issue for me as an amateur critic.  I also won’t be weighing in on the Best Original Song category, because I just really don’t care.

The Academy Awards air on February 28, 2016.

Best Picture
Will Win	Spotlight
Should Win	Mad Max: Fury Road
Also Nominated	The Big Short Bridge of Spies Brooklyn The Martian The Revenant Room
Wow. What a category this year. With the notable exception of The Revenant, none of these films is overblown in receiving this nomination, though the exclusion of Carol is definitely heartbreaking.  Realistically, the race comes down to a contest between Spotlight, The Big Short, and The Revenant, and the only way I would be disappointed is if The Revenant walked away with the prize.  The Big Short definitely has gained enough traction to make it a frontrunner, but my money is still on Spotlight, if only because I think it is the slightly better film. The fact that Mad Max has received a Best Picture nod definitely has me happy, though realistically the Academy is extremely unlikely to unite around it.
Best Director
Will Win/Should Win	George Miller – Mad Max: Fury Road
Also Nominated	Lenny Abrahamson – Room Alejandro G. Inarritu – The Revenant Tom McCarthy – Spotlight Adam McKay – The Big Short
This is also a really close race this year, with anyone except for Abrahamson being an entirely viable win.  I think the Academy will likely split the difference between recognizing the indie artistry of Spotlight and the brilliantly technical direction of Mad Max by giving Miller the Best Director award, which he wholly deserves.  But this is still anyone’s race.
Best Lead Actor
Will Win	Leonardo DiCaprio – The Revenant
Should Win	Matt Damon – The Martian
Also Nominated	Bryan Cranston – Trumbo Michael Fassbender – Steve Jobs Eddie Redmayne – The Danish Girl
What a truly disappointing year in the Lead Actor category.  Redmayne is the most overpraised bad actor in the business, and Cranston, while good, still hasn’t quite escaped the shadow of Walter White.  Fassbender is a reasonable choice, but the Academy is definitely going to give DiCaprio the win to prevent his eventual death-by-performance, even though Damon’s Mark Whatney is the most human character of the bunch.
Best Lead Actress
Will Win/Should Win	Brie Larson – Room
Also Nominated	Cate Blanchett – Carol Jennifer Lawrence – Joy Charlotte Rampling – 45 Years Saorise Ronan - Brooklyn
On the other hand, with the exception of Lawrence who is merely being congratulated for existing, the Lead Actress category is amazing this year.  Larson is the frontrunner to be certain, and I had a really hard time deciding whether she, Blanchett, or Ronan is the most deserving.  If there is an upset, though, it’ll be Ronan who takes the prize, as Blanchett has won before and the Academy has a thing for rewarding young female talent.
Best Supporting Actor
Will Win	Tom Hardy – The Revenant
Should Win	Sylvester Stallone – Creed
Also Nominated	Christian Bale – The Big Short Mark Ruffalo – Spotlight Mark Rylance – Bridge of Spies
The Supporting Actor race is just about anyone’s game, and the only one who wouldn’t deserve it is Bale.  I think Rylance is slightly overblown due to his extensive theater career, and though I called Ruffalo’s nomination from the moment I saw Spotlight, the two most deserving are Hardy and Stallone, and if I’m honest, I’m inclined toward Stallone because of the versatility that role allowed him and the fact that it is the only nomination Creed received.
Best Supporting Actress
Will Win	Alicia Vikander – The Danish Girl
Should Win	Rooney Mara - Carol
Also Nominated	Jennifer Jason Leigh – The Hateful Eight Rachel McAdams – Spotlight Kate Winslet – Steve Jobs
I hate to say it, but Vikander will probably win for her part in The Danish Girl; she wasn’t bad in that film, and she’s quite the talented actress, but any recognition that film gains will only serve to justify its transmisogynistic elements.  Leigh is a pretty good candidate as well, though I think Mara is the most deserving, especially because she is just as deserving of a Lead Actress nomination as Blanchett, if not more so.  The Academy clearly doesn’t know how to handle two romantic roles of equal prominence when they are of the same sex, and, to be fair, I’m not sure how you solve that problem.
Best Original Screenplay
Will Win	Tom McCarthy & Josh Singer - Spotlight
Should Win	Pete Docter, Meg LeFauve, & Josh Cooley – Inside Out
Also Nominated	Matt Charman, Ethan Coen, & Joel Coen – Bridge of Spies Alex Garland – Ex Machina Jonathan Herman & Andrea Berloff – Straight Outta Compton
You may have noticed that until now I haven’t thought Spotlight has what it takes to win anything other than Best Picture, and this will probably be the category that the Academy will rally around to justify that win.  Spotlight definitely deserves to be nominated, but Inside Out’s originality and incredibly thoughtful meditation on emotion and growing up made it one of my favorite films this year.  The other three nominations aren’t bad, though I do question whether Straight Outta Compton’s inclusion isn’t more motivated by token Black inclusion rather than recognition of actual achievement.  The African-American film most deserving recognition this year was Creed, not a stock-standard biopic with Black protagonists.
Best Adapted Screenplay
Will Win	Adam McKay & Charles Randolph – The Big Short
Should Win	Emma Donoghue - Room
Also Nominated	Drew Goddard – The Martian Nick Hornby – Brooklyn Phyllis Nagy - Carol
This might be the only category this year where I feel unreservedly positive about every single nomination.  I have a really hard time picking who I think should win between Donoghue, Goddard, and Nagy, but I think Room squeaks ahead just a little based on its unique perspective.  The Big Short is an Academy darling this year, though, so it seems likely that, if nothing else, McKay and Randolph could walk away with this one.  But honestly, this one is anyone’s guess.
Best Animated Feature
Will Win/Should Win	Inside Out
Also Nominated	Anomalisa Boy and the World Shaun the Sheep Movie When Marnie Was There
Realistically this race comes down to Inside Out and Anomalisa, and it would be a huge upset of Anomalisa came from behind, especially considering Inside Out’s screenplay nomination.  And while I did enjoy Anomalisa, I have to back my #2 movie of the year.  It is seriously that good.
Best Cinematography
Will Win	Emanuel Lubezki – The Revenant
Should Win	John Seale – Mad Max: Fury Road
Also Nominated	Roger Deakins - Sicario Ed Lachman – Carol Robert Richardson – The Hateful Eight
Every single one of these cinematographers deserve to be here, but I am firmly against Lubezki winning in this category for the third time in a row.  Though The Revenant was a gorgeous film, the meditation on the gorgeous landscapes ended up detracting from the film’s narrative rather than enhance it.  Mad Max, on the other hand, had cinematography that was great enough to turn the perpetual visual chaos of the chase sequences into some of the most engaging action ever put to film.  Hopefully Seale can pull through with an upset victory.
Best Film Editing
Will Win	The Big Short
Should Win	Mad Max: Fury Road
Also Nominated	Spotlight The Revenant Star Wars: The Force Awakens
One of the reasons that The Big Short is so watchable (as is the case with Spotlight) is because the editing made a film primarily about people talking into a frenetic piece of engaging cinema.  However, I still feel obliged to give greater credit to Mad Max, because without the spot-on editing working in conjunction with the cinematography, the film would have fallen apart under its own insanity, and that is an absolutely monumental task.
Best Production Design
Will Win/Should Win	Mad Max: Fury Road
Also Nominated	Bridge of Spies The Danish Girl The Martian The Revenant
The crazy thing about this year is that it is not entirely dominated by historical films, with two science fiction films making their way into the race.  Though I have great respect for The Martian and The Revenant in terms of their production (and Bridge of Spies is nothing to laugh at either), Mad Max’s incredibly dense world-building was often done wordlessly through the sets and props assembled by the production team.  There is no reality where Mad Max shouldn’t win this award, though The Revenant could potentially sneak up on it.
Best Costume Design
Will Win/Should Win	Jenny Beavan – Mad Max: Fury Road
Also Nominated	Paco Delgado – The Danish Girl Sandy Powell – Carol Sandy Powell – Cinderella Jaqueline West – The Revenant
Sandy Powell is usually a frontrunner in this category, since her costuming is usually elegant and exquisite, and her two nominations are no exception this year.  However, because she is splitting votes against herself, it seems likely that she will lose only because the Academy won’t be able to choose one film over the other.  Mad Max is the next runner up, and I think it is probably most deserving for its incredibly inventive costuming choices, particularly on Furiosa and Immortan Joe.
Best Original Score
Will Win/Should Win	Ennio Morricone – The Hateful Eight
Also Nominated	Carter Burwell – Carol Johan Johanssson – Sicario Thomas Newman – Bridge of Spies John Williams – Star Wars: The Force Awakens
If there was one thing I unironically enjoyed about The Hateful Eight, it was the score, a self-referential set of pieces that jumped from playful to triumphant to tragic in ways specifically designed to manipulate the audience to dance for Tarantino’s pleasure.  The big competition against it is probably John Williams, though I think this is mostly out of nostalgia for his best Star Wars scores, as I didn’t find this one particularly memorable.
Best Visual Effects
Will Win/Should Win	Star Wars: The Force Awakens
Also Nominated	Ex Machina Mad Max: Fury Road The Martian The Revenant
I really wrestled with whether I wanted Mad Max or Star Wars to win more, and I have to give credit to J.J. Abrams’ commitment to practical effects in bringing Star Wars back to its junkyard universe roots.  If Star Wars doesn’t win, the Academy is going to disregard sci-fi entirely and give the prize to The Revenant, and I really don’t want that to happen.
Best Makeup and Hairstyling
Will Win/Should Win	Mad Max: Fury Road
Also Nominated	The 100-Year-Old Man Who Climbed Out the Window and Disappeared The Revenant
Is this even a fair contest?  I’m legitimately surprised that Star Wars didn’t make the cut, but against these two films, there’s no chance that Mad Max isn’t walking away with this one.
Best Sound Mixing
Will Win	The Revenant
Should Win	Star Wars: The Force Awakens
Also Nominated	Bridge of Spies Mad Max: Fury Road The Martian
Star Wars has always had some of the best sound design to create the epic feeling of Wookie screams and spaceships hurtling about, yet I get the feeling that The Revenant will snag this for its abstract scenes of empty self-reflection.  On principle, I sincerely hope that doesn’t happen.
Best Sound Editing
Will Win	The Revenant
Should Win	Star Wars: The Force Awakens
Also Nominated	Mad Max: Fury Road The Martian Sicario
My reasons here are pretty similar to those for Sound Mixing, though there is definitely a part of me that would not mind seeing one more win for Mad Max.  However, considering how much Mad Max is likely to dominate other technical categories, I think I feel content to root for Star Wars in the sound department.

And there you have it!  Think my predictions are any good?  Leave your thoughts and counterarguments in the comments below.